Chinese Engine Development

Yes, blade with internal air flow passages.

"冷却叶片" is also a proper term for this type of turbine blades. It should not be break down into individual words.

If we get bit NLP-ish, the parse tree of the phrase is:

(((双级高压涡轮 (冷却叶片))) 设计) 技术研究

It's the technological research of a design. The design in question is the intercooled blade. The intercooled blade is a part of a two-stage high pressure turbine.

 

In such a case, it is the research of the design technology of blade cooling, i.e. how the blade is cooled, instead of the cooled blade itself. So it should be 叶片冷却, instead of 冷却叶片.

I don't use NLP, I read it as Chinese.

 

I agree that the latter part should be break down to research of design technology. The parse tree is there to show the relationship between words in a better way than just breaking them down by spaces.

I don't understand why you are insisting what the title of the research should be. "冷却叶片" is a noun and it is the blade. Given the nature of that list, it is highly likely that the people wrote it know what they are writing. Without evidence to suggest the contrary, we should assume the source material is correct and go from there.

 

叶片冷却 refers to the process, 冷却叶片 refers to the object. Both are valid depending on usage. The former should be translated as "blade cooling" while the latter should be translated as "cooled blade".

 

Research of design technology is more likely referring to a method, 叶片冷却, such as blade cooling, than an object, 冷却叶片, cooled blade. As a matter of fact, "taxiya" also asked the same question. I suppose (s)he is also Chinese and I don't need to use NLP to read Chinese either.

I wouldn't doubt the writer of the poster on their knowledge, but the person could very well mixed up the words, as in typos, meaning something, but typed some other. There are the choices of interpreting the sentence as is, in Chinese, or considering the possibility of typos.

 

Not talking about the nouns themselves, but which version is more consistent with the meaning of the discussed sentence. Please also refer to the message above.

 

设计技术研究 doesn't have to be translated as "research of design technology". I'd argue it's more accurate to translate that as "design and technical/technological research". 设计技术研究 is nonspecific to either an object or a process. 叶片冷却设计技术研究 would refer to design and technical research of the blade cooling process, while 冷却叶片设计技术研究 would refer to the design and technical research of the cooled blades.

 

设计技术研究= research of design technology.
设计(与)技术(的)研究= design and technical/ technological research.

For consistency, 设计技术研究 is referring to a method, which is "design technology", not just any object. But to be fair, it isn't uncommon for people to be inconsistent and refer to any object instead.

叶片冷却设计技术研究= research of design technology on blade cooling.
叶片冷却(的)设计(与)技术(的)研究= design and technical research of the blade cooling process.

冷却叶片设计技术研究= research of design technology on cooled blades (cool the blades, see below).
冷却叶片(的)设计(与)技术(的)研究= design and technical research of cooled blades (cool the blades, see below).

But 冷却叶片设计技术研究 is an improper way of writing Chinese, which should be rewritten as, 叶片冷却设计技术研究, if this is what it is referring to.

冷却叶片= cool the blade(s).
冷却(了的)叶片= cooled blade(s).
叶片冷却= blade cooling.

 

Yes, but the grammar particles aren’t necessary to convey that particular reading. They can help make the sentence more specific, but can also function silently. For example, “设计技术研究” is also only “research of design technology” if you read it as “设计技术(的)研究”. Without inserting a silent “的” you can’t arrive at that particular interpretation and translation. Without implied prepositions the relationship between all the different objects is vague. The sentence ends up reading as a list. Thus without context or prior clauses that clarify relationships between subject object and verb all preposition permutations are technically valid (with some filtering out by semantics, of course).

The bold is exactly what I’m getting at. Prepositions get dropped all the time in Chinese, even in formal writing, often when there’s an assumption that the relationship between objects is commonly understood so the prepositions are unnecessary. Without grammar particulars to cue the sentence we’re all taking stabs at what the writer assumes the relationships between objects are. Chinese can make the Oxford comma problem look like a well defined math equation.

Could also be read as 冷却(的)叶片(的)技术(和)设计研究.

 

It depends on the specifics. For example,

设计技术= design technology. It shouldn't be confused with 设计(与)技术= design and technology. in anyway whatsoever.
冷却叶片= cool the blade(s). It shouldn't be confused with 冷却(了的)叶片= cooled blade(s). in anyway whatsoever.

Just because we have to deal with improperly written Chinese, doesn't mean that it is acceptable. Phrases canbe written better to avoid confusion. And no, we shouldn't try to use improperly written Chinese as an excuse to twist the meaning to one's liking.​

冷却(的)叶片 is even more ambiguous. Rather be 冷却叶片= cool the blade(s) or 冷却(了的)叶片= cooled blade(s).

And as I mentioned above, 技术设计 shouldn't be confused with 技术(和)设计, in anyway whatsoever, unless you can't tell the difference of "technological design" and "technology and design". Connecting words that may change the meaning shouldn't be assumed as omitted and let the reader interpret by excessive guessing.