<p>If you don't want your conlang to be a reskin of English, I recommend not trying to find &quot;the Chinese equivalent of this English word&quot;. Words don't match up one to one between languages. Instead, think about the actual meaning behind each English phrase, and other ways to convey that meaning: not the words but the meaning they're being used to transmit.</p>
<p>&quot;To&quot;, for example, means a dozen different things in English. Some of those are translated with a verb meaning &quot;arrive&quot; in Chinese. Most aren't. Translation isn't as simple as just find-and-replacing each word with its direct equivalent. The &quot;to&quot; in &quot;to like&quot; means something entirely different from the &quot;to&quot; in &quot;to the store&quot; and it's a historical accident that English uses the same word for them.</p>
<p>&quot;For&quot;, similarly, can convey a lot of different things. In the sentence at the end of your question, it indicates that what follows is the duration of the event (rather than, say, how long it took before the event happened). Latin conveys that by putting the time in the accusative case for a duration and the ablative case for the span during which it happened. Some of your other examples use &quot;for&quot; to indicate the beneficiary of the action. Latin indicates this with the dative case, while Lingála adds an applicative (a modifier that adds an extra argument to a verb).</p>
<p>Other examples in your question use &quot;for&quot; to indicate the the recipient of something being transferred (also the dative in Latin, the word's position in the sentence in Lingála) or to change a one-argument verb into a two-argument verb (Latin uses prefixes or switches words entirely; Lingála would use another applicative). Since they mean fundamentally different things, it's really just a coincidence that English uses the same word for all of them. Other languages generally do not.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:14:38.947Z
"think about the actual meaning behind each English phrase, and other ways to convey that meaning" where can I find out more information on how to do that, it takes a lot of work and there's a huge number of possible ways to say the same thing, so I don't know how far to take it or how to scope it down some. Or if there are standard patterns to translating or if it's a free-for-all.
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:19:16.680Z
I reckoned with 2 versions of "to", and [some other stuff](https://i.imgur.com/szjdyNu.png), but learning how to think more generally to "translate" will definitely be a mario-kart boost in terms of figuring this stuff out.
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:22:52.297Z
@Lance My main piece of advice is the same one I've given before: study another language, ideally taking live classes with a native speaker. Then you'll have another point of reference to work from, and some experience with the actual process of translating.
Draconis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:32:57.923Z
Arg, I don't have the time to fully learn a new language, there's gotta be another way. I will remember that though, maybe one day in a few years I will have time to study Chinese. It's a lot to learn a new language! I want to learn Chinese, but the fact that I have to learn and memorize at least 3000 characters and then also learn how to use the tone system is a major barrier to entry :]
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:45:04.943Z
@Lance Unfortunately there's no real shortcut to it. It's a problem in academic linguistics as well: many theories of syntax were written by English-speakers and end up assuming that all other languages are just English in a fancy hat. But you can get a good foundation with just a semester or two of classes; learning from a native speaker will be a lot more effective than Duolingo or studying from a book.
Draconis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:45:10.510Z
"For learners of Chinese, it takes about ten years to get this level [translator-level], maybe eight years for very dedicated learners" https://www.hackingchinese.com/become-chinese-english-translator-like-one/
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:46:17.907Z
@Lance Don't worry, you don't need to become fluent for conlanging purposes. Working as a translator requires deep, thorough knowledge of many aspects of the language and culture, but an introductory course will get you experience with the process of translating in much less time.
Draconis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:52:37.280Z
Thanks, good to know. In the meantime, I am going to try and find a book on translating, how to be a good translator in general. Haven't found anything, looked a few hours here and there. Maybe [bible translation](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Bible-Translation-Robert-Alter/dp/0691209146) is the best bet.
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T04:54:05.970Z
@Lance Fundamentally, being a good translator requires knowledge of multiple languages. I'm not sure you'll find any way around that.
Draconis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-31T03:51:43.427Z
2022-10-31T03:51:43.427Z
Draconis
<p>I have learned about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_verb_construction" rel="nofollow noreferrer">serial verb constructions</a>, and I am looking into <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0262700972" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Leonard Talmy</a> and his theories of translating between and among Chinese/English. I have seen a few examples where &quot;for&quot; is used in the English, but obviously nothing (even close) to it is in Chinese, it's completely different. I haven't yet been able to wrap my head around how to get rid of the idea of &quot;for&quot;, as in &quot;I will wait for you&quot;, or &quot;I want it for my friends&quot;, or &quot;the main thing is for you&quot;, &quot;let those eyes droop down for just a little longer&quot;, etc.. amongst a million other more complex examples.</p>
<p>How does Chinese do away with &quot;for&quot;? What patterns can I go by? I can see how &quot;to&quot; is made into the verb &quot;arrive&quot;, so there is a 1&lt;&gt;1 mapping between English/Chinese in that small aspect. And &quot;up&quot; is &quot;ascend&quot; and &quot;down&quot; is &quot;descend&quot;, etc.. But what about &quot;for&quot;? How can I get rid of &quot;for&quot; when creating my conlang so it doesn't feel like it's a direct port of English?</p>
<p>Same with &quot;of&quot;, I can't find a verb for that one, or an equivalent construct in Chinese. So not sure what to do when essentially translating to Chinese. (Which will help when building the conlang, to give it a flavor of Chinese).</p>
<p>The only example I've found of &quot;for&quot; so far is in <a href="http://arslangulthese.free.fr/page_perso_telech/lamarre_the_linguistic_encoding_of_motion_events_in_chinese.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Linguistic Encoding of Motion Events in Chinese</a>:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XlrcP.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XlrcP.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>But it is not enough to go off of.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-04T05:17:03.360Z
Some useful resources referenced in _[Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation](https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol03/01/01.pdf)_.
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-04T22:57:46.763Z
"I will wait for you" without for: "I will await you"
Edvin
<verbs><chinese>
How to get rid of "for" and "of" when making a conlang coming from English, aiming toward Chinese?
# How to get rid of "for" and "of" when making a conlang coming from English, aiming toward Chinese?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-31)

I have learned about [serial verb constructions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_verb_construction), and I am looking into [Leonard Talmy](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0262700972) and his theories of translating between and among Chinese/English. I have seen a few examples where "for" is used in the English, but obviously nothing (even close) to it is in Chinese, it's completely different. I haven't yet been able to wrap my head around how to get rid of the idea of "for", as in "I will wait for you", or "I want it for my friends", or "the main thing is for you", "let those eyes droop down for just a little longer", etc.. amongst a million other more complex examples.

How does Chinese do away with "for"? What patterns can I go by? I can see how "to" is made into the verb "arrive", so there is a 1<>1 mapping between English/Chinese in that small aspect. And "up" is "ascend" and "down" is "descend", etc.. But what about "for"? How can I get rid of "for" when creating my conlang so it doesn't feel like it's a direct port of English?

Same with "of", I can't find a verb for that one, or an equivalent construct in Chinese. So not sure what to do when essentially translating to Chinese. (Which will help when building the conlang, to give it a flavor of Chinese).

The only example I've found of "for" so far is in [The Linguistic Encoding of Motion Events in Chinese](http://arslangulthese.free.fr/page_perso_telech/lamarre_the_linguistic_encoding_of_motion_events_in_chinese.pdf):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XlrcP.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/XlrcP.png)

But it is not enough to go off of.

**Tags:** verbs, chinese
> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Some useful resources referenced in _[Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation](https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol03/01/01.pdf)_.  
> **username_1**: "I will wait for you" without for: "I will await you"  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-10-31. Score: 4

If you don't want your conlang to be a reskin of English, I recommend not trying to find "the Chinese equivalent of this English word". Words don't match up one to one between languages. Instead, think about the actual meaning behind each English phrase, and other ways to convey that meaning: not the words but the meaning they're being used to transmit.

"To", for example, means a dozen different things in English. Some of those are translated with a verb meaning "arrive" in Chinese. Most aren't. Translation isn't as simple as just find-and-replacing each word with its direct equivalent. The "to" in "to like" means something entirely different from the "to" in "to the store" and it's a historical accident that English uses the same word for them.

"For", similarly, can convey a lot of different things. In the sentence at the end of your question, it indicates that what follows is the duration of the event (rather than, say, how long it took before the event happened). Latin conveys that by putting the time in the accusative case for a duration and the ablative case for the span during which it happened. Some of your other examples use "for" to indicate the beneficiary of the action. Latin indicates this with the dative case, while Lingála adds an applicative (a modifier that adds an extra argument to a verb).

Other examples in your question use "for" to indicate the the recipient of something being transferred (also the dative in Latin, the word's position in the sentence in Lingála) or to change a one-argument verb into a two-argument verb (Latin uses prefixes or switches words entirely; Lingála would use another applicative). Since they mean fundamentally different things, it's really just a coincidence that English uses the same word for all of them. Other languages generally do not.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "think about the actual meaning behind each English phrase, and other ways to convey that meaning" where can I find out more information on how to do that, it takes a lot of work and there's a huge number of possible ways to say the same thing, so I don't know how far to take it or how to scope it down some. Or if there are standard patterns to translating or if it's a free-for-all.  
> **username_0**: I reckoned with 2 versions of "to", and [some other stuff](https://i.imgur.com/szjdyNu.png), but learning how to think more generally to "translate" will definitely be a mario-kart boost in terms of figuring this stuff out.  
> **username_2**: @Lance My main piece of advice is the same one I've given before: study another language, ideally taking live classes with a native speaker. Then you'll have another point of reference to work from, and some experience with the actual process of translating.  
> **username_0**: Arg, I don't have the time to fully learn a new language, there's gotta be another way. I will remember that though, maybe one day in a few years I will have time to study Chinese. It's a lot to learn a new language! I want to learn Chinese, but the fact that I have to learn and memorize at least 3000 characters and then also learn how to use the tone system is a major barrier to entry :]  
> **username_2**: @Lance Unfortunately there's no real shortcut to it. It's a problem in academic linguistics as well: many theories of syntax were written by English-speakers and end up assuming that all other languages are just English in a fancy hat. But you can get a good foundation with just a semester or two of classes; learning from a native speaker will be a lot more effective than Duolingo or studying from a book.  
> **username_0**: "For learners of Chinese, it takes about ten years to get this level [translator-level], maybe eight years for very dedicated learners" https://www.hackingchinese.com/become-chinese-english-translator-like-one/  
> **username_2**: @Lance Don't worry, you don't need to become fluent for conlanging purposes. Working as a translator requires deep, thorough knowledge of many aspects of the language and culture, but an introductory course will get you experience with the process of translating in much less time.  
> **username_0**: Thanks, good to know. In the meantime, I am going to try and find a book on translating, how to be a good translator in general. Haven't found anything, looked a few hours here and there. Maybe [bible translation](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Bible-Translation-Robert-Alter/dp/0691209146) is the best bet.  
> **username_2**: @Lance Fundamentally, being a good translator requires knowledge of multiple languages. I'm not sure you'll find any way around that.  

---

