Mdtryhht

I saw this sentence :

孩子们丢的东西都找到了

Why is the object (丢的东西) placed between the subject and the verb here???

孩子们丢的东西都找到了

• The object is "东西"




• 东西都(被)找到了 - things have all been found (被 omitted)




• 孩子们丢的 is an adjective phrase that describes the object

"things? what things?"

"Things that was lost by the kids" (孩子们丢的)

you can use 的 to turn any sentence into an adjective phrase

Example:

美国进口 - American import

美国进口的 - that is American imported

美国进口的牛肉 - beef that is American imported

An important question in Western Grammar is: In a passive sentence, is the subject the object?

I was injured.

Traditionally, 'I' is the subject of the verb 'was'. However, 'I' did nothing. 'I' was 'done to', by person or persons unknown. The one that is 'done to' is defined as the object. However, apart from 'I', there is no other thing mentioned here, so 'I' should be the 'subject'.
Also, the 'verb be' is not normally associated with any case except nominative case, the 'subject' case.

That aside, Chinese has no Relative Clauses. Chinese is conceptually simpler, more straightforward and more logical than, say, English.

Adjectives are not essential. They can be omitted.

东西都找到了。
The things have all been found.

If we render the Chinese directly: Things all found. (Is 'Things' subject or object? If 'Things' is not the subject, what is?)

孩子们丢的东西都找到了。

The things (which) the children lost have all been found. or

All the things (which) the children lost have been found.

If we render the Chinese directly:
'children lose' 的 things all found.

Except 'children lose' is not a suitable adjective in English, it will mess up the meaning, so it has to be put in a Relative Clause.

When you translate Chinese to English, any complex adjectival phrases will require a Relative Clause in English.

The subject in the sentence "孩子们丢的东西找到了" is not "孩子们" but "东西"。

It translate to "That thing the kids lost has been found."