Print

Print


I don't think Mandarin has been brought up yet.
I find it to be quite transparent and easy to grasp:

x/y is phrased as
y 分之 x
(y fenzhi x)

So 1/3 would be 3分之1

Percents are all 100 分之 x
(30% = 100 分之 30)

分 fen means "separate, divide" or "part" and 之 is a classical modifying
particle. 分之 fenzhi can be translated as "y parts of x."

Zach

portfolio <http://zwelldesigns.com/> · 身先朝露 - 画龙点睛 ·

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 6:00 PM, J S Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:31:54 -0600, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 17 October 2016 at 15:10, J S Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to see the various responses to this. It looks like I'm going
> with marking the determiner with a suffix and putting the numerator after.
> The next question will be about scalar absolutes, such as, "The wall is 5
> feet tall." Also, "Water has temperature."
> >
> >If you already know what it will be, then effectively it already is, is
> it not?
> >
> >It seems to me that expressing scalar absolutes is mostly a matter of
> >how you handle units. I can't think of an example off the top of my
> >head where some kind of unit of measurement would not be involved. If
> >you just say, e.g., "the wall is 5 tall", it doesn't mean anything
> >unless the context supplies an obvious unit, which has merely been
> >elided. And even something like "I am 27" in English only works
> >because there's a convention in the language that just using a bare
> >number *means* "age", with the unit "years"- and that does not apply
> >to other languages.
> >
> If I'd known you were going to take the trouble of a long reply, I
> would've given more information! As well as figuring out how to represent
> the unit expressions, I need to distinguish absolute from relative, as in:
>
> 1. relative: "The wall is tall."
> 2. relative: "The wall is 6 inches taller than normal."
> 3. absolute: "The wall has height."
> 4. absolute: "The wall is 5 feet tall."
>
> Basically, I need to distinguish 3 from 1 and 4 from 2.
>
> >If units are nouns, then you just have to figure out how how cardinal
> >numbers work with nouns, and then figure out how unit noun phrases get
> >attached to the thing being measured.
> >
> This is for the verb-and-particle language. However, verbs can have
> nounish usages, such as being in phrases with cardinal numbers. But
> possibly this ties in with the phrase-or-clause question.
>
> >At that point, there're two basic patterns you can employ- make the
> >unit expression the main predicate, and then attach the dimensions
> >being measured as some kind of adjunct, or make the dimension the main
> >predicate and attach the units as some kind of adjunct. With the first
> >option, you get things like "The wall is five feet in height", "the
> >wall measures five feet in height", "the wall has five feet of
> >height".
> >With the second option, you get things like "The wall is high by five
> >feet", "the wall has-a-height of five feet". You could even treat
> >ascription of dimensions as basic transitive verbs, where the unit
> >expression is a core object; something like "the wall heights five
> >feet". Heck, there are even English verbs that can be used this way-
> >e.g., "the mountain rises 3000 feet" instead of "the mountain is 3000
> >feet tall" or "the road runs 4 miles" instead of "the road is four
> >miles long".
> >
> I'll look into adapting the 2nd option, I think. "Tall/height" is an
> intransitive verb, but might be made transitive. The 1st option looks more
> difficult for Oct06.
>
> >The standard English construction for those ("is 3000 feet high", "is
> >four miles long") essentially turns the unit phrase into an adverb,
> >because English has flexible parts of speech and you can do things
> >like that, but it's connected with how English handles attributives.
> >In an attributive rather than predicative construction, you say "the
> >four-mile-long road", which is basically exactly the same structure as
> >"the long road" with the unit phrase acting as an adverbial modifier
> >on the attributive adjective, just like it does with the predicate
> >adjective. So this is essentially treating the dimension as the main
> >predicate, and turning the unit phrase into an adverbial modifier as
> >the specific mechanism that is used to attach it as an adjunct.
> >
> >-l.
>
> I'll have to change the phrase syntax to allow modifiers of that sort;
> right now all I have is a sort of incorporation.
>
> --
> Jeff
>