psycho-analysis

[Pedroski]

蓝天公司成立只有四年，却能做到现在这么大的规模。

 

I think we can translate this in two ways:

 

Bluesky Company was established just four years ago, but it has already become so big.

 

or

 

Bluesky Company's establishment was just four years ago, but it has already become so big.

 

My question is： inside your Chinese head, how do you 'feel' about ‘成立’？What part of speech do you feel it is?

[imron]

Bluesky Company's establishment was just four years ago

This sounds awkward to me in English.

[Pedroski]

Sounds ok to me! Will you say it is wrong?

 

To force the interpretation of 'establishment'   I think I might insert a ‘的’ thus, if that is correct Chinese:

 

蓝天公司的成立只有四年，却能做到现在这么大的规模。

 

I can rewrite:

 

The establishment of Bluesky Company was just four years ago,

Edited October 5, 2014 at 04:07 AM by Pedroski

[imron]

Will you say it is wrong?

No, just that it sounds clunky.

[anonymoose]

Why do you want to force a particular interpretation? Assuming the original sentence was written by a native speaker, that is likely to be the most natural way of saying it. By trying to force all of your Chinese to conform to English grammar, you will end up with very stilted Chinese.

 

In this particular example, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. But most native speakers don't consciously think about what part of speech a word belongs to. So 成立 being ambiguous isn't something to get worked up over. Just try to copy what Chinese people say. If you want to analyse it, then fine, but trying to argue what they say is wrong based on your anglocentric analysis isn't going to further your Chinese ability much.

[陳德聰]

But don't you remember? OP also thinks "western grammar" is all hocus pocus.

 

Your first interpretation is fine. The presence of 的 there doesn't matter. The English translation would be the same regardless of 的 or no 的.

 

Or perhaps you were looking for a translation like:

 

"Blue Sky company establish only has four years, yet can do to now such big scale."

[Pedroski]

I don't think you understand the question. I'll rephrase.

 

Often when looking at Chinese, I  think 'should this be a noun or a verb?' Common examples are 决定 = decide, decision 'my decision was' or 'I decided to' and 比较 = compare, comparison 'in comparison with' or 'compared to'

 

When a Chinese persons reads: 

 

蓝天公司成立只有四年，却能做到现在这么大的规模。then, the way I see it there are 3 possibilities. The Chinese person thinks:

 

1) 成立is a noun.

2) 成立 is a verb

3) for a Chinese person this dilemma does not arise. It is a problem for foreigners. The Chinese person draws no distinction.

 

So I would like to know which of 1, 2 or 3 you would plump for.

[anonymoose]

I would guess 2 if a Chinese person were to think about it, but as I mentioned, most people don't think about these things. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people don't even know what is meant by "noun" and "verb".

[陳德聰]

Uh? Here 成立 is a noun... regardless of presence of 的. I thought that was the whole point.

[ZhangJiang]

Since what has become so big is the company not the establishment, it may make more sense to perceive the company as the subject?

[陳德聰]

Topic

[蓝天公司]

 

Comment

[成立只有四年，却能做到现在这么大的规模]

[ZhangJiang]

I don't think there a rule that the beginning of a comment must be noun. Just like it can be viewed as a 的 was left out, the sentence can also be viewed as 蓝天公司成立了只有四年，却能做到现在这么大的规模 where 了 is left out.

[Demonic_Duck]

@Pedroski: I think the correct question to ask was the second one (what part of speech is “成立”), not the part about how to translate it to English, which threw people off, as the most natural way of phrasing the statement in English is different.

 

Also, I think if you added “的”, the structure would no longer be topic-comment, it would be

 

Subject

[蓝天公司的成立]

 

Predicate

[只有四年，却能做到现在这么大的规模]

[Altair]

For what it's worth, I have about six dictionaries installed on Pleco, and none of them lists 成立 as a noun.  This is not definitive, of course, for many reasons; however, I think that it indicates that when in doubt, another construction should be favored.

 

I interpret the grammar of the sentence as follows:

 

蓝天公司成立 is a full clause that acts as a topic for the following clause, which is 只有四年.  I see these as forming a "serial verb construction," for lack of a better term.  When Chinese has two grammatical units--A and B--, it seems to often prefer simple juxtaposition, rather than overt coordination (parataxis) or overt subordination (hypotaxis).  I view these two clauses as simply juxtaposed clauses, with the first being the topic and the second being the comment.

 

It is also possible to view 蓝天公司成立 as the "subject" of the following clause; however, a unit can simultaneously serve as a subject and as a topic, and the latter function is arguably more relevant for Chinese grammar.

 

Also remember that Chinese verbs do not have voice as an explicit category.  Thus, either 公司成立 or 成立公司 are possible, and 成立 can accordingly be interpreted as "active" or "passive" as necessary.

 

In Classical Chinese, I think that this might of been expressed as 蓝天公司之成立..., where the function of 之 can be either to turn the entire clause into a noun (or to act in the same way as modern 的 to indicate position.  I think the former is the relevant usage.  In modern Chinese, usually no special particle or construction is used when a clause is substantivized (i.e., made to function as a noun).

 

In English, we substantive clauses in many ways, such as: using "that" to introduce a clause, using an infinitive form a verb, and using the gerund form of a verb.  A literal translation in the above case might best use a gerund and go like this: "As for Blue Sky's being established, it only has a span of four years."  I think there is no need to view 成立 as actually switching its part of speech.

[陳德聰]

I just find it difficult to interpret [蓝天公司成立] as the topic when the part that follows would be [只有四年], (它)却[能做到现在这么大的规模].

 

To me, it's clear the (它) in the second part is 蓝天公司 and not 蓝天公司成立. But if the clause that starts [却...] is included as part of the comment as [只有四年，却能做到现在这么大的规模], it just seems odd. Maybe I am getting hung up where you see 只有四年 as part of a serial verb construction, as I am only reading it as a quantity.

[Altair]

 

I just find it difficult to interpret [蓝天公司成立] as the topic when the part that follows would be [只有四年], (它)却[能做到现在这么大的规模].

You make a good point.  It is not unusual for there to be a resumption of an old topic, but such an interpretation seems even more strained than what I was complaining about.  In fact, as I consider it, interpreting 蓝天公司成立 as a topic is not consistent with thinking of 成立只有 as an example of serial verbs as I stated above.

 

I now agree that 蓝天 is the topic and want to revise my literal translation as follows, with the repetition of "it" showing the role of 蓝天 as a topic throughout the sentence:

 

"As for Blue Sky Company and its being established, it only has a span of four years; and yet up till now, it acts on such a large scale."

 

Again, the clause 蓝天公司成立 would sound strange by itself, since it makes no assertion.  It looks superficially like the similar English structure "Blue Sky Company is/was established"; however, English structures with these tenses have to make an assertion.  By following up with 只有四年, the Chinese sentence becomes clear and normal by stating an attribute of the company's establishment without having to separately asserting the occurrence of such an establishment.  I tried to reproduce this effect in my literal translation by using an English gerund, which similarly does not make an assertion about reality, but merely refers to it.