Back to the OP, it seems like that is more of a problem with the translator than anything else. Sure, as jovan pointed out, it is very difficult to translate English into Chinese - maybe into Japanese or Korean as well - because of the huge differences in both form and concepts. You’ll need somebody who is at least fluent in both languages. Idioms, slangs, and colloquial forms are what cause most problems.
I don’t think this is terribly unusual. FYI, Hungarian also does not use the plural form when the noun is modified by a number. (They would say “I have many shirts” but “I have twenty shirt.”) As for Asian languages, I don’t know unfortunately. They may follow the same pattern as Hungarian. I suspect they have a plural form, but it may be in the form of “an A of B”; then again I may simply be talking out of my ass.
Somehow my last post got lost. I pointed out that “san ge daibiao” is referring to 3 nouns, not 3 verbs, based on the grammer of the sentence fragment. Since “daibiao” can mean to represent or a representative (or delegate), I stand by my translation. Howver, since it is an idea, he’s not talking about three actual delegates. It’s unclear how to translate this in English. If I knew more about the history of the phrase, I maybe could offer something better (perhaps “The Three Delegates Proposal” or something similar).
How about “three representations”?
Mostly, Japanese and Chinese don’t use plural morphology. However, there are exceptions.
Japanese can use the suffix -tachi for human beings. Example:
onna ‘woman’
onnatachi ‘women’.
Chinese has a plural marker -men used with personal pronouns. Example:
wo ‘I, me’
women ‘we, us’
Turkish is a language from Asia that does the same as Hungarian in that regard. The plural suffix is -ler, used only in the absence of quantitative words.
Bende gömlekler var. ‘I have shirts’.
Bende yirmi gömlek var. ‘I have twenty shirts’.
Chinese and other Asian languages use special words called “coefficients” or “classifiers” placed in between a numerical quantity and the name of an object. There are several such classifier words, and each noun takes a certain classifier based on its shape or size or nature. This turns up in Pidgin English, when they say “one fella man” or “two piecee fish.”
For example, in Malay you use biji ‘seed’ for small round objects, buah ‘fruit’ for large objects, pucak ‘shoot, stalk’ for firearms and letters (because in the old days letters were rolled up into scrolls), batang ‘stem’ for sticklike objects, ekor ‘tail’ for animals, and orang ‘person’ for humans.
two eggs = dua biji telur, literally ‘two seed egg’.
three houses = tiga buah rumah, ‘three fruit house’.
four letters = empat pucuk surat, ‘four shoot letter’.
five pencils = lima batang pensil, ‘five stem pencil’.
six cats = enam ekor kucing, ‘six tail cat’ (of course, our English expression “six head of cattle” is the very same idea).
seven women = tujuh orang perempuan ‘seven fella woman’.
In the absence of numerical coefficients, the only way to show plurality in Malay is by reduplication: perempuan-perempuan ‘women’.
Persian and Turkish, no doubt due to Silk Road commercial contact with China, have taken on this idea to a limited extent. Persian uses the coefficient dâneh ‘grain’ to count objects, and nafar ‘person’ to count humans, the same as East Asian languages like Malay. Similarly, Turkish uses tane to count objects: Kaç tane? ‘How many items?’
There was a great thread in IMHO on the Chinese language which, I believe, disappeared in the crash. There was some discussion of this and the conclusion is that some of it is bad translation and some of it is a hangover from turgind communist prose.
As I understand the concept, “the three represents” would best be “officially” translated as “the three themes.” A more correct translation of what the concept really means is “the three constituencies.” I don’t think the Chinese government would care for the “constituencies” language because it implies that there are different classes in China with legitimate interests.
That is true of the Chinese language. The most general one is zhi, which are used for living things except humans, which call for the use of ge.
So a dog is "one zhi dog"and five persons is “five ge persons.”
I heard that orang-utan is a malay word. What does that mean natively. Something to do with human-like?
Back to the topic, in Chinese there are a much bigger group of these classifiers and their uses seem somewhat random to outsiders.
Interestingly, precisely the same phrasing can be found in Chinese.
**
“utan” means “forest.” Orang-utan --> “forest person.”
Let’s see…
The Chinese term is “san ge daibiao” ie 3 ge represents".
It refers to Jiang Zemin’s idea that the Chinese Communist Party should represent 3 classes of society, ie represent the development trend of China’s advanced social productive forces (read “capitalists”) , the orientation of China’s advanced culture, and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people of China (read “the masses”).
San ge daibiao cannot be 3 Representatives or 3 Delegates because there are no 3 representatives! It’s the Communist Party representing 3 different sections of society. I guess some Dopers got the thing mixed up because of the ge, since it is most commonly used to denote persons.
Ge is also used in other areas, like denoting abstract ideas, like
yi ge lixiang – a/one ideal
yi ge pingguo – a/one apple
“Three Represents” is the best translation out there as it clearly shows the idea that the Communist Party has to represent three sections of society. But perhaps “three Responsibilities” would be easier to understand.
How could “Three Represents” be the best translation when it’s not even correct English grammar? “Three Represents” only clearly shows at best an incomplete sentence (as in “three represents the number of social aspects the party should represent”).
xejkh, thanks for the clear background on this. I agree with jovan, though. Three Represents isn’t correct English, and it’s not a correct translation either because “daibiao” is not being used as a verb. You see how confused it made the original poster. Perhaps “Three-pronged Representation” would be better?
Hemlock’s link leads me to doubt that. I first read “Three Represents” a few months back in The Economist. Hemlock shows the same translation was made by The People’s Daily. While it is possible that one of those papers stole the translation from the other, IMO the odds are against that.
Sua
I don’t know Chinese at all, but when I read the extended quote provided by Hemlock, I don’t see any mention of sectors of society. Given that Jiang wants the Chinese government to be seen as democratic, I see three areas in which Jiang says the party will represent the Chinese people: social change, cultural orientation, and “fundamental interests.”
As for the noun/verb thing, when a verb is used as a noun in English, it’s usually in the gerund form, i.e., “the three representings.” While no one actually uses this word, it is a reall English word, and I suspect that it translates the Chinese word pretty well.
It seems that “three representations” would work.
The Malay word for ‘forest’ is hutan. It starts with h-.
The phrase orang hutan (the h- was lost through mispronunciation by foreigners) literally means ‘person of the forest’, but to a native Malay speaker it would mean just that, a forester, a human being who lives in the forest.
The Malay language has its own word for the animal we call “orangtuan” (Pongo pygmaeus pygamaeus): they call it mawas or mayas.
As for the OP, I think the phrase in question could be read as grammatically correct English. If the verb represent is taken as the word itself, qua word, not the representation of its referent.
IOW, suppose you had to scan a page to see how many times the verb represent occurs on it. You count it up and say, “There are three represents on this page.” I think the Chicago Manual of Style says you should italicize a word when you’re talking about it as a word, rather than its referent.
Since in Chinese the same term can be a noun, a verb, or any other part of speech, they have no difficulty treating a verb as a noun. Need I add that English is also that slippery regarding parts of speech? We use nouns as verbs, verbs as nouns, either as adjectives, etc. English syntax is more Chinese-like than any other Indo-European language.
It seems that even Chinese doesn’t translate well into Chinese.
**
Chen is just trying to backpaddle. Furiously too, I may add.
My college linguistics professor told us that when he told his colleagues in China that it was easier for him to understand Confucius than many other Chinese writers, they told him that for them, Confucius was very hard to understand. They characterized Confucius’ writing style as “too Western.”
Too bad the Ask The Chinese Language Guy thread disappeared during the troubles, but it appears that we have a new crop of Chinese speakers that have done a very good job so far.
I would point out that three represents is the latest in a long string of political jargon. The “Five don’ts” “six do’s” and all manner of abbreviations that make no sense even in Chinese if you don’t understand the context. But the thing is that almost every one in China is aware of the context of these various political movements and slogans. Thus, the question is how do you translate a completely foreign language’s abbreviated slogan into something equivalent in English that make’s sense? Answer: not very well since the dear reader does not have the context to guide him. An academic translation would use three represents and a five page footnote to explain what the hell it really means.
Lu Xun, perhaps one of the greatest 20th century writers, is horribly translated. That is probably why he never received the Nobel prize. Not only do you have difficulty in finding someone who really understands both the English and Chinese at a literary level, but how the hell do you translate in the context? It’s really difficult. IIRC, Glady’s Yang was the original translator, and she utterly butchered Lu Xun and the other great Chinese novelists of the early 20th century. Part of the problem with most Chinese translations is that they are generally literal translations.
I would also point out that Chinese does indeed have verb tenses. Actually they are verb modifiers. For example in Chinese you would say “go” + “present tense” and that means “going”. You put this “present tense” (zhengzai) after every verb in Chinese and it works every time. Or you would say “go” + “past tense” (le), and it means 'went". Very easy, very logical, and you only have to learn the verb modifiers and then apply them to all verbs.