ABSTRACT
Each sentence in (1) has an antecedent and a subsequent clause. In the topic position of the subsequent clause, a subject-predicate phrase should have occurred, i.e., fánrén hējiǔ (凡人喝酒, ‘for the ordinary [people] to drink’). However, this predicate hējiǔ (喝酒, ‘drink’) is omitted, leaving alone the subject fánrén (凡人, ‘the ordinary [people]’). In this sentence, since the subsequent clause continues the antecedent clause, the predicate in the topic position is omitted. This type of omission can be referred to as ‘predicate ellipsis’. Similarly, in (2), since the subsequent clause continues the antecedent clause, the predicative verb is omitted. This type of omission can be referred to as ‘predicative verb ellipsis’. In fact, it is even more common that the objects are present but the predicates are absent from both of the paratactic clauses, e.g.,
(2’) is a natural expression and is more idiomatic and fluent than (2). The ellipsis like (2) is commonly seen in English. E.g.,
(3) Some of us study English, others [study] French. (4) Yesterday my sister bought a book, my brother [bought] a dictionary. (5) Her sister is as tall as she [is]. (6) Has he gone or [has he] not [gone]?
