Quotations are supposed to be what a person actually said. Why has the paper placed these words in quotation marks when they are clearly not Lien’s words, but the editorial writer’s interpretation thereof?
Quotations are supposed to be what a person actually said. Why has the paper placed these words in quotation marks when they are clearly not Lien’s words, but the editorial writer’s interpretation thereof?[/quote]
Presumably this is the Taiwan News’ editorial. Why don’t you ask them?
What were Lien Chan’s words, then? Do you have the Chinese transcript? Please post it and we can all compare.
But I don’t see what Taiwan News (?) “mistakes”, trivial or not, have to do with the fact that Lien has said something that is designed to frighten people and damage the judiciary.
I liked Juba’s comment, “When is a quote not a quote? When it’s in a Taiwan newsrag.” Look at yesterday’s story from the TT and you’ll see they have at least three different versions of the alleged quote in the first paragraph.
The headline reads:
If that were true it would clearly be incitement to murder and Lien should be arrested.
The subtitle reads:
Ok, that’s vague and could mean anything. By itself there would be no problem with such a comment. “Stronger action” could mean filing an appeal, initiating impeachment proceedings, busing protesters in to Ketagalan ave, etc.
Then here’s their translation of the quote:
Hard to say what that means. Could be incitement or could be just a clumsy, stupid way of saying that a lot of people are extremely angry at Chen and someone might do something crazy. In either event, it would be a very dumb thing to say, but it’s not nearly as egregious as the headline would have one believe. It looks like the TT spiced up its headline to make the story seem more extreme than it really was.
Lian continues calls for the assassins to be found… did they ever find those responsible for running over CSB’s wife?
According to the locals I have spoken to, Lian’s comments, regardless of which dictionary you pull out were pretty irresponsbile and hardly those of a sane ‘leader’.
It’s not enough to just check the word 誅 in your dictionary. You need to check the whole phrase Lien used to get a feel ｆｏｒ what he ｗａｓ ｇｏｉｎｇ at.
He said: 人人得以誅之.
The online dictionary of the Mandarin Promotion Council has a definition for a very similar phrase: 得而誅之
Definition: 比喻人惡貫滿盈，人人若捉得他皆可殺他。 Ｆｉｇｕｒｅ ｏｆ ｓｐｅｅｃｈ ｆｏｒ ｅｖｉｌ ｓｏ ｆｕｌｌ ａｎｄ ｂｒｉｍｍｉｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ａｎｙｏｎｅ ｗｈｏ ｃａｔｃｈｅｓ ｈｉｍ ｃａｎ ｋｉｌｌ ｈｉｍ．
Ｎｏｗ ｔｈｅ ｂｌｕｅｓ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ａｃｃｕｓｅ ｔｈｅ Ｍａｎｄａｒｉｎ ｃｏｕｎｃｉｌ ｏｆ ａ ｇｒｅｅｎ ｂｉａｓ， ａｒｅ ｔｈｅｙ？ Ｔｈｅ ｄｉｃｔｉｏｎａｒｙ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ａｒｏｕｎｄ ｆｏｒ ｙｅａｒｓ． Ｂｕｔ ｗｈｏ ｋｎｏｗｓ？ Ｍａｙｂｅ ｔｈｅｙ ｃｈａｎｇｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｉｏｎ ｌａｓｔ ｎｉｇｈｔ ａｆｔｅｒ ｈｅａｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｍａｒｋ ｆｒｏｍ Ｌｉｅｎ ａｎｄ Ｃｈｅｎ． Ｈｕｈ？
I asked a blue supporter what that phrase meant last night. At first she said: “Kill. just execution (as in ending the life of someone)”.
Things turned interesting when I showed her where the quote came from. She then said that I had misunderstood her meaning… Interesting in deed. And funny too…
The word 誅 itself is usually first thought of as execute, before any other meanings are thought of.
Is it? Note the 言 radical which would associate with an act of speech. I would agree that as a single-character classical verb that the primary meaning is probably ‘kill’, but here you have ‘zhu’ embedded in a set phrase, and its sense could be confused with very different meanings in other set phrases such as the kou3zhu1bi3fa2 phrase I cited earlier.
I doubt very seriously that Lien knew the source in the Sanguo tradition. He just chose a classical phrase that he vaguely understood and blurted it out because it sounded good. It was a poor choice of words because it can be read the way the Taipei Times took it, but it’s probably just another example of the Chinese love of hyperbole, especially in the vulgar classical style.
This reminds me of how Chen recently misquoted Zhang Xueliang’s quotation of a late Ming poet when he was accused of having paid the former president of Panama hush money for sexual harrasment. Modern political figures, especially in Taiwan, have a very shaky command of the classical tradition and often adapt phrases to mean things that they don’t simply because they sound impressive.
I still think that Lien would have spotted the double meaning. He’s quite well-educated, isn’t he? And the difference in potential intepretation is just enough that he could get away with it - “I only meant it as in ‘he should be punished’. If you choose to interpret it as ‘put to death’, well, that’s just you.”
“I liked Juba’s comment, ‘When is a quote not a quote? When it’s in a Taiwan newsrag.’ Look at yesterday’s story from the TT and you’ll see they have at least three different versions of the alleged quote in the first paragraph.”
After having a close look at this, it’s clear the three versions were clearly differentiated - one was a headline, one was a subhead and the other the quote in question. How the first two can be considered “versions” of a quote when they are clearly not meant to be taken as such is extremely unclear.
If there is an objection to the actual translation (the “third” version), then what is it? How is it wrong?
But I say again, why has this thread decided to morph into another mocking of the local English-language press when the real issue is Lien’s obnoxious comments - and the fact that Ma Ying-jeou and Wang Jin-pyng will not disown them? Must absolutely everything be seen through the prism of TT, CP, TN?
Before any “Green Media” had translated Lien’s comments into English, my wife (Taiwanese, with excellent command of Mandarin), shockingly told me that Lien had declared that anyone that had the chance should kill the President. Actually, I did not belive her, but she instisted that was what Lien said. Who am I to argue with and instant translation from a native Mandarin speaker…
I also find the last part a bit disturbing:
Does this mean that I can just slash the throat of the taxi driver that give me old 50 NTD coins as change, or just run over the punk that crosses on red light, or start target practising on the “daredevils” that arrange dragracing competitions outside my bedroom window.
-Now, where did I put my machine gun…
You are right, and we all agree. Lien Chan is obnoxious. But he did use a figure of speech, rather than a direct order to murder Abian. Everyone I have talked to says that the term was meant as a figure of speech, to criticize Chen, but merely as an idiom. Of course, Lien knew the other meanings. He aint dumb. He IS insane. Still can’t concede. Saw both him and Soong on TV last night arguing for more lawsuits to undo the election with a bored fidgety Mayor Ma beside them. The Three Stooges of New Taiwan?
I vote for FIGURE OF SPEECH. And a bad choice of words, given the circumstances and the context. But to rally the blues, he did what he wanted to do. Sick man. Sick country. Where’s a doctor when you need one?
…or open fire on any demonstrator without proper license (unlawful demonstration)?
I am sure Taiwan would be better off with a president that implement such a policy.
Lane119, it is good to learn that your command of Mandarin is better than a native speaker’s. You should be proud of yourself.
My wife hadn’t heard any of the news reports. I showed her the above phrase. Without hesitation she said it means “anyone can kill (him)”.
It seems to me that the meaning ispretty damn clear. If any Chinese speaker is telling you different, they’re probably just trying to defend Lian.
So Lian didn’t say “murder Chen”, but he said that anyone can kill him. If someone went and did it, it would be an incitement to murder.
Brian
One’s ability to speak Mandarin, even natively, does not an expert of classical Chinese make. “Oh, s/he’s Chinese and s/he says it means this …” That would be like asking your average native English speaker from America to interpret an individual phrase (out of context) from Shakespeare. I agree with Feiren’s interpretation for the most part.
With all due respect, nost ‘native speakers’ in Taiwan have a very hazy command of classical Chinese. They often see something in classical Chinese and then translate it as if it was Mandarin. It’s sort of like what happens when Chinese people guess at Japanese because Japanese also uses Hanzi and they think they know what it means.
Perhaps Lien Chian was being poetic, perhaps not. In either case, he was a bit vague. Perhaps he should have stated 他是一个汉奸. 要是台湾还有人爱国, 我求你们同志巴他给我销灭. 
Well if most people don’t understand that the reference doesn’t literally mean that, then presumably they’d understand it to mean “anyone can kill him”.
I’m more interested in what the majority of native speakers would understand it to mean.
You can’t just say “anyone can kill him” and then turn around and say “hey man, none of you got this, it’s a bit fo an obscure reference, but it doesn’t literally mean kill him”.
Brian
Very well Mr. Expert(s) of Classical Chinese.
What Lien said will be understood by most Taiwanese as a call to try to kill the president if they have an opportunity. -Does that make his statement any better?
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Well if most people don’t understand that the reference doesn’t literally mean that, then presumably they’d understand it to mean “anyone can kill him”.
I’m more interested in what the majority of native speakers would understand it to mean.
[/quote]
i agree with bu lai en and x3m. the practical (and hence, relevant) issue here is as much how the statement is perceived as what it literally means. we can mentally masturbate here over its various nuances of classical meanings and arrogantly suggest how the ignorant masses do not have the wherewithal to grasp that, but the point of these speeches is to communicate an idea, right? and if the “common” person in taiwan immediately perceives this saying to mean " kill," then that is the idea communicated. no matter what experts of higher learning deem this saying to mean in a higher metaphorical, classical sense, the idea communicated to the “common” people with this saying is fairly blunt. and i suspect lien knows this.