Mandarin Language Question: PLA

The People’s Liberation Army is represented by 3 characters, which loosely translates as Liberate, Set Free, Military or Troops.

But it’s romanized as Jiefangjun – the three English words are represented as one Chinese word (spelled with three characters).

I don’t have a problem with the Chinese word being represented by 3 characters, or pronounced as the three characters – we do the same with ‘PLA’. But I’m curious about the translation between English and Mandarin. We have three words, 3 concepts, they have one word.

Is this because “PLA” has become a unitory concept in demotic Mandarin, or is it because of the way the language is constructed?

Why do you think it is one word? Renmin + jiefang + jun, 3 words

Perhaps you want to count “liberation-army” as one word, cf. German? There is a fine distinction here. Wiktionary even calls this “non-idiomatic”, i.e. not demotic, so it could be a buzzword, as it were. I think we have some posters who live in China who could comment.

I don’t live in China, but I grew up speaking Chinese. @DPRK is right: “Jiefangjun” is just a transliteration (an attempt to “convert” the written script of one language into another, i.e. a Romanization). Paging @China_Guy too to see if he has any input.

The actual characters are 解放军.

解放 = Jiefang = Liberation
军 = Jun = Army (or “soldier” in some contexts)

And “Renmin” is 人民 or populace/citizenry while 中国 is “China” or literally “Middle Kingdom”. Its proper full name is 中国人民解放军, i.e., the People’s Liberation Army of China.

It’s kinda like how Shanghai is actually 上海:
上 = Shang = up/above
海 = hai = ocean/sea

Japanese and Korean have similar constructs (in certain written forms of theirs that borrow from Chinese). But when transliterated into an Roman/Latin script for Western audiences, turning that one concept into a single word is just a convention that we (in the West) have.

Chinese characters are more information-dense than a singular character (or sometimes even a whole word) would be in an alphabetical script, so a 1:1 morpheme-for-morpheme transliteration isn’t always the best option for translation. The PLA as a concept is the entirety of Jiefangjun / 解放军, and breaking it down into individual characters will make it lose partial meaning. “放” by itself, for example, is just “put” / “release” / “let go” or similar, but together with the first character, it then becomes the compound 解放, i.e., liberation/to liberate. It’s not quite the same as the prefixes & suffixes we have in English, but similar in practice.

An example in reverse:
“Arnold Schwarzenegger” is 阿诺施瓦辛格 in Chinese.

“Ar-nold” is 阿-诺 and “Sch-war-zene-gger” is 施-瓦-辛-格. It doesn’t really mean anything (it’s just a transliterated name) and the resultant 阿诺施瓦辛格 isn’t six “words”, just a single name.

Edit: Oops, sorry… I guess in China proper, he would be 阿诺德 (Ar-nol-d) instead of 阿诺 (Ar-nold).

I thought the question being asked was “if you have a modified noun, do you normally have a space separating the pinyin or not?”

My thought (based on little or no knowledge of Chinese) is that something that is a proper noun in English will tend to have the pinyin written with no spaces.

E.g.

“a yellow mountain” => “huang shan”

“Yellow Mountain” in Anhui => “huangshan”

Is there any truth to that idea?

That I’m not sure about, sorry. Maybe China Guy knows? I don’t know or use official Pinyin much.

The English Wikipedia’s section on spacing makes it sound like the spacing rules are more a political controversy than a hard and fast linguistic rule: Pinyin - Wikipedia

I think it’d make more sense to just group them by the unit of intended meaning rather than the properness of nouns?

Renmin (the people), for example, isn’t a proper noun, but it has no space. It’s a compound noun, but not a proper one.

This other example from Wikipedia:

Has a mix of proper placenames and “diliu” (number six) and “youeryuan” (kindergarten).

But apparently Chinese officials are trying to get people to spell out every single character? I don’t know how much that is actually followed or enforced.

For something like “mountain that is yellow”, you wouldn’t say “huang shan” (yellow mountain) anyway, but “huang se de shan” (mountain that is yellow), maybe prefixing it with “yizou” (a single unit of, conjugated for mountains). It’s not the spacing but the “participle” (if that is the correct term) that distinguishes them in colloquial usage. If you just pointed at a random yellowish hill and said “huang shan”, people would just look at you funny and tell you no, that’s not (the) Huangshan. It’d be like in English, if you were at some random river valley and remarked “grand canyon”, people would just assume you’re lost.

And sometimes it’s not even a different character or phrase. Tian, for example, can mean sky, day, or God depending on context, and it’s spelled exactly the same.

Note that my Outline of Classical Chinese grammar says

Adjectives must be classed as verbs in Classical, as well as Modern Chinese… As the traditional English name implies, adjectives are typically found, not as predicates, but as modifiers of nouns. This is also true in Chinese — gao shan 高山 ‘high mountain’ versus shan gao 山高 ‘the mountain is high’. As a syntactical form, however, this can be regarded as simply a special case of the general rule that verbs and verb phrases can modify nouns… e.g., liu shui 流水 ‘flowing water’. Monosyllabic adjectives and monosyllabic verbs used attributively in this way are commonly directly followed by the noun they modify, but adjectival phrases of more than one syllable are generally followed by the particle of noun modification, zhi 之. [eg: ruo fu hao jie zhi shi 若夫豪傑之士 ‘As for heroic knights…’]

Those constructs seem to me (as someone who only learned to speak it at home, with minimal formal education) as phrasings you might find in poetry, calligraphy, old-timey movies, etc. Classical indeed!

“Mountain high, flowing water” immediately evokes mental imagery of an old bearded wise man dressed in classical robes on a foggy mountain-top :slight_smile: Whether that man is Confucius or Pai Mei, I cannot say…

Still, I am far from an expert on this, and hope someone more knowledgeable will chime in.

It’s definitely not Modern Chinese by any stretch. Which is why I hope someone who lives in China has some input…

Late to the party, but in my defense I was in China (Chengdu) for 5 days last week and now in Japan. Adding on to some excellent comments by @DPRK and @Reply

To clarify, I’m an American white guy that learned Mandarin at university, and spent 20 years in the SW China country side, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taiwan starting in 1982 and moved back to the US in 2010. The mainland pinyin is what I learned and still use today. I learned wade-giles (developed by linguists) and the Yale system. Taiwan in the 1980’s had a wierd bastardized version of wade-giles, which is why it is “Taipei” and not “Taibei”. Now Taiwan uses an “improved version” of the mainland pinyin. Le sigh.

One very basic thing to understand about Mandarin (and probably all the dialects) is that it is a tonal language. As such as single syllable can be easily misconstrued orally. Therefore, most, at least spoken Chinese, is often di-syllabicized. In other words, compounds two syllables to ensure there is no mis-understanding. For example, “let’s go" instead of saying “go” aka 去 as one syllable, common usage would be “go out” aka 出去。Or “let’s go” is commonly spoken as 我们出去。

Also, that common longer terms are abbreviated. No different from “FBI” is an abbreviation of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (or “fart, barf and itch” depending). As @Reply pointed out above: proper full name is 中国人民解放军, i.e., the People’s Liberation Army of China. Another example would be the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution aka 文化大革命 is commonly referred to as “wenda” aka 文大。 One wouldn’t translate the abbreviation “wenda” literally, but I guess you could literally translate it as “language big” but that is non-sensical.

Language translation in general, and Mandarin specifically is a lot more than literally translating each and every character.

Not sure what the exact question is?

There is no accommodation to highlight a proper noun. As a mandarin major at University in the early 1980’s, it would drive me nuts to come across something like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Painstakingly look up each individual chinese character, and then try to make sense of it, and perhaps realizing it was a proper noun for a foreign name.

@hogarth In written chinese characters, there are no spaces between the words. There can be punctuation marks (commas, periods, sesame seed - not sure the proper term). No one actually reads pinyin that I’m aware of. Pinyin and tone marks were originally used to help students learning mandarin. Typically, the character would be on top, and the pinyin with tones underneath. So, at least back when I was a student, you would never come across “huangshan” vs “huang shan.” The news wire services adopted pinyin for proper nouns sometime around the end of the 1970’s/early 19080’s. Now, pinyin is widely used on computers or mobile phones to type out characters. Di-syllabized selections are probably 80% accurate as there are not that many di-syllabized choices. I’ve noticed that typing in longer pinyin strings such as a phrase or a sentence is getting pretty accurate at generating the correct corresponding characters. For example, WeChat (which every uses in China) is pretty good and improving over time.

hope this clarifies???

@Reply Hate to be pedantic but my Harvard PhD Mandarin professor would roll over in his grave if I don’t comment. He painstakingly pulled together about 200 Chinese character “root” words, and brutally drilled those into the 3rd year classes.

上 is typically translated as “on” or “up/above”. And this is literally incorrect. Shanghai is not “on the ocean”, it is about 20 miles from the actual ocean. Nor is Shanghai “above the ocean” as it’s officially something like 10 to 30 feet above sea level depending on what part of Shanghai.

Nope, if you go to the root meaning of the word 上, it means “on the way to”. And the bastardized translation is one/up/above.

So, Shanghai should be translated as a proper noun, or literally “on the way to the sea”. Shanghai is literally on the way to the sea, and with that lens can understand why the formal name became Shanghai. This was Dr. Gibbs favorite gotcha question to cocky 3rd year Mandarin students. Woe be the student that replied “on the sea”.

But, I digress.

Western media uses pinyin all the time. I’ve never seen 北京 instead of “Beijing” in my local newspaper, for instance.

Nowadays, there is the Chinese specific middle dot punctuation to indicate a transliteration of an English Space into Chinese for names. eg: You would see something like 阿诺德·施瓦辛格 and know it was referring to an English name.

But this is singular words. I think what China Guy is saying is that like, beyond maybe children’s instructionals, you would never see just a dense block of all pinyin designed to the primary form of comprehension. If you wrote an email to someone in all pinyin, they would react to it perhaps similar to if someone in English got an email that was all IPA (the alphabet, not the beer).

Sure, but considering the original post is asking about pinyin, it seemed like an odd response to say “you never see pinyin” (when that’s the standard form you would see in western media).

Thanks, @China_Guy! I knew you’d have useful insights.

Not at all… thanks for this tidbit! In fact I’d wondered why it was called “up ocean” my entire life, and kept asking my folks where 下海 (“down ocean”) was :sweat_smile:

Now I have a fun little piece of Chinese trivia to impress my dad with the next time I see him. I don’t think he knows that, either.

Or Ānuòdé Shīwǎxīngé in pinyin, I suppose :laughing:

At least that’s better than the ㄚㄋㄨㄛˋㄉㄜˊ ㄕㄨㄚˇㄒㄧㄣㄍㄜˊ I grew up with — that’s his name in Bopomofo, an alternative transliteration system that Taiwan chose for internal use in teaching Mandarin pronunciation and tones.

If the US and UK were “two nations divided by a common language”, Chinese is even stranger in that regard… China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. all have their own subtly different versions of what is more or less the same language.

Given that the question he was responding to when he made the comment was your post and not the original post, it seems incredibly obvious to me that he was referring to blocks of texts.

If you are / were in Japan, it’s too bad! I was just there and came back yesterday. We could have gotten together again.

Is/was that not the point of Classical/Literary Chinese? To have a standard language, like Latin, that people all over the world can work with despite differences in the local language?

E.g. according to wiktionary, the term “解放”, as in the PLA, was invented in Japanese in the first place!