有针对性地

[Pedroski]

This use of '有针对性‘ with '地‘ confused me. It seems to say '(have relevance)ly give' or if '有针对性‘ = ’relevant‘， 'relevantly give', either of which is awkward in English, but obviously not in Chinese.

 

Does my rewrite here at the bottom catch the Chinese meaning properly?

 

企业通过以上两张表格可以了解到目前员工最需要什么方面的培训，然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量”。

 

然后（企业）可以有针对性 地 给员工补充“能量”。

Afterwards company can (have relevance ly) for employee supplement (al?) “abilities”

 

然后（企业）可以给员工有针对性的（培训），而这样补充他的“能量”。

Afterwards (the) company can give (the) employee relevant (training), and in this way supplement his “abilities”

[Michael H]

Maybe you can translate this as "targeted", as in training targeted to the needs of the employees.

[Demonic_Duck]

In a targeted/relevant way.

 

I'm not sure why you are continuing to work on the assumption that the most literal/naïve translation of a word into English must always be the go-to translation. Just think about what the words actually mean in English, and what they mean in Chinese, and you'll arrive at a suitable translation soon enough. In fact, for many purposes (i.e. when you're not specifically doing translation work), you can just cut out the English stage altogether.

[Xiao Kui]

i always think of this as "focused/with focus". I like "targeted", too.

[Pedroski]

Well, I asked the question because it is a bit difficult for me to translate. Some boff out there may say, that's easy, it's 'xxxx'. If the Chinese meaning were clear to me, I wouldn't need to ask, I could arrive at a suitable translation on my own.

 

然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量”。

Afterwards (the company) can, in a targeted, relevant, focussed, purposeful  way 地 give(?)/*provide (the) employee (/*with) supplemental "capabilities". （/supplement the employee's capabilities/ train the thick bastard)

 

I think I need 'give' because of the linking '地‘, but 'provide with' is ok I suppose.

[Demonic_Duck]

...and [based on this] can supplement employees' abilities in a targeted way.

 

I don't think "give" is necessary, “给” is linked with “补充” (“补充” is a verb) and doesn't translate to "give".

 

"In a [adj.] way" is essentially a way of using the adjective as an adverb, even though formally it remains an adjective.

[Guest123]

 

 

I think I need 'give' because of the linking '地‘

 

I'd say, even if you need 'give', it's not because of  地, but because of 给. And even in this case it is not necessary. Here 给 forms so-called dative construction, that is indicates who (员工 in this case) is the addresee of the action (here 补充). It's like 我给你做饭 - it doesn't mean 'I cook and give you food ', but just 'I cook for you'.

 

有针对性+地， like any other construction with 地+verb, indicated the way, the disposition, etc., how the action is done. Here, I think, it means that 'replenishing' of employees cpabilities is targeted, focused on some precise purpose.

 

So I suppose that this part of the sentence "然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量" means something like that (sorry for my english!) : "Then it is possible to purposively increase employees capabilites". If you look at the previous part of the sentence, it seems that the "target" is some training field (针对的是某方面的培训). As I understand this sentence: when the company knows in what field employee needs training, it can develop, increase his capabilities in some detremined direction, it knows exactly how to improve his performance.

[Pedroski]

As far as I know, 地 links words to verbs, which gives it a meaning of '-ly'. In 我给你做饭 there is no 地， and so no need to interpret it as a verb. However, Chinese is very tricky!

[陳德聰]

purposefully, in a focused manner, in a targeted manner, blah blah blah.

 

From your response in #8, I think you have some wires crossed. The action receiving the [有針對性地] as a modifier is 補充. [給員工] just indicates the recipient of the action.

 

Consider the varying levels of okay-ness here:

 

然后可以给员工有针对性地补充“能量”

然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量”

然后可以有针对性地补充“能量”给员工

[Guest123]

 

 

As far as I know, 地 links words to verbs, which gives it a meaning of '-ly'. In 我给你做饭 there is no 地， and so no need to interpret it as a verb.

What do you mean? "-ly" is not a "meaning", it's the ending of an adverb.Well often the phrase linked to a verb by 地 is translated by a word ending "-ly". Anyway 地 has no any influenceo on verb's being a verb. Any verb is verb by itself, and no matter if it has or not any complements preceeding or folowwing it, with linking particles or without them. Particle 地 indicates the function of the word or the phrase preceeding verb, not of the verb. 

[Pedroski]

I can't tell which of 1, 2 or 3 is acceptable or not. Can you please clue me in?

 

Consider the varying levels of okay-ness here:

 

1. 然后可以给员工有针对性地补充“能量”

2. 然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量”

3. 然后可以有针对性地补充“能量”给员工

 

I know the antics of Chinese semantics are abstruse, but they parked the particle 地 too far from 补充 for有针对性 to be its modifier. It has to skip over 给员工, which would be unusual behaviour for a linking particle. Of course you can rewrite it and park the particle next to 补充。Why do you say in the  2.  the adverb skips over the nearest verb, but in 1. 3。, you want it to indicate the nearest verb？ That seems very arbitrary. You wish to say '给‘ is a second class citizen, unmodifiable? I'm pretty sure I could provide examples of an adverbial modifier for ‘给’。So on what basis are you making your decision?

 

-ly is just 'like' collapsed, its meaning is just 'like' or 'as' or 'so'. If you go to London, especially the East End, you will hear the Cockneys actually saying, for example, 'desperate like' instead of 'desperately'.

[Guest123]

 

 

but they parked the particle 地 too far from 补充 for有针对性 to be its modifier. It has to skip over 给员工, which would be unusual behaviour for a linking particle

Well usually this partical goes immediately before the verb. BUT, here we have two constructions in one sentence: 1) manner adverb with 地 and a dative construction with 给。给 phrase, like passive constructions with 被, always go before the verb, so they interfer betveen 地 and the verb.

For ex. consider these:

他高高兴兴地做饭

他给我做饭

他高高兴兴地给我做饭

[imron]

But edita, 他高高兴兴地给我做饭 means he high-high-excited-excited-ly gives me make food, which doesn't make sense in English, therefore your Chinese example can't be right

[Guest123]

Well, if you translate it like this, of course it doesn't make any sens.

[Tiana]

It sounds like some period in a re-education camp in China is required to revitalise Imron's Chinese 

[imron]

Well, if you translate it like this, of course it doesn't make any sens.

Exactly!

[Guest123]

Question is why do you translate it this way...

In the same line, you can also translate the sentence we were discusing: 

有针对性地给员工补充能量 - have-needle-to-nature-ly give employee supplement energy   

[Kamille]

I suppose he's caricaturing Pedroski. You know, like when he stumbles upon a Chinese sentence that he doesn't understand and convinces himself that "the writer must have made a mistake".

 

I don't know if you noticed but imron doesn't seem too fond of Pedroski's habit of convincing himself that other people make mistakes (even native speakers) but not him 

 

... Or maybe I totally didn't understand what was happening. That could be too :o

[Guest123]

 I don't really know Pedroski and his convictions about mistakes, but froms his commentaries in this post I feel that indeed he has that tendency to learn chinese on the basis of his english... 

[Demonic_Duck]

It's normally not even that Pedroski claims there's a mistake in the sentence. The exchanges tend to go something like this:

 

"Here's a sentence in Chinese. I'm confused about some aspect of its grammar. Should I translate it as [incorrect/Chinglish translation?]"

"No, a more natural way to say it in English would be [standard English translation]."

"But in English, things are like [blah]. Chinese is different. Wow, Chinese grammar is so crazy!"

"It's not really crazy, it's just a language. A language which is not English."

"But the Chinese is different from the English! Look! Crazy. I think I'll translate it as [another incorrect/Chinglish translation]."