Hacker News Reader

Comment by lgvln | Hacker News Reader

I'm quite sure the phrase or idiom used by Xi is ”粉身碎骨“, which can be interpreted figuratively or literally.

Funny how it reminds me exactly of the protesters crushed by the tanks at the Tiananmian Incident.

I am really disappointed in BBC's reporting here. They chose to interpret a idiom in a literal way just to make a maximally controversial headline.

Even in wuxia novels where I see this phrase used the most, the phrase is never used literally (And in those fictional universes turning people into powder is actually possible). If you choose to translate chinese literally you can make anyone sound insane.

Focus on the intent. He is very much saying he will destroy those people. But not necessarily by crushing bones.

Ah, I see. That makes it so much better. I am glad he'll only destroy them without crushing their bones.

I am not a native english speaker so I don't know if you're trying to take my words literally too.

It's just conveying an intensity, not any specific action. Just like how "wiping the floor" with someone doesn't mean you're going to beat someone unconscious and use their body as a literal mop. That would warrant immediately calling the police or justifiable homicide in self-defense. That's obviously an insane way to interpret that phrase but that's what I am seeing here.

It's still a menacing threat but no chinese person is interpreting it as tanks being imminent (like how many english speakers would interpret the threat of literal crushed bones). If tanks do roll in, it is an escalation of the current situation but it's nowhere close to what is being said here.

Imaging someone translating “United we stand, divided we fall” into “If we don’t work togeter, he’s going to split you into pieces.”

He’s not (directly) referring to HK though, the sentence he said was ‘Any attempt to separate a part of China will be met with $IDIOM’. Now, protester were explicitly refraining from mentioning separatism in their demands, so take that into consideration.

My understanding is that the remark was made in general terms, though of course it may be interpreted as aimed at HK.

The BBC chose to make it specifically about Hongkong from the very first words of their article's title.

Which is interesting because he was in a region next to Tibet when he said it which also has a long history of independence. They didn’t mention that once.

It's reminiscent of the "quote" from Ahmedinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map". It's as if the journalists, or those who feed them, look for the most incendiary and provocative free translation that can be justified by a dictionary or thesaurus.

Yet they’re undergoing a shadow war. What was incorrect in reporting his sentiment?

He obviously doesn't like Israel, and expresses negative sentiments about Israel. But there's a range of free translations from "Palestinians should have sovereignty over Jerusalem" to "All Jews should be exterminated". Reporting Ahmedinejad's words as being closer to the latter is a way to paint him as a monster, stoke anti-Iran sentiment in the West, and soften up Western populations so that they will favour an eventual USA-Iran war.

According to this that isn’t correct either, but worth noting that the Iranians started putting up build boards with the English text even if incorrectly translated originally:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a...

This is actually very helpful way to understand the utility of news organizations to maximize emotional appeals in order to garner attention by directly (or perhaps unintentionally) misinterpreting/misusing the intent of the speaker. As a general practice, the intent of the speaker isn't necessarily well known unless you have seen the evidence of its use in practice. Fascinating take on the misuse (or in this case likely purposeful misuse) of language.

Except when it’s selectively done with an agenda. Which seems to happen far too often.

There’s enough real bad stuff going on in the world. Inventing or purposefully twisting it only creates opportunities to completely dismiss the paper’s original point.

There’s a good reason trust in the media is super low and it’s not just because some influential people claim “fake news” at every chance. There’s plenty of real examples on a daily basis if you spend the time to look into what is being said.

The media is often their own worst enemy when it comes to holding bad guys accountable.

I see a lot of comments that amount to "he's not literally threatening violence, he's only using an idiom that, historically and culturally, heavily implies violence."

Which...I guess is a little better, arguably.

Do you happen to have a source for what Xi said in Chinese?

“任何人企图在中国任何地区搞分裂，结果只能是粉身碎骨；任何支持分裂中国的外部势力只能被中国人民视为痴心妄想”

You can copy and paste in Google to find transcript from Chinese sources.

粉身碎骨 is an idiom used in a variety of contexts, largely not literally, some different usage:

https://www.purpleculture.net/sample-sentences/?word=粉身碎骨

It's generic language for saying "crushed", but western audiences with limited understanding of China will naturally think of tank treads.

Are you saying it might only mean figuratively crushed?

The quote from the article ("...perish, with their bodies smashed and bones ground to powder") has three separate allusions to death. Are all three of them being misinterpreted?

Native Mandarin speaker here. All three separate allusions are a single attempt to translate the four-character Chinese idiom of 粉身碎骨, which is a figurative way of saying crushed to death. In this context, the meaning is the attempts to split China will be completely defeated and offenders subject to severe punishment.

Right ... but either Xi is another Trump, or he intentionally chose that idiom knowing full well the undertones were tied to the end results of other very famous past protests.

It is hard not to interpret that as a menace of brutality, regardless of whether actual crushing of bones is in the works.

You're right in that there is an undertone of brutality, even as the Mandarin Chinese phrase is used figuratively. But keep in mind that the intended audience is Chinese people. This phrase is very commonly used when talking about Chinese army defending against Japanese invasion during WWII and crushing enemy to death. I feel it is intentional that the government would like its people to consider the protesters as enemies to the Chinese nation.

You seem to be agreeing that the implication of violence is clear and intentional.

Not really, it's important to understand that directly translating like that loses its meaning. Chinese can tend to be very dramatic.. for example if you are waiting in line at the restaurant an employee may come out and tell you that you are suffering greatly. It sounds dramatic but he is just recognizing that you have been waiting awhile. Taking artistic license over a language you do not understand isn't right.

BBC is taking translation liberties, either our of ignorance and deliberate malice. This is unsurprising to anyone familiar with western MSM reporting on Chinese issues. BBC:

>"Anyone who attempts to split any region from China will perish, with their bodies smashed and bones ground to powder," Mr Xi said, according to a foreign ministry statement issued on Sunday.

What the source (Chinese State Media) linked by BBC in the article translates [1]:

>"Those who engage in separatist activities in any part of China will be smashed into pieces, Xi said, adding that external support for separatists will be seen by the Chinese people as delusional."

[1] http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201910/14/WS5da3743da310cf...

You would have to stretch credulity to interpret this as an enthusiastic call for literal violence. Though it doesn't necessarily preclude violent intervention which is not really news. All options are on the table for HK.

> You would have to stretch credulity to interpret this as an enthusiastic call for literal violence.

Is it reasonable to assume that violent metaphors are meant to be taken 100% figuratively and not imply actual violence, given that China has been more than happy to employ actual violence against its own citizens before? It feels like nitpicking to say that it's malicious to assume violent intent at all, just because the wording doesn't literally, explicitly call for violence.

Yes, it is very common to use exaggerations in Chinese and when a certain exaggeration is widely accepted, its figurative meaning took over its literal character-by-character meaning. So when the idiom is used, the four characters are interpreted as one word that describes its figurative meaning.

Let me give you an example: in ancient Chinese it is a standard greeting to wish the emperor to live ten thousand years, literally. But everyone understands that it just means very long life.

> Yes, it is very common to use exaggerations in Chinese and when a certain exaggeration is widely accepted, its figurative meaning took over its literal character-by-character meaning.

All that is also true in English, of course. But one does want to take context and history into account. If an office worker says "I'm gonna kick his ass" when a coworker makes a stupid mistake, you assume he's being figurative and is just going to reprimand the coworker. If a drunk guy with a history of violence says the same thing, a reasonable person assumes they intend actual violence.

Given that China has a rich and recent history of using violence to suppress dissent, including in the specific situation we're discussing, Hong Kong, it seems pretty disingenuous to claim that their intentions here are purely peaceful.

Violence is always implied when it comes to redline separatism concerns. Beijing has consistently stated that all options are on the table for HK. The question is whether the idiom should be interpreted as an alarmist "warning" for the possibility of immediate action on the ground. It shouldn't, otherwise hundreds of millions of Chinese nationalist on Weibo eager for HK to burn would be creaming their pants.

>more than happy to employ actual violence against its own citizens before

Implying China is "happy" to employ violence is the kind of absurd, sensationalist characterization seen in this BBC article. As if 6/4 didn't literally put the country on the brink of a civil war. No one was happy at what was done. Also I think it should be recognized that the imagery of Chinese violence in western audience mind is going to be tied to Tianamen, especially with the crushing idiom. This is an outdated heuristic, China spends more money on (non-lethal) domestic security than (lethal) military, no small part due to reverberations from 6/4. There are thousands of Chinese protests every week, the state is very good containing public disorder non-lethally now. There won't be tanks on the ground but sometimes it feels like many western observers perversely hope it would happen to validate their biases. Compare 1967 Detriot Riot where the National Guard was called with modern riot protocols or the Dakota Pipeline Protests. China is either going to wait this out, or contain the problem with non-lethal methods.

> Implying China is "happy" to employ violence is the kind of absurd, sensationalist characterization seen in this BBC article.

You've just been chiding me for taking figures of speech too literally. Obviously I don't think anyone was cheering and handing out champagne as they gave the order.

This is an idiom.

It's like if a politician/government member in the UK/US said that the opposition would be crushed. Would anyone focus on whether that was meant literally?

I think sometimes Western media try a bit too hard to interpret statements by the Chinese government in the worst and most sensationalist way.

I don't remember "crushed" being used by politicians to describe "winning" against an opponent very often, at least not since Trump and Johnson (I'm sure they would have no problem with using it).

It has a menacing undertone in English. Yes, its used in sport quite often, but in that context it is also aggressive. It's just that in sport it is expected, in politics one used to expect calmer language...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com