What does "solutions" govern in these two sentences?

[Kenny同志]

XXX is a leading developer of Industrial Estates, Utilities, Power, and Property Solutions.

 

Our mission is to develop world class industrial estates, utilities, and property customer solutions.

 

 

 

Just to make sure, does "solutions" govern all those things in bold?

 

It seems to me that it does.

 

 

Also another question:

 

XXX develops seven industrial estates of 6,900 hectares with automotive, petrochemical and other clusters comprising 567 distinct customers, 175 automotive customers, ..., and a customer investment estimate of XXX GBP.

 

 

Am I right in saying that the 175 automotive customers are not among those 567 distinct customers?

 

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

[li3wei1]

This is bad writing. I would say in your first two sentences, 'solutions' only applies to 'property'. Otherwise it would be 'industrial estate solutions', and I can't imagine what that would be.

 

Your second sentence is ambiguous. I would say that if you say you have 567 distinct customers, then that's your total, and automotive customers are included within it. So the sentence should have had an 'included'. But it doesn't so it is unclear.

[Kenny同志]

Thanks for your very useful input, Liwei.

 

This is bad writing. I would say in your first two sentences, 'solutions' only applies to 'property'. Otherwise it would be 'industrial estate solutions', and I can't imagine what that would be.

 

A little background information may help. The company is a developer of industrial estates. Does "industrial estate solutions" make sense now?

[imron]

How much leeway do you have to clarify terms with the client?  I would also agree that the 175 customers are included in the 567.

[Altair]

 

I would also agree that the 175 customers are included in the 567.

I also agree, since logic compels this understanding.  The grammar by itself permits this reading, but does not compel it.  That is why including a word like "including" is almost mandatory for clarity.

 

 

XXX is a leading developer of Industrial Estates, Utilities, Power, and Property Solutions.

 

Our mission is to develop world class industrial estates, utilities, and property customer solutions.

Plural nouns cannot generally be used as attributives, and so good grammar would preclude an understanding such as "Industrial Estates Solutions" or "Utilities Solutions," given that "estates" and "utilities" are used in the plural.  Once these readings are precluded, "Power" also cannot be understood as an attributive (i.e., as "Power Solutions") in order to maintain parallelism.

 

The company is a developer of industrial estates. Does "industrial estate solutions" make sense now?

 

 

This is good grammar and a permissible concept, but using "estate" in the singular involves a re-write of what the original sentence actually says.

 

It is possible that the original sentence is just sloppy grammar, but I think the best and smoothest reading is simply to associate "solutions" only with what follows "and."  I think that the sense is that the developer is expert in industrial estates, utilities and associated power needs.  I think that "property solutions" is simply thrown in as a catch-all.  To me, a "developer of power" would probably build utilities, but a "developer of power solutions" could be a research lab looking into solar panels or wind farms.  Similarly, a "developer of utilities" would probably build power plants, but a "developer of utility solutions" might tell you how to reduce your electric bill by diversifying your energy suppliers.

[Kenny同志]

@Imron

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

Regarding your question, I am sorry to say that I don't quite understand it. What did you mean by leeway exactly?

 

@Altair

 

Oh, I see. Thanks for your very detailed explanation.

[Kenny同志]

If you don't mind, folks, I have one more question.

 

Also we valued the extensive and reliable communication lines and the ability to build a high-quality line with Japan and kindly get support from XXX.

 

I guess this is bad English (probably by a Japanese writer)? What was the author trying to say?

[imron]

What did you mean by leeway exactly?

I just mean do you have the ability to clarify with the client any of these ambiguities.

[Kenny同志]

Yes, I think I can as long as s/he explains these ambiguous sentences to me. Unfortunately, s/he probably won't be able to do so because there is something between us that is called translation agency.

[Lu]

Perhaps you can send your questions to the agency and ask them to pass them on?

The other sentence I read as:

Also we valued the extensive and reliable communication lines [between us and Japan, or between us and the other party in the text] and the ability to build a high-quality [communication] line ((unless context shows it's another sort of line)) with Japan and [kindly get support from XXX = and we are glad that XXX was kind enough to support us].

I agree that this is not very clear English.

[Altair]

 

Also we valued the extensive and reliable communication lines and the ability to build a high-quality line with Japan and kindly get support from XXX.

It is not clear if the lines are physical (like phone lines) or just lines of communication.  "Extensive and reliable communication lines" seems to imply good social lines of communication and that we could communicate well with the necessary party.  "A high-quality line" implies a physical line.

 

All in all, I guess the meaning is: "Having extensive and reliable lines of communication were valuable for us, and so was the ability to build high-quality means of communicating with Japan and the ability to get the kind support of XXX."

[Kenny同志]

Thank you very much, Lu and Altair.  Without your help, my translation would have been worse.

 

 

Perhaps you can send your questions to the agency and ask them to pass them on?

 

 

@Lu

 

Yes, that would be the right way to approach a matter like this but there's no need now, thanks to your (你們的) help. : D