māma yǐwéi zìjǐ bǎ qiánbāo diū le, hòulái zài zhuōzi xiàmian jiǎn dào le.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Chinese grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Chinese now

Questions & Answers about māma yǐwéi zìjǐ bǎ qiánbāo diū le, hòulái zài zhuōzi xiàmian jiǎn dào le.

What does 以为 (yǐwéi) mean exactly, and how is it different from other Chinese words for “to think”?

以为 means “to think / to believe something (but it turns out to be wrong or not true)” or “to mistakenly think.”

In this sentence:

  • 妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了
    = Mom thought she had lost her wallet (but actually she hadn’t).

Compare with other common “think” verbs:

  • to think / to want / to miss, very general and neutral.
    • 我想他今天会来。= I think he will come today.
  • 觉得to feel / to think (an opinion or impression).
    • 我觉得这本书很好。= I think this book is good.
  • 认为to consider / to hold the opinion that (more formal, logical).
    • 他认为这样做不对。= He thinks doing this is wrong.
  • 以为to think but be mistaken, or later found out to be wrong.
    • 我以为你不来。= I thought you weren’t coming. (But you did.)

Here 以为 is perfect, because Mom’s belief (“I lost my wallet”) was incorrect.

Why is 自己 (zìjǐ) used after 妈妈? Could we just say 妈妈以为她把钱包丢了?

自己 is a reflexive pronoun: “oneself / herself / himself.”
It usually refers back to the subject of the same clause.

  • 妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了。
    “Mom thought she herself had lost her wallet.”

Using 自己 makes it very clear that the person who lost the wallet (in her mind) is the same person as the subject, i.e. Mom.

Can we use ?

  • 妈妈以为她把钱包丢了。

This is grammatically OK, but more ambiguous.
Depending on context, it could mean:

  1. Mom thought she (some other woman) had lost the wallet.
  2. Mom thought she (Mom herself) had lost the wallet.

Because of that ambiguity, Chinese very often uses 自己 in this kind of sentence to clearly mean “the subject herself/himself” and to show the subjective, internal point of view.

What is the 把 (bǎ) doing here in 把钱包丢了? Is it necessary?

The construction is:

[Subject] + 把 + [Object] + [Verb + complement]

It pushes the object in front of the verb and focuses on what happens to it (often some change, disposal, or effect).

  • 妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了。
    Literally: “Mom thought that she (BA) wallet lose-LE.”
    Focus: the wallet ends up in a “lost” state.

You can say this in other ways:

  1. 妈妈以为自己丢了钱包。
  2. 妈妈以为自己的钱包丢了。

All are acceptable. Differences:

  • With 把钱包丢了, there is more emphasis on her action causing a result to the wallet.
  • With 丢了钱包, it's more neutral, closer to English “lost her wallet.”
  • With 自己的钱包丢了, it’s phrased as “her own wallet was lost” (more like a state).

So is not strictly necessary here, but it is very natural and slightly highlights the disposal / mishandling of the wallet.

Why is there a 了 (le) after in 丢了 if she didn’t actually lose the wallet?

The in 丢了 is the perfective aspect marker: it marks the action as (believed to be) completed in that clause.

Inside the thought:

  • 妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了
    = “Mom thought she had (already) lost her wallet.”

Even though, in reality, the wallet was not lost, still appears because:

  • We are describing what Mom believed, not what was really true.
  • In her mind, the losing was a completed event.

In Chinese, aspect markers like apply to the clause’s viewpoint, not necessarily to objective reality. So it’s perfectly normal to use inside a clause introduced by 以为 (or 觉得, 说, etc.) even if that belief later turns out to be wrong.

There is also a after 捡到 (捡到了). Are the two the same? Can we omit them?

Both here are the same basic thing: perfective aspect markers attached to the verb phrase to show a completed event.

  • 丢了 → “lost (already / completely).”
  • 捡到了 → “managed to pick (it) up / did pick (it) up.”

About omitting them:

  • You usually need something after (丢了, 丢掉了, 弄丢了).
    Bare on its own in this meaning is rare in spoken Chinese.
  • For 捡到了, you can sometimes say 捡到 without , especially if past time is already clear from context, but 捡到了 is very natural in a short, self‑contained sentence like this.

So yes, the two are the same grammatical item, both marking that the action (as viewed in its own clause) is completed.

What does 到 (dào) mean in 捡到 (jiǎndào)? Is it the same as the “arrive” ?

In 捡到, is a result complement, not the main verb “to arrive.”

Structure:

  • – “to pick up (from the ground, etc.)”
  • – result complement meaning roughly “to successfully reach / obtain.”
  • 捡到 – “pick up successfully / manage to pick up / pick up and get it.”

This is very common after verbs to show “achieving the intended result”:

  • 找到 – to find (successfully)
  • 听到 – to hear (successfully)
  • 看到 – to see (successfully)
  • 闻到 – to smell (successfully)

So:

  • 捡到了 ≈ “(she) ended up successfully picking it up / did pick it up.”
Why is it 在桌子下面? How does this location phrase work, and what about 下 / 下面 / 下边?

在桌子下面 breaks down as:

  • – at / in / on (a location marker)
  • 桌子 – table
  • 下面 – “under / below” (literally “lower side”)

Pattern:

在 + [place word] + [verb]

So:

  • (她) 在桌子下面捡到了 (钱包)。
    = “She picked (the wallet) up under the table.”

About 下 / 下面 / 下边:

  • – “down/below” (more basic/formal; often used in writing or fixed phrases).
  • 下面, 下边 – both mean “under / below,” very common in speech.
  • 下面 (xiàmian): is usually in neutral tone here (miɑn), not full miàn.

You could also see:

  • 在桌子下 – acceptable, especially in writing or shorter phrases.
  • 在桌子下边 / 在桌子底下 – also “under the table,” with 底下 slightly emphasizing “at the bottom side.”

In everyday speech, 在桌子下面 and 在桌子底下 are both very natural.

Why is 后来 (hòulái) used here, and how is it different from 然后 (ránhòu)? Where can it go in the sentence?

后来 means “later (on)” in a story, usually when there’s some time gap or change in situation between events.

In this sentence:

  • 妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了,后来在桌子下面捡到了。
    = First she thought the wallet was lost; later (it turned out differently) she picked it up under the table.

然后 is more like “and then”, a neutral next-step connector in a sequence of actions, often in instructions or step-by-step narration.

  • 我先吃饭,然后去上班。
    I eat first, and then go to work.

Here:

  • You could say …,然后在桌子下面捡到了, and people would understand it.
  • But 后来 better fits the idea that her earlier belief was corrected later by a new situation.

Placement:

  • 后来在桌子下面捡到了。 (as in the sentence)
  • 后来,(妈妈) 在桌子下面捡到了。
  • 妈妈后来在桌子下面捡到了。

All are natural. Putting 后来 near the start of the second clause is standard.

Why is there no subject in the second part 后来在桌子下面捡到了? Shouldn’t it say 妈妈 again?

Chinese often drops the subject when it is obvious from context, especially if it is the same as in the previous clause.

  • First clause: 妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了 → subject is 妈妈.
  • Second clause: 后来在桌子下面捡到了 → we naturally understand the subject is still 妈妈.

So the full, explicit version would be:

  • 妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了,后来妈妈在桌子下面捡到了。

But repeating 妈妈 is not necessary and sounds heavier.
Chinese prefers the shorter:

  • …,后来在桌子下面捡到了。

This kind of subject drop (and also object drop) is very common and natural in Mandarin.

Why doesn’t the second clause say 捡到了钱包? Where did the object 钱包 go?

The object 钱包 is understood from context and can be left out.

  • First clause already mentions 钱包 clearly:
    妈妈以为自己把钱包丢了。
  • Second clause:
    后来在桌子下面捡到了。
    Literally “Later (she) under the table picked (it) up.”

Chinese often omits an object when:

  1. It has just been mentioned, and
  2. There’s no risk of confusion.

So:

  • 后来在桌子下面捡到了 (钱包)。

The 钱包 is simply implied.
If you want to be explicit (for emphasis or clarity), you can say:

  • 后来在桌子下面捡到了钱包。
    This is also perfectly correct.