"I don't see the point of the 把 / bǎ construction."
(For a quick superficial dip into the 把 bǎ construction, see: https://piccola-chinita.blogspot.com/2026/06/huh-attitude-01-english-speaker-about.html.)
This came from another student, who had taught English in a few places abroad, including Singapore and China.
It's surprising not so much because she's been learning Mandarin for over 30 years (not continuously). It's astonishing more because as an Englishwoman with English as her first language, she would have had to wade through the inconsistencies and complications in the English language -- presumably not questioning or protesting about them, just accepting and learning them by rote as they are thrown at her. Yet she queries the point of the 把 / bǎ construction.
When students ask "why" about a linguistic point, my most frequent response is, "You'll have to go back a few centuries and ask the early Chinese. We just have to accept these things as they've been passed down the generations."
I then went on to give her a few examples in English as a comparison:
* Verbs: Why can't English verbs all simply behave consistently and have an "-ed" added for the past tense right across the board? Why throw a spanner into the works and do "eat, ate" rather than "eat, eated" / "go, went" rather than "go, goed" / "sing, sang" rather than "sing, singed" -- just to give a small handful of examples?
* Nouns: Why can't English nouns all just behave consistently and have an "s" added at the end? Why make life difficult for the learner and do "child, children" rather than "child, childs" / "goose, geese" rather than "goose, gooses" (and yet, just to wrongfoot the learner further, it's "moose, mooses", not "moose, meese") / "man, men" rather than "man, mans", etc.?
In Chinese, the word for the people of a particular country is simply and consistently the name of the country with "人 rén / human, person" added:
China: 中國人 / 中国人 / Zhōngguó-rén / "China person"
England / Britain: 英國人 / 英国人 / Yīngguó-rén / "England/Britain person"
France: 法國人 / 法国人 / Fǎguó-rén / "France person"
Holland: 荷蘭人 / 荷兰人 / Hélán-rén / "Holland person"
Laos: 老撾人 / 老挝人 / Lǎowō-rén / "Laos person"
Poland: 波蘭人 / 波兰人 / Bōlán-rén / "Poland person"
Singapore: 新加坡人 Xīnjiāpō-rén / "Singapore person"
Spain: 西班牙人 Xībānyá-rén / "Spain person"
but look at the English versions:
China → Chinese
England/Britain → English/British
France → French
Holland → Dutch
Laos → Laotian
Poland → Polish (but "polish" is a verb and a noun for something else, although it doesn't sound the same)
Singapore → Singaporean
Spain → Spanish
Africa seems to be the most consistent as a group for the almost universal generic ending in English. Some examples:
(in alphabetical order)
Algeria / Algerian; Egypt / Egyptian; Ethiopia / Ethiopian; Gambia / Gambian; Ghana / Ghanaian; Kenya / Kenyan; Mauritius / Mauritian; Moravia / Moravian; Nigeria / Nigerian; Zimbabwe / Zimbabwean. (Congo is one of the exceptions: not Congoan but Congolese.)
So, how can an English speaker complain about Mandarin when English is equally hard work for the learner? How can a student say of the language s/he is learning: "I don't see the point of ..."
(I must say again here that I'm not being defensive on behalf of Mandarin because I'm from that background genetically [in part]. This is a purely pedagogic discussion.)
(London, 2026)