# 學生須穿相同的褲子和襯衫



## KYC

Hello, there:
Could you have a look at them?
I saw a sentnece saying in Chinese:
學生須穿相同的褲子和襯衫
I am wondering what I should say in English.
(相同的褲子和襯衫 means the same model pants rather than the same pants and shirts)
Here are my tries:
*1 In the school,students need to wear the same pants and a shirt.*
*2 In the school,students need to wear the same pants and shirts.*
*3 In the school,students need to wear the same pants and the shirt.*
*4 In the school,students need to wear the same pants and the shirts.*

I am wondering how English native speakers say it.
Could you help me?
Thanks a lot!


----------



## englishelp

The word is "match". 
My attempt is this: 
"In school, students need to wear matching shirt and pants."


----------



## KYC

Thnaks for Englishelp's help!
Because I saw its translation answer is:
*Students need to wear the same pants and shirts.*
, I am not sure whether it's right or not.


----------



## char siu bao

"Match" is a good translation, though ambiguous.  Does each student's shirt have to match his pants (for example, if I wear a blue shirt, I must wear blue pants, and my friend can wear a red shirt, but she must then wear red pants)?  Or do all of the students wear the same (style of) shirts and pants (for example, there is a school uniform)?

However, I think the Chinese is similarly ambiguous?

Anyway, I would probably say:
Students must wear matching pants and shirts.
or
Students must wear the same pants and shirts.

If it's a school rule, I think "must" is better than "need to".


----------



## 皮皮鲁

"學生須穿相同的褲子和襯衫" this sentence sounds nothing ambiguous to my ears. 相同的 does not correspond to matching, it denotes the selfsameness of entities in all respects if not modified by other qualifiers, which is the case we are now in, so a shirt and a pair of pants of one student can not be 相同的 though they can be 相同的 in color, in style,etc. Thereupon only one eligible candidate is allowed by logic for the explanation of the author's intended meaning, which though I don't think is what Sir Englishhelp had got in his mind, whose reply is not ambiguous either by my standard, seeing that singular number was used in the word "shirt" which may arguably suffice to dissolve its alleged equivocation.


----------



## palomnik

Out of the possible translations you cite, the closest one is _students need to wear the same pants and shirts. _

It's true that this is slightly ambiguous, because it could imply that there is only one pair of pants for all of the students to share!  However, it's unlikely that anybody would mistake the meaning.


----------



## gunworth

I think it is best to just say:

In school, students must dress in uniforms. 

It sounds like to me that you are stressing the uniformity among students rather than the "matching" shirt and pant on the same person. 

...

I hope I understood you correctly.


----------



## BODYholic

KYC said:


> Hello, there:
> Could you have a look at them?
> I saw a sentnece saying in Chinese:
> 學生須穿相同的褲子和襯衫



This Chinese sentence is ambiguous because of the missing context. I am confused by the subject due to the fact that Chinese noun can not be pluralized like the way English does. Perhaps this clears the air slightly ...  *所有的*學生須穿相同的褲子和襯衫.

I googled and found this ...
"_Students must_ stay in _uniform_ whenever they are on _school premises._"
Source

PS: "相同的褲子和襯衫" - We have a word for this ...  校服.


----------



## char siu bao

Right!  But if they meant 校服, why didn't they just say 校服?  I think that is part of the reason I felt the sentence was ambiguous.

yes, "_Students must_ stay in _uniform_ whenever they are on _school premises" _makes perfect sense in English -- sounds like it is an excerpt from a school rule book.


----------



## BODYholic

Agreed. Perhaps more context would help us to better understand the sentence.


----------



## 皮皮鲁

I can only agree with Palomnik' analysis about the possible ambiguity in the original Chinese text. You just can't let a single student dress 相同的裤子和衬衫, can you?


----------



## BODYholic

For 3 months, *each* student, from different schools, donned 相同的裤子和衬衫 everyday when they come to study. In fact, the school was filled with a sea of uniforms. lol

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b295/BODYholic/WR/colorful.jpg

PS: With suitable context, anything is possible.


----------



## 皮皮鲁

Hi Bodyholic, you got some cute kids out there, but I can hardly see my point get addressed in your example. My take is that the Chinese sentence 学生须穿相同的裤子和衬衣 is open to two interpretations, one being the students are required to be in the same shirts and pants as each other's which means they are in their common uniforms and the other telling us that the students are required to squeeze themself into only one shirt and one pair of pants at the same time as having been stated by Palomnik in his post, which is of course not an option to a mind lacking a sense of humour and imagination.


----------



## BODYholic

In this sentence, "学生须穿 (相同) 的裤子和衬衣", 相同 offers different interpretation depending on what are you comparing with?

1. Student A with Student B
In most cases, we believe it falls in to this category. We are assuming that there are more than one student, and everyone of them ought to dress identically.

2. Student A (yesterday) with Student A (today).
In this case, we are comparing what student wears today has to be the same as what he/she worn yesterday. As much as it may sound silly, I have given a plausible situation in my previous posting.

3. Pants with Shirts
I called this the nit-picking case. Well, if one will to nitpick, one may interpret that "相同的裤子和衬衣" means a pair of pants that looks like shirt. Generally, no Chinese will read it this way.



> the students are required to squeeze themself into only one shirt and one pair of pants at the same time


Sorry but I have to disagree with this.
It is likely that you have mistaken, 相同 and 同一件. For 相同 to work, you must be able to form comparisons.

*相同* - http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/相同/1316612


----------



## 皮皮鲁

First, I must agree with you in your second proposition of the possible ambiguity and admit it hadn't occured to me until you mentioned it. Regarding your different opinoin from mine on the word 相同 being interpreted in that way by me, I'd like to give it a second thought when my head is clearer, but now I must hit the hay after such a long day! Nite!


----------

