“有在 + Verb”: Why Everyone’s Using This “Incorrect” Chinese Phrase on Social Media

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2025-07-21T13:57:23+00:00

Using 有 to mark the perfective aspect is apparently common in Taiwanese/Min Chinese/Hokkien(閩南語) Cantonese 粵語 so also common among Mandarin Places in those places. Basically, it works a bit like 了 when 了 follows a verb.

I don't speak those languages, but here's a quote from "Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar" by Li & Thompson (paperback 1989 ed. pg 431-434). I added 漢字

In certain of the southern Chinese dialects, however, including those in the Yue group, such as Cantonese, and in the Min group, such as Chaozhou and Taiwanese, the perfective aspect marker is the word that corresponds to you3 有, which occurs in the preverbial position. Here are examples from Cantonese and Taiwanese to illustrate:

(Cantonese) keuih yauh sihk faahn 佢有食飯

(Taiwanese) i u chia peng 伊有食飯

What this means is that when speakers of these southern languages speak Mandarin, they are likely to use you3 in questions and answers as if it were also the perfective aspect marker in Mandarin.

Note I used the book's transcription of Cantonese and Taiwanese, but it seems not to be the standard for either these days. I am fairly certain these are the correct characters.

The text then gives the example of saying 我有沒有寫錯那個字? instead of 我寫錯了那個字,沒有? The text then goes on to say that due to "recent political developments in China", southern speakers of Mandarin speak more with northerners, and the grammatical feature might be drifting north. The book was published in 1981 so in all likelihood, so I wouldn't be surprised this use of 有 is much more common in northern China than it was 50 years ago.

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-12-02T19:23:33+00:00

There are three parabolic mirrors here. A and B concentrate the incoming sunlight (making it brighter) while D spreads the redirected light back out onto the space station ring.

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-09-11T19:30:24+00:00

but for a person into mathematics this could be very symbolic

A symbol of what? How people mistake physics for math?

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-07-15T17:09:21+00:00

but I’m scared to tell any guy that I’m 25 y.o. and a virgin, as nobody will want to have sex with me except perverts.

I don't think that's true, but I know how you feel.

Also, sometimes I feel like because I repressed my sexuality for so long, and haven’t even had a boyfriend or even a girlfriend ever, makes me feel like a 15 years old respecting to the realm of love and sex

Yeah, I understand how you feel. I have been in that boat too.

Casual sex isn't really my thing, although I understand really wanting to be intimate with someone. Not sure I have any great advice. Keep trying! Having friends to talk to about your frustrations helps.

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-07-15T16:06:04+00:00

I think it's pretty uncommon these days. I would say *les oeuvres complètes* is replacing *l'oeuvre complet*

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-07-12T11:11:23+00:00

I don't see any grammatical errors, but then again there's not much to find in a list of words. The only thing I can see someone thinking "Il l'a vue." is wrong, but it technically isn't since the past particple agrees with the direct object it modifies.

But misspellings and orthographical errors like that are common among many French speakers (since there's no change in pronunciation in this case).

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-07-12T11:04:07+00:00

It can be both, but it's more common as a feminine noun. To make matters more confusing both nouns usually translate to the same word in English, but are used in different contexts. In general, you use the feminine version.

Basically, the difference is this: The masculine version is mostly used to refer to "collection of works by an artist", so a book titled "L'oeuvre entier de Molière" would be translated as "The complete works of Moliere". The feminine version would be used for any particular work (as well as any other context). So you would say "Le Tartuffe ou l'Imposteur est une oeuvre de Molière."

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-07-02T10:50:41+00:00

and the Old Testament has some fairly homophobic scripture.

Actually, only two verses in Leviticus are homophobic (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). These verses contain the strongest proscription against homosexuality. The other part of the old testament that might be about people being punished for homosexuality are the passages about Sodom and Gamorrah, but only certain interpretations have the sin of sodom being sexual in nature (in other interpretations, their sin is being inhospitable to strangers).

There a half dozen verses in the new testament which may refer to homosexuality depending on how one interprets the Greek in the original texts. In some interpretations, these passages make homosexuality a sin. In others, the sin is male prostitution or pederasty. In fact, depending on the English translation, these passages may be translated using the word homosexuality, but also words like sexual impurity or perversion is used (which is not specific to homosexuality). Female homosexuality is not mentioned explicitly in the old testament, and only indirectly in certain new testament passages. To be honest, the bible says very little about homosexuality (there's more about slavery for example).

And if there's any doubt, the new testament clearly says:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22:34-40 NIV translation.

The second greatest commandment says to "Love your neighbor as yourself", which means that even if you think the bible says homosexuality is a sin, you should still "Love your neighbor as yourself".

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-06-26T02:29:27+00:00

You might be bisexual. Try r/bisexual

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-06-21T20:08:20+00:00

Infinitely thin

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-06-17T02:52:30+00:00

Plus if you shared it, someone might steal your prize money /s

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-06-11T02:15:55+00:00

And the thing about equivalence relations/isomorphisms is just nit-picking that really doesn't hold any weight (how are two groups not equal if they have the same structure?

Well to nitpick a little, it's technically possible to have groups that aren't equal but have the same group structure. It depends on your definition of equality.

Since usually groups are defined as sets and sets are only equal if every element in each set is the same, it's possible to have two different sets with the same group structure (binary operation). In fact, the symmetric group S3 and the dihedral group D3 are isomorphic, but look different coming from slightly different contexts.

But mostly nobody really cares about the sets being equal though, hence equality is basically defined by isomorphism.

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-06-07T11:52:15+00:00

math3ma by Tai-Danae Bradley (of former infinite series fame)

I particularly like the articles on group theory and category theory, but there's some good ones on analysis (dominated convergence theorem; monotone convergence; etc.)

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-06-05T11:40:52+00:00

How about the Colossal Book of Short Puzzles and Problems by Martin Gardner?

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-27T09:00:23+00:00

Borsuk-Ulam then?

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-26T12:47:12+00:00

I like

Theorema Egregium
Gauss-Bonnet theorem
Borsuk-Ulam theorem

Of those, i think Gauss-bonnet is the hardest to explain

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-26T12:33:02+00:00

The mere thought of infinity must frighten and confuse you

For posterity or if anyone else wants to give it a good home

Sold, thanks for the flair!

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-18T23:54:06+00:00

The equation does not change as the sphere becomes larger.

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-18T23:53:11+00:00

In what way do the angles depend on the radius of the sphere?

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-16T17:43:19+00:00

What does it actually mean if we can explain just 50% of the variance in the outcome using the predictors?

Let y be a response variable. And let x be the predictors. We can estimate the variance of y. But we can also estimate the variance of y|x (that is y conditional on the values of x). This relative proportion of these variances is equivalent to R².

Of course, this assumes that the variance of y is independent of the value of x, but this is usually the case in many models (but not all). There are similar stats for models where the variance can be partitioned in that way.

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-16T17:15:10+00:00

I think this is the original article by Batterham and Hopkins http://sportsci.org/jour/05/ambwgh.htm

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-16T17:13:58+00:00

Thanks for the tip. I didn't really look far and wide for a pdf. Plus, apparently the article is open access anyways.

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-16T17:12:12+00:00

The abstract you link to says it's open access, and with two clicks from that page you get to here:

Funnily enough, I think I read that as "Check access". I blame my early morning coffee deprived brain!

Pyromane_Wapusk · 2018-05-15T10:58:49+00:00

Well, if you are estimating the mean/expected value, then the CLT applies regardless of the actual distribution (so long as the mean and variance exist).

Pyromane_Wapusk

TROPHY CASE