• Home
  • Search
    •  
  • Login
    • Username: Password:

      Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic: "Relevant"  (Read 2682 times)

Calach Pfeffer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 7689
"Relevant"
« on: March 19, 2014, 01:00:23 AM »
Relevant work, relevant people, relevant parties, relevant regulations, relevant departments, relevant considerations.... why is "relevant" so popular a word for Chinese foreign affairs and political speakers? Perhaps it's a translation artifact, but on at least some relevant occasions, it's directly spoken in English. And spoken again. And again. And again. You could make a news blog about China and call it "Relevant Information".

Because it's a word that, rather than illuminate, obscures. It keeps secret who the relevant parties are, what the relevant regulations may be, or what damn work is being done. Is that why Chinese speaking for positions of power are so fond of it?

Is that why it's such a buzzword in Chinese diplomatic language?


/relevant
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 01:09:30 AM by Calach Pfeffer »

» now with New and Endlessly Improving CV 4U  ٩( ᐛ )و

Day Dreamer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 4430
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2014, 01:29:47 AM »
Easy:

If it doesn't matter/affect/effect them, Chinese could not care one iota about something. I use this little nugget when I introduce certain topics. I start it as an obscure/immaterial/useless issue. Then I keep tweaking it a little at a time until they finally realize it is important to them or China as a whole. Great example was the Fukushima nuclear disaster, my students (adults) had absolutely no interest as they thought this had no impact on them.

Relevant people, relevant parties, relevant regulations, relevant departments, relevant considerations  .  .  .  are what helps you ascend the ladder of/to wealth.

Just to add, I disagree with your statement, "Because it's a word that, rather than illuminate, obscures" It can do either equally depending on how you use it. I think it doesn't "keep secret who the relevant parties are", it singles out that party
For you to insult me, first I must value your opinion

Calach Pfeffer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 7689
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2014, 01:57:06 AM »
Western person: WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THIS DISASTER!?!?!
Hong Lei of the Foreign Affairs department: THE RELEVANT PERSONS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED! YOU FOREIGNERS ARE SO COLORFUL TO BE ANGRY BUT DON'T INTERFERE WITH INTERNAL MATTERS OR ALL CHINESE PEOPLE WILL HAVE FEELINGS

What I mean is, it's an adjective that is certainly grammatically adequate, but empty f information. Instead of naming the person, detailing the work effort, identifying the department, or even quoting the--goddammit--relevant law, they just say "the relevant".

» now with New and Endlessly Improving CV 4U  ٩( ᐛ )و

Day Dreamer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 4430
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2014, 02:48:10 AM »
Now I understand your conundrum, maybe this might help. Probably not, but it works for me. When a hear an Asian use this and a select few other words, I take it with a grain or two of salt. I don't expect them to use it the same way as you or I. It's up there with "you are great"

Auspicious, Harmonious, Relevant, In our opinion, etc. are just Chinese buzzwords. Don't dignify their abuse by questioning their relevancy
For you to insult me, first I must value your opinion

Stil

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 4800
    • ChangshaNotes
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2014, 02:53:21 AM »
Relevant persons means it's someone else's responsibility.

xwarrior

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 2238
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2014, 05:13:08 AM »
Relevant means posting something that is 'On Topic'. For example, this is not going to be on the topic, but it does refer to an article I came across in a magazine entitled "Relevant".

Disclaimer: There is no way in the world that I read this magazine on a regular basis. I came across it while looking for material to back up Calech's proposition.

So, think of a number, divide it by the square root of your shoe size, then multiply it by a squillion. Then think of another number, it has to be bigger than the product of your first operation, and add the word millions to it. 

Amazingly, you will come up with a number that looks something like the numbers mentioned here at http://www.relevantmagazine.com/reject-apathy/meet-most-wanted-man-china

Quote
And yet, he says, he has seen Christians praying for their persecutors and “tremendous, courageous signs in their smiles, in the miracles and wonders in their lives.” He has seen the Church in China grow from fewer than 1 million people to an estimated 50 to 130 million.

I have my standards. They may be low, but I have them.
- Bette Midler

Calach Pfeffer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 7689
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2014, 12:12:34 PM »
Are there comparable dodges in, say, US/UK/Aus diplomatic language?

(By "diplomatic" language here I mean, words, phrases, sentences or, less often, speeches for effect presented in some form of international news media. I don't know what else to call it. "Spin", perhaps.)

» now with New and Endlessly Improving CV 4U  ٩( ᐛ )و

Calach Pfeffer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 7689
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2014, 06:29:04 AM »
Another feature of Chinese Power Langauge is the adverbs. They're everywhere. Every action or requirement is fully or comprehensively. There was an example in the news today:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8572429.html

Choice quotes:

[Chinese military spokesman] Geng said that Chinese military would strengthen cooperation and coordination with all relevant parties including Malaysia.

"China has shared satellite data with Malaysia at the request of the Malaysian side," Hong said, adding that China will give further information when data is completely verified.

That use of "completely" is not as meaningless as, say, more or less any occurrence of "comprehensively" in the Chinese media, but still..


The adverbs themselves are odd, and overused. But there's some relationship to the hysterical emphasis on completeness you see in Chinese media. Requirements on investigation or communication or apology or whathaveyou are extreme in how fulsome they must be or are.

Strike resolutely.
Comprehensively banish.
Thoroughly investigate.


WHAT IS TOTALLY UP WITH THAT?!


» now with New and Endlessly Improving CV 4U  ٩( ᐛ )و

Day Dreamer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 4430
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2014, 03:48:48 PM »
Ahhh, my dear neophyte Calach Pfeffer. Back in the day I's remembers back when them big bad 'Mercans started a fights with them commie bastards; Iraq. That was because them bad guys from Afganustan hurt them 'Mercans. And any who, It took a few years before the good ol' US of A was able to find Afganustan on the map.

One of the byproducts from the Dr Spin (aka Spin Doctor) was the newfangled double speak theys invented just frrr this here war. Some words weren't new, only changed meaning.  What I'ma trying t'say is that though you have a point, t'ain't new, nor the last of 'em


Collateral damage:
A military euphemism for civilian deaths.

Decapitation strike:
To remove a regime’s leadership and thereby curtail warfare. The U.S. military attempted a decapitation strike against Saddam Hussein at the war's outset. Also called a target of opportunity.

Embedded reporter:
A journalist traveling with troops and reporting from the battlefield. The 2003 Iraq war was the first time “embeds” were used. Pros: unprecedented media access to the front. Cons: lack of distance and independence between reporters and their protectors. A unilateral was a reporter unattached to a military unit.

Fedayeen (“soldier of sacrifice”):
A paramilitary group founded by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday in 1995 and used against the regime’s domestic enemies. They showed unexpected resistance against U.S. and British troops in the 2003 Iraq war.

MOAB:
The largest non-nuclear bomb in existence made its debut in the Iraq war. The acronym stands for Massive Ordnance Air Burst, but it has been nicknamed the Mother of All Bombs.

Patriot missiles:
Rockets that intercept other missiles before they reach their targets.

Peshmerga (“those who face death”):
Kurdish fighters who have battled the Iraqi regime for generations. They fought with coalition troops on the northern front in the 2003 Iraqi war.

Regime change:
A polite term for the overthrow of a government.

Republican Guard:
Saddam Hussein’s most elite troops, led by his son Qusay.

Shock and awe:
American equivalent to the blitzkrieg, in which the enemy is treated to an overwhelming strike that leads to a swift surrender.

Smart bombs:
Accurate bombs that are guided to their targets by Global Positioning Satellites, as opposed to dumb bombs, those without guidance systems.

Surgical strike:
Military jargon that makes a precision bombing sound like a beneficial medical procedure.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD):
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The Washington Post quoted historian Paul Fussell on the subject: “A machine gun, properly fired, is a weapon of mass destruction. We're pretending that only awful and sinister people own weapons of mass destruction. We own them, too. We just call them something else.”


« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 04:00:14 PM by Day Dreamer »
For you to insult me, first I must value your opinion

Escaped Lunatic

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9952
  • Finding new ways to conquer the world
    • EscapedLunatic.com
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2014, 12:59:59 AM »

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD):
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The Washington Post quoted historian Paul Fussell on the subject: “A machine gun, properly fired, is a weapon of mass destruction. We're pretending that only awful and sinister people own weapons of mass destruction. We own them, too. We just call them something else.”


It's sad when a so-called historian can't get the inherent difference between something designed to kill anywhere from thousands to millions with a single press of a button to a simple machine gun.  I think he needs to contemplate that a properly used machine gun would need truckloads of ammo to even approach the deaths caused by a chemical warhead loaded with nerve gas dropped into a densely populated area.  I doubt he's ever seriously contemplated the idea of a bio weapon loaded with something not only lethal, but also highly contagious.  This guy needs to spend some time reading the history of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of trying to rewrite history by the use of lame comparisons.

I'm pro-cloning and we vote!               Why isn't this card colored green?
EscapedLunatic.com

Calach Pfeffer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 7689
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2014, 01:46:43 AM »
What if you use it in a church?

» now with New and Endlessly Improving CV 4U  ٩( ᐛ )و

A-Train

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 1275
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2014, 02:46:29 AM »
Collateral damage:
A military euphemism for civilian deaths.

Regime change:
A polite term for the overthrow of a government.

Surgical strike:
Military jargon that makes a precision bombing sound like a beneficial medical procedure.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD):
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The Washington Post quoted historian Paul Fussell on the subject: “A machine gun, properly fired, is a weapon of mass destruction. We're pretending that only awful and sinister people own weapons of mass destruction. We own them, too. We just call them something else.”




My favorite... "Friendly Fire". 
Belongs in the oxymoron hall of fame.
"The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore attempt the impossible and achieve it, generation after generation.

Pearl S. Buck

Stil

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 4800
    • ChangshaNotes
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2014, 03:02:37 AM »

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD):
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The Washington Post quoted historian Paul Fussell on the subject: “A machine gun, properly fired, is a weapon of mass destruction. We're pretending that only awful and sinister people own weapons of mass destruction. We own them, too. We just call them something else.”


It's sad when a so-called historian can't get the inherent difference between something designed to kill anywhere from thousands to millions with a single press of a button to a simple machine gun.  I think he needs to contemplate that a properly used machine gun would need truckloads of ammo to even approach the deaths caused by a chemical warhead loaded with nerve gas dropped into a densely populated area.  I doubt he's ever seriously contemplated the idea of a bio weapon loaded with something not only lethal, but also highly contagious.  This guy needs to spend some time reading the history of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of trying to rewrite history by the use of lame comparisons.

I think he's just challenging the view of what mass destruction is.

How many killed and how much needs to be destroyed before it's considered mass destruction.

Calach Pfeffer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 7689
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2014, 05:59:24 AM »
China Declares War On Satirical Twitter Account That Mocks State Officials

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece has taken to Twitter, banned in China, to call for the "immediate rectification" of an account which uses the social media platform to satirize Chinese officialdom and state media.

The Relevant Organs' account, @relevantorgans, calls itself "China's soft-power vanguard, rectifying your thought since 2010."

But the People's Daily, a mouthpiece for the Chinese government, appeared to take offense at the satirical Twitter account's use of a link to the People's Daily website and China's national emblem.

"We have noticed that a Twitter account has been misleading people by stealing People's Daily's web address and National emblem of China to make false impression that the account is related to China officials or People's Daily," read a statement posted on People's Daily's Twitter account, @PDChina.

"We hereby solemnly declare that this Twitter account is not related to or does not have connection with any Chinese official bodies, including People's Daily," the statement continued.

"People's Daily publicly condemns such theft and forgery conduct and demands the user of this account to make immediate rectification."

Reuters could not independently verify the authenticity of the statement from the People's Daily account.

People's Daily declined to provide immediate comment.

The Relevant Organs responded with its own series of tweets, initially saying it 'hailed' People's Daily's "e-rectification campaign".

But the parody then called into question the authenticity of the government publication's Twitter account.

"Investigating unauthorized @PDChina account," read one tweet. "Initial data indicates 2,000 followers since May 2011."

The Relevant Organs boasted its own credentials made it a more credible outlet, with the entire population of China as its audience: "We have over 5,000 years of history and 1.3 billion followers... Which news source would YOU trust?"

Having been largely inactive since 2013, The Relevant Organs also poked fun at the late timing of the protest against its account.

"Smoking gun: So-called @PDChina "caught" us a year after our retirement. Much too fast for a real Party news organ. Rookie move, comrades."

The Relevant Organs is much loved by China watchers since it first tweeted in 2010, "Ardently celebrate the triumphant registration of the Twitter account!"

The spoof account, with some 14,000 followers, accurately mimics the turgid, formulaic writing and speaking style of China's authorities and state media.

The Relevant Organs has previously lampooned North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Bo Xilai, the former Communist Party boss of Chongqing who was jailed last year for corruption, and foreign media working in China.

Numerous Chinese state media outlets use websites blocked in China like Facebook and Twitter for publicity, including state broadcaster CCTV, People's Daily, and official news agency Xinhua.




"Ardently celebrate the triumphant registration of the Twitter account!"

I lol'd.

Then I srs'd.

» now with New and Endlessly Improving CV 4U  ٩( ᐛ )و

Calach Pfeffer

  • Barfly
  • *
  • Posts: 7689
Re: "Relevant"
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2014, 02:29:40 AM »
AH HAH!

There are no conjugations in Chinese because the characters are invariable. This is why adverbs are so important. It is the adverb that helps express the tense of an action. le, the suffix expressing a completed action, is also very important.

Assimil's Chinese with Ease, lesson 28.


» now with New and Endlessly Improving CV 4U  ٩( ᐛ )و