Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Experts pore [sic] anxiously over Beijing English menus
China Daily ^ | 04/13/2007 | Xinhua

Posted on 04/13/2007 8:55:07 AM PDT by kevin_in_so_cal

English language experts say that, with the 2008 Olympics less than 500 days away, there is still a long way to go before standard English translations of the names of dishes and drinks sold in Beijing restaurants can be finalized.

Garbled and misleading English signs in tourist spots have long confused English speakers in Beijing. Problems range from obscure abbreviations, word-for-word translations of Chinese characters into English, improper omissions and misspellings.

But what confuses them even more are English menus in Beijing restaurants.

However, not everyone agrees with the need to standardize everything. "Weird and wonderful English on Beijing menus -- like "pee soup", "complicated cakes" and "grass with fishy smell" -- are part of the city's charm," said Theo Theodopolopodis, a Greek businessman who has been living in Beijing for two years. "If we sanitize everything, what happens to local flavor?"

Liu Yang, vice director of the Beijing foreign affairs office, told reporters Wednesday that his office has invited English language experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore to join the English menu translation work team.

"They are finding the work challenging," said Liu, adding that Beijing has already publicized standard English signs for museums, scenic spots and subways.

Liu said that Beijing Speaks Foreign Languages Programme has been using the internet to identify the most accurate English names for Chinese dishes, and is working on a list of more than 1,000 dish and drink names.

Beijing claims to have 4.87 million residents who can speak English, accounting for 32 percent of the total population in the municipality.

Statistics indicate that around 2.85 million foreign tourists came to Beijing last year and the number is expected to top three million this year.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 1936summerolympics; beijing; china; genocideolympics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 next last
To: Tax-chick; Silly
So it’s supposed to be “soft-peddle,” as a variation on “soft-sell”?

Nope. See post up thread.

It isn't peddling or selling . . . you're not trying to sell anybody anything, you're saying, "Move along, move along . . . nothing to see here."

101 posted on 04/13/2007 4:34:04 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
My pet peeve is “could care less” when the person means “could not care less.”

Yep. That one actually bothers me more than soft-peddle/pedal/petal.

102 posted on 04/13/2007 5:24:50 PM PDT by NCSteve (What good is it if you're wearing your superman underwear and can't show it to anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; MortMan; Silly; Tax-chick

Maybe peddle is English usage.

I remember my mother (doctorate in English education) correcting my usage on a paper once, but the example that sticks out in my mind came from a BBC radio program called “My Word.” The origin of the idiom as related to peddling was somewhat contentious.

Ah well, both origins make sense to me.


103 posted on 04/13/2007 5:42:50 PM PDT by NCSteve (What good is it if you're wearing your superman underwear and can't show it to anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Another one: torturous vs. tortuous. Every time I read about “torturous reasoning,” I wince. Though when I read some liberal talking points, the reasoning does seem torturous to me... but I’m pretty sure that is not what is intended.


104 posted on 04/13/2007 5:55:46 PM PDT by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Yes, that is the one: the unabridged Merriam-Webster that was put together in the 1930s and relied upon usage by good authors. They are worth owning. I bought mine for about $80 in the sixties and now they are over $200.

They have many wonderful features that the newer ones don't have, although you would want to update some of the spellings.

105 posted on 04/13/2007 6:13:30 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve
If it's not in the OED and not in Fowler, it's not English Usage.

(I checked.)

"My Word" is entertaining but the writers seem to occasionally want to stir the possum a little. And false etymologies are a dime a dozen. . . . e.g. POSH as Port Out Starboard Home, TIP To Insure Promptness, etc.

106 posted on 04/13/2007 6:17:30 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

I inherited my grandmother’s M/W . . . it’s the big one on India paper. The OED I had to buy for myself, the 6-page-per-sheet version that comes with a magnifying glass (MUCH cheaper than the 8 volume set — but hard to read, esp. as I get older.) Got Fowler at a yard sale for two bucks.


107 posted on 04/13/2007 6:21:27 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GraceCoolidge
Someone sent me an editing question recently, and buried in the text was the word "predominately." After I answered the question, I wrote, "By the way, be sure to change 'predominately' to 'predominantly.'"

You know what comes next. The person wrote back, "But they're both equal in Webster 11" (the current abridged).

It's okay to continue to spell "goodbye" with a hyphen, according to these "lexicographers," which nobody does but the people who put the M-W abridged together, yet every mistake is immediately enshrined between the hated red covers.

Book copyeditors have to use this dictionary, just so we'll all be using the same one, and it could be worse.

108 posted on 04/13/2007 6:22:59 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Webster’s Second Unabridged also came in a five-volume set, which was much easier to use. I bought one for the library of the publishing house where I worked. Have never seen another one.


109 posted on 04/13/2007 6:27:14 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
I've never seen one, and I'm a used bookstore hound.

Drew a blank on ABE . . . which is REALLY unusual. They have a 2 vol. but no 5 vol.

110 posted on 04/13/2007 6:37:04 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

It could have been a one-time-only rebinding. I got it in one of those used bookstores on Fourth Avenue NYC in the 1960s.


111 posted on 04/13/2007 6:42:28 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
...it's not English Usage.

Sorry, meant to write British usage.

112 posted on 04/13/2007 6:51:26 PM PDT by NCSteve (What good is it if you're wearing your superman underwear and can't show it to anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
Oh, man! That was like Heaven for bookworms.

Even in the 70s when I was in school in Jersey.

113 posted on 04/13/2007 6:59:08 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve
Fowler is the quintessential Englishman.

( . . . and I knew what you meant. English English not American English. Or Engrish.)

114 posted on 04/13/2007 7:00:41 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
You know, I have a relatively new dictionary, probably bought it ten years ago. I have found it sufficient for my needs, though I am not even sure what one it is. I was interested to read about the older volumes that people are using. I didn't even know, though, that "predominately" was a word in any dictionary!

I agree with you completely, it is so frustrating to see mistakes become accepted usage just through sheer repetition. I grew up in a town, the name of which was two words, and it irritated me over the years to see it gradually combined into one word.

115 posted on 04/13/2007 7:03:31 PM PDT by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: GraceCoolidge
All I want, please, Lord, is for people to cease and desist putting an apostrophe in the word "its" when they are referring to the possessive of "it". My 4th Grade teacher pounded that one into me, I had it down pat at age 8; why, oh why, can't people get it right?
116 posted on 04/13/2007 7:14:11 PM PDT by 6323cd ("It is prohibited to make use of such emotional signs in a cellphone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kevin_in_so_cal

What’s Mandarin for “Soylent Green” ?


117 posted on 04/13/2007 7:24:39 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Would you vote for President a guy who married his cousin? Me, neither. Accept no RINOs. Fred in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

It works for imitation maple syrup.


118 posted on 04/13/2007 7:32:52 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We all no itz s, write?
119 posted on 04/13/2007 7:40:01 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve

Use goozoogle for soft-pedaled and soft-peddled and you will see that you are the on the right but wrong end of that horse; by a greater than 4-1 margin, soft-pedaled out-hits (ouch) soft-peddled in all forms. (Peddled is correct)

So much for the hard-sell (1,293,000); or should that be hard-sale (33,000)?


120 posted on 04/13/2007 7:53:37 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson