Persian to Simplified Chinese: counting the intended unit rather than copying a counter
Persian can count without an overt classifier
Roberts describes Persian -tā as an optional classifier after a quantifying expression. His do(-tā) pesar means two boys, while a version with a plural noun can identify two already identifiable boys. Therefore, neither the absence of a counter nor the presence of plural morphology changes the basic quantity to be translated. A Mandarin phrase written in Simplified Chinese needs its own counting construction, not a visible counterpart for each Persian ending.
The same sketch records more specialized counting expressions associated with volumes of books or heads of livestock. These help identify what kind of unit the source counts, but they do not establish a universal one-to-one dictionary correspondence between the two languages’ counters. Before choosing the Mandarin phrase, establish whether the Persian request concerns individual items, a set already under discussion or some measured amount. An omitted optional Persian classifier still leaves a quantity that the target construction must express.
A colloquial Persian counter may carry little lexical detail
The University of Texas counting lesson distinguishes specialized counters from colloquial generic usage. It gives ye dune sib for an apple and describes dāne, literally grain, as extending beyond tiny particles in informal speech. Translating that counter’s lexical origin into Chinese as an extra grain would misidentify the unit. The relevant item in the example is a whole apple.
The lesson also illustrates jeld with books, dastgāh with machines and nafar with people. These associations are useful evidence about the Persian phrase, but register affects how informative a chosen counter is. An inventory-style description can retain a specialized word that an ordinary conversation replaces with a generic one. For Mandarin, recover the actual referent before selecting its conventional classifier. The Persian speaker’s use of an informal general counter does not mean the target should invent a special material, shape or container that the source never intended.
Mandarin distinguishes counting an item from measuring a substance
Wheatley’s MIT lesson separates classifiers for countable referents from measures that portion out substances. Its examples include sān zhī bǐ, three pens, and sān bēi chá, three cups of tea. The inserted words therefore do not all contribute the same kind of meaning: one classifies discrete objects, while the other supplies a measured serving. A Persian numeral with a generic counter must be interpreted before choosing between those target patterns.
The lesson also contrasts liǎng with èr before a measure word when expressing two, while distinguishing larger numbers ending in two. Thus a Persian do cannot select its Mandarin realization independently of the counting construction. In a context where the noun is understood, liǎng ge can stand without repeating it; the quantity remains explicit. These distinctions concern Mandarin grammar and apply when writing the result in Simplified Chinese. Changing character style alone cannot supply a missing classifier or repair an unintended serving size.
Language references