有针对性地

[Tiana]

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 

 

How come you translate "有针对性地" as "have-needle-to-nature-ly"?

Why not "have-needle-to-sex-ly (give employee supplement energy)" ?

[Guest123]

As 性 has many meanings, there are lots of possible translations, everybody can choose the one most corresponding to his own 性格 

It also could be "have-needle-correct-ness-ly"    

[陳德聰]

http://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Word_order

 

See "placement of manner".

[imron]

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

Exactly.  That is an excellent question that deserves consideration.  I did it to point out there is no point translating things this way and reasoning about Chinese through the English language, and yet that is what Pedroski does in almost every post, and it is almost always the source of his confusion.

[Guest123]

没办法，只好等他开窍……

 

It happens quite often when people "don't understand", but if you look more closely, you can find out that their mind REFUSES to understand, just because the thing is too different form what they KNOW already about how a language is functioning. Someone like Pedroski, who keeps trying to learn chinese on the basis of english (even if it doesn't work very well), simpy remains clutched to his first experience of speaking a language (the native one), unable to leave it behind and learn something different.

Why?

Who knows?!

[陳德聰]

The baffling thing is that he is a native speaker of German, isn't he?

[Kamille]

How do you know it?

[Pedroski]

The original text had the title: 销售人员的培训。The whole text discusses training employees.

 

In a sentence, some components can be added or removed without changing the meaning of a sentence. They are non-essential information, not directly relevant to the intended meaning.

 

1. We own a house.

2. We own an old stone house in France. 'old, stone' = properties of 'house', 'in France' = location

 

We can use '地‘ with '给’。

 

他大方地给了他一个苹果。

他不情愿地给了我他的手机。

 

I found this sentence:

。。。，就要建厂。

。。。，就一定要更大规模地更快速度地在海外建厂。

 

'在’ and '给‘ are similar words, which may be used in Chinese as prepositions or verbs.

 

We can remove the locative phrase '在海外‘

。。。，就一定要更大规模地更快速度地建厂。The meaning is unchanged, because '在海外’ is not pertinent to the meaning.

 

Consider the sentence:

 

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”。The '员工‘ is being given supplemental '能量’

 

Subtract '给员工‘

然后（企业）可以有针对性地补充“能量”。 Here the company is supplementing its own '能量‘。The meaning has changed. This shows '给员工’ is an essential part of the meaning, the recipient of something, and not additional, non-essential information.

 

If ‘给’ is not a verb it must be a preposition, and '给员工‘ a prepositional phrase, which represents additional, non-essential information, in the form of an adverbial or adjectival phrase, and may be deleted without changing the intended meaning of the sentence.

 

To maintain that the 给 in my original sentence is not the target of 地，you need to show that it is not a verb. Can you do that??

[imron]

To maintain that the 给 in my original sentence is not the target of 地，you need to show that it is not a verb.

 

No we don't.  The 给<person>Verb is a different usage from 给了<person>Noun.  Your problem is that you have decided that they are the same because they both use the character 给.  There's not much point discussing things if you can't accept basic Chinese grammar when people point it out to you.

[Guest123]

 

 

The meaning has changed. This shows '给员工’ is an essential part of the meaning, the recipient of something, and not additional, non-essential information.

The fact that 给员工 is essential to the meaning doesn't prove that 给 is the target of 地.

 

 

 

To maintain that the 给 in my original sentence is not the target of 地，you need to show that it is not a verb. Can you do that??

There is no need to do that. If you have two verbs in a sentence, usually only one is the target of 地, and it's the one which is predicate. In this sentence 给 has a function of a preposition, so it does not indicate the action of the subject.

 

 

 

'在’ and '给‘ are similar words, which may be used in Chinese as prepositions or verbs.

Well, they are rather different. The fact that they both can be prepositions, is not enough to say that everything in their usage is similar. 在 indicates the place of the action, 给 indicates who is the receiver of the acction. It's quite a difference,isn't it?

[Guest123]

By the way, 

 

Subtract '给员工‘

然后（企业）可以有针对性地补充“能量”。 Here the company is supplementing its own '能量‘

Strictly speaking, it doesn't mean that the company is supplementing its own 能量, from the sentence as it is here it's not clear which or what 能量 it is supplementing. 

If you want to say "its own", you say 自己的. 

[Lu]

The 给<person>Verb is a different usage from 给了<person>Noun.

I knew this, that is, somewhere I understood how this worked and I had no problem understanding the meaning of sentences using this, but this is the first time I've seen it explained so concisely. Thanks!

[Pedroski]

One last question regarding 'The 给<person>Verb is a different usage from 给了<person>Noun.'

 

In '然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量”。' I presume you are identifying ‘补充’ in  '给。。。。补充‘ as a verb (给<person>Verb).

 

As what do you identify '给‘ is this kind of, very common, collocation?? Obviously not a verb, or the usage would be the same as '给<person>Noun'.

[陳德聰]

If we say coverb, your head might explode.

[imron]

My dictionary calls it a 介词.

[Guest realmayo]

Can only admire the doggedness with which the OP just ignores the comments questioning his approach and ploughs on with new questions! 

[Kamille]

I got this in mine:

介

與。如：「送給」、「借給」、「留給」。
替、為。如：「你給我拿些吃的！」
向。如：「快給他道謝。」
被。如：「大家都給他騙了。」

 

助
加強語氣。如：「你給我閉嘴！」

 

In OP's example 給 could be substituted with 替 or 為, I guess : "替/為员工补充“能量”". That makes it a 介詞, indeed.

(http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/newDict/dict.sh?cond=%5E%B5%B9%24&pieceLen=50&fld=1&cat=&ukey=-468646201&serial=1&recNo=0&op=f&imgFont=1)

[Tiana]

"替/為员工补充“能量”

 

Kamille, I don't think 替 would work in this case. 替 = to substitute, to do something in someone else's place.

What we need here is to do something for (the benefit of ) someone = 給, 為

[Kamille]

替

tì  ㄊㄧˋ

　1. 代，代理：代～。更（gēng ）～。。～班。～身。～罪羊。

　2. 为，给：～他送行。～古人担忧。

　3. 衰废：兴（xīng ）～。衰～。

 

What you're doing here is limiting 替 to it's first and most common definition, but there are others 

[Tiana]

You're right here, Kamille. I overlooked it, but I think the use of 替 in sentences like "替员工补充“能量” does give rise to ambiguity.