<blockquote>
<p>非量 must be a typo of 非但</p>
</blockquote>
<p>事实证明 - Facts have proved</p>
<p>澳大利亚 - Australia</p>
<p>非但 - not only</p>
<p>没有 - doesn't have</p>
<p>用 - using</p>
<p>奶制品 - dairy products</p>
<p>(进行反制的)条件 - the prerequisite (of retaliating)</p>
<p>破产事件 - bankruptcy incidents</p>
<p>反而 - instead</p>
<p>证明 - have proved</p>
<p>这是 - this is</p>
<p>澳方的 - Australia side's</p>
<p>软肋 - weakness</p>
<blockquote>
<p>事实证明澳大利亚非但没有用奶制品进行反制的条件, 反而破产事件证明这是澳方的软肋</p>
<p>The facts have proven Australia not only doesn't have the prerequisite of retaliating with dairy products (<em>against China</em>),  instead, bankruptcy incidents have proven this (<em>dairy products trade with China</em>) is Australia side's weakness</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note:</p>
<p>没有用 means 'useless' when it is used as an adjective</p>
<p>In the context of &quot;[没有][用奶制品进行反制]&quot; , '没有' = 'doesn't have' ; 用 = using</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-03T10:03:08.490Z
2020-06-03T10:11:36.693Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Tang Ho
<p>Rephrase somewhat:</p>

<p>事实证明，<br>
The facts show, </p>

<p>奶制品非但没有成为奥方制约中方的条件，<br>
dairy products not only haven't become an Australian restriction on China, </p>

<p>反而导致了破产事件，<br>
on the contrary they have lead to bankruptcies (in Oz) </p>

<p>变成了奥方的软肋。<br>
(and thus) have become Australia's soft underbelly.</p>

<p>Goddamn, shot meself in the foot again! </p>

<p>Why am I stuck on this god-forsaken world's-biggest island? </p>

<p>Blame the Pommies!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-03T11:30:07.880Z
2020-06-03T11:30:07.880Z
Pedroski
<p>非量? => 非但(不但)(not only)  It's seems a typo.</p>

<p>It should be:</p>

<p>澳大利亚非但没有用奶制品进行反制的条件</p>

<p>Australia not only does not have the conditions of retaliation with dairy products.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-03T09:47:38.877Z
2020-06-03T09:47:38.877Z
高鵬翔
<p>事实证明，澳大利亚《非但》没有用奶制品进行反制的条件，破产事件《反而》证明这是澳方的软肋</p>

<p>非但....，...反而... 递进转折
1- weak, didn't get what you want
2- strong, get what you don't want</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-05T15:41:47.163Z
2020-06-05T15:41:47.163Z
vacing
<p>Today I read an article about Australia considering blocking China importing baby formula (奶粉), which expresses the opinion that the current pandemic has shown what happens if China stops buying Australian dairy products: Australian companies go bankrupt.</p>

<p>In the final paragraph, there is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>事实证明，<strong>澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件</strong>，破产事件反而证明这是澳方的软肋。<br>
  <sub><a href="https://www.sohu.com/a/398221465_100169174" rel="nofollow noreferrer">不用对华限制出口了，澳大利亚牛奶巨头破产，更坏的消息在后面</a>，2020年05月28日</sub></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't clearly understand how the part in bold breaks apart, particularly 非量 and 反制.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Facts [事实] prove [证明], Australia [澳大利亚] ??? [非量] useless [没有用] dairy products [奶制品] conduct [进行] ??? [反制的] conditions [条件], bankruptcy [破产] events [事件] on the contrary [反而] prove [证明] this is [这是] Australia's [澳方的] weakness [软肋].</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Question</strong>: How do I break apart 澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件?</p>

<p>If it helps, <a href="https://translate.google.cn/#view=home&amp;op=translate&amp;sl=zh-CN&amp;tl=en&amp;text=%E4%BA%8B%E5%AE%9E%E8%AF%81%E6%98%8E%EF%BC%8C%E6%BE%B3%E5%A4%A7%E5%88%A9%E4%BA%9A%E9%9D%9E%E9%87%8F%E6%B2%A1%E6%9C%89%E7%94%A8%E5%A5%B6%E5%88%B6%E5%93%81%E8%BF%9B%E8%A1%8C%E5%8F%8D%E5%88%B6%E7%9A%84%E6%9D%A1%E4%BB%B6%EF%BC%8C%E7%A0%B4%E4%BA%A7%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%E5%8F%8D%E8%80%8C%E8%AF%81%E6%98%8E%E8%BF%99%E6%98%AF%E6%BE%B3%E6%96%B9%E7%9A%84%E8%BD%AF%E8%82%8B%E3%80%82" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Google Translate</a> translates to:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Facts have proved that Australia does not have the conditions for countermeasures with dairy products, but the bankruptcy incident has proved that this is Australia's weakness.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-03T11:58:01.953Z
澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件 is a poorly constructed sentence, not to mention the typo.
dan
<grammar><meaning>
How do I break apart the middle part of 事实证明，澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件，破产事件反而证明这是澳方的软肋?
# How do I break apart the middle part of 事实证明，澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件，破产事件反而证明这是澳方的软肋?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-03)

Today I read an article about Australia considering blocking China importing baby formula (奶粉), which expresses the opinion that the current pandemic has shown what happens if China stops buying Australian dairy products: Australian companies go bankrupt.

In the final paragraph, there is:

> 事实证明，**澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件**，破产事件反而证明这是澳方的软肋。  
> [不用对华限制出口了，澳大利亚牛奶巨头破产，更坏的消息在后面](https://www.sohu.com/a/398221465_100169174)，2020年05月28日

I don't clearly understand how the part in bold breaks apart, particularly 非量 and 反制.

> Facts [事实] prove [证明], Australia [澳大利亚] ??? [非量] useless [没有用] dairy products [奶制品] conduct [进行] ??? [反制的] conditions [条件], bankruptcy [破产] events [事件] on the contrary [反而] prove [证明] this is [这是] Australia's [澳方的] weakness [软肋].

**Question**: How do I break apart 澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件?

If it helps, [Google Translate](https://translate.google.cn/#view=home&op=translate&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&text=%E4%BA%8B%E5%AE%9E%E8%AF%81%E6%98%8E%EF%BC%8C%E6%BE%B3%E5%A4%A7%E5%88%A9%E4%BA%9A%E9%9D%9E%E9%87%8F%E6%B2%A1%E6%9C%89%E7%94%A8%E5%A5%B6%E5%88%B6%E5%93%81%E8%BF%9B%E8%A1%8C%E5%8F%8D%E5%88%B6%E7%9A%84%E6%9D%A1%E4%BB%B6%EF%BC%8C%E7%A0%B4%E4%BA%A7%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%E5%8F%8D%E8%80%8C%E8%AF%81%E6%98%8E%E8%BF%99%E6%98%AF%E6%BE%B3%E6%96%B9%E7%9A%84%E8%BD%AF%E8%82%8B%E3%80%82) translates to:

> Facts have proved that Australia does not have the conditions for countermeasures with dairy products, but the bankruptcy incident has proved that this is Australia's weakness.

**Tags:** grammar, meaning
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件 is a poorly constructed sentence, not to mention the typo.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-06-03. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

> 非量 must be a typo of 非但

事实证明 - Facts have proved

澳大利亚 - Australia

非但 - not only

没有 - doesn't have

用 - using

奶制品 - dairy products

(进行反制的)条件 - the prerequisite (of retaliating)

破产事件 - bankruptcy incidents

反而 - instead

证明 - have proved

这是 - this is

澳方的 - Australia side's

软肋 - weakness

> 事实证明澳大利亚非但没有用奶制品进行反制的条件, 反而破产事件证明这是澳方的软肋
>
> The facts have proven Australia not only doesn't have the prerequisite of retaliating with dairy products (*against China*), instead, bankruptcy incidents have proven this (*dairy products trade with China*) is Australia side's weakness

Note:

没有用 means 'useless' when it is used as an adjective

In the context of "[没有][用奶制品进行反制]" , '没有' = 'doesn't have' ; 用 = using


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-06-03. Score: 1

Rephrase somewhat:

事实证明，  
The facts show,

奶制品非但没有成为奥方制约中方的条件，  
dairy products not only haven't become an Australian restriction on China,

反而导致了破产事件，  
on the contrary they have lead to bankruptcies (in Oz)

变成了奥方的软肋。  
(and thus) have become Australia's soft underbelly.

Goddamn, shot meself in the foot again!

Why am I stuck on this god-forsaken world's-biggest island?

Blame the Pommies!


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-06-03. Score: 1

非量? => 非但(不但)(not only) It's seems a typo.

It should be:

澳大利亚非但没有用奶制品进行反制的条件

Australia not only does not have the conditions of retaliation with dairy products.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-06-05. Score: 0

事实证明，澳大利亚《非但》没有用奶制品进行反制的条件，破产事件《反而》证明这是澳方的软肋

非但....，...反而... 递进转折
1- weak, didn't get what you want
2- strong, get what you don't want


---

