<p>That 三明治 came from transcribing the English word Sandwich into Chinese. That is to say, it is meant to approximate the <strong>pronunciation</strong> of the English word. You aren't meant to interpret the individual characters literally.</p>

<p>As Stan points out, it is sometimes transcribed as 三文治 as well. Historically it has also been written as 三味治, but that's pretty much extinct.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T13:51:55.053Z
And sometimes it is translated as 三文治.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T13:42:31.857Z
2014-06-24T14:06:29.840Z
2014-06-24T14:06:29.840Z
Semaphore
<p>I couldnt comment because I dont have 50 reputations but I have something i must say so I'll just post an answer.</p>

<p><strong>Stumpy Joe Pete:</strong></p>

<p>Since you are talking about in general, there are times education level and the result of borrowing word is relevant. I know linguists tend to consider more linguistic aspects of things, but this is just life and things aren't perfect. someone made a bad or arbitrary decision and people starting to use it, then it became a standard, such things happen. (hint: what are you typing with? Dvorak?)</p>

<p>Of course, this is not the case. Alex's comment might be a bit offensive, but you should try to respond professionally.</p>

<p><strong>Edit:</strong>
In no way I am saying one is more linguistic than other, that is for linguistic people to debate. I am a native speaker of Chinese, and I am simply commenting which practice I would prefer and why. Borrowing words by sound give new meaning to old characters, this becomes burden of memory and communication when it reaches a certain level. Sounds does not make sense on its own, unless you already know the roots in other language, but a translation by meaning would, to some point. </p>

<p>I do understand there are many today's common expressions are or partially are translated by sound (such as 苹果 for apple), it is not the case I'm against any of those or more of those. Some stuff are just hard to translate I agree.
It is simply the case after arguing with people I still have to use this language every day, and I want it to be something I understand more easily if possible.</p>

<p><strong>Alex:</strong></p>

<p>English is common for today's Japanese people. Have you heard them pronouncing it? I think its because the difference in sound is large and whether allowing closed syllables. The fact Chinese is strictly one syllable per character also played some role. </p>

<p><strong>for the question:</strong></p>

<p>Since nobody mentioned it. One possible reason this question is asked is: in mainland China, we strive to use less pronunciation based translations. Examples: </p>

<ul>
<li>奶酪 起司 cheese</li>
<li>番茄酱 番茄沙司 ketchup(lit. tomato sauce, but we don't use the actual tomato sauce that much so)</li>
<li>面包片 吐司 toast</li>
<li>出租车 的士 taxi</li>
<li>公共汽车 巴士 bus (for public transport system)</li>
</ul>

<p>the left ones are what thought to be more "official" "written" "professional" in mainland china.</p>

<p>Chinese characters are meant to be the meaning of something mostly. We strive to reduce words like 三明治 is because having more translations that are mere symbol of sounds breaks the system.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T14:10:01.650Z
thanks for elaborating on the point why things are not 'translated' correctly back in the old times.  It is hard to explain what is a cassette when everyone owns an iphone~
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T16:05:23.030Z
It is true that Chinese generally prefers calques over phonetic borrowings (especially mainland), but it's not the case that one is more "linguistic" than the other. Both are ways that words are borrowed from one language to another. It's also not the case that transliteration in Chinese is new--the meaning for 塔 of "tower" is from a transliteration of Sanskrit "stupa" into Chinese.
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T10:12:55.603Z
2014-06-29T02:53:24.040Z
2014-06-29T02:53:24.040Z
Zuoanqh
<p>Adding my 2 cents...<br>
English was not properly pronunced during earlier age where it is not as common in China / Asia region.  People will use similar terms to remember how it's prounced, for e.g.:  </p>

<p><strong>sand-wit-chi</strong> will be used to remember how sandwiches is prounced, and "sand" sounded similar to "三" and so on.  These terms are then eventually became the item's name.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T20:52:39.007Z
Transliteration is _not_ "lazy pronunciation".
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T21:02:01.063Z
Try to think of the time where people's average education level is around pre-junior high =)
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T22:36:27.220Z
Education level is irrelevant. When a word is borrowed into a language, it needs to be adapted to the phonology of that language. "Bok choy" is pronounced [paːk˨ tsʰɔːi˧] in Cantonese but [bak tʃʰɔːi] in English. This is not because English speakers are uneducated or careless. It's because English phonology is totally different from Cantonese phonology! Similarly, "sandwich" has a phonetic structure that is incompatible with that of Mandarin, including the -nd- consonant cluster and final -ch.
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T14:00:51.893Z
I did not mentioned it's the english speakers are uneducated or careless, in fact you might want to stop assuming things, and stop judging if it's correct to for such transliteration.  It is simply a fact why these name comes up in this way.  Speak with Chinese that born in America / Canada nowadays and you won't find such phonology differences.  I do agree with Zuoanqh that it still exists nowaday (e.g. in Japan).  Keep in mind what is the question, and read again my answer.  I do not tend to explain orgins of things, just a fact why it's happening.
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T14:02:55.220Z
By the way, education level IS relevant when you are talking about learning foreign language
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T16:13:13.210Z
三明治 is _not_ an English word. It's a _Chinese_ word. Pronounced by _Chinese_ speakers. It's not a foreign language. It's been _borrowed into Chinese_ and _adapted to a pronunciation compatible with Chinese_. The example I gave was going the other way: 白菜 was borrowed into English as "Bok Choy" (and the pronunciation was adapted to English phonology). Phonology is a property of a language, not of an individual. "Sandwich"=[sændwɪtʃ] is not a well-formed Mandarin word, regardless of how well educated someone is. 三明治＝[san˥miŋ˧˥tʂɨ˥˩] is.
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T16:53:16.993Z
Sorry I will stop discussing with you Joe, I think I gave the reason why 三明治 means sandwich and also gave some background on it.  Think of **WHY** Sandwich"=[sændwɪtʃ] is not a well-formed Mandarin word in the first place.  It is similar to "why don't we take the plane while car wasn't invented"
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-25T17:15:22.747Z
Oh by the way, Transliteration **comes** from "lazy pronunciation" in many common cases, believe it or not
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-30T22:50:19.910Z
@Alex, In your original answer, you seem to be suggesting that the word 三明治 was initially used by early English learners in China, who had limited education, as a mnemonic, which later becomes an adaptation of the English word into Chinese. This is may or may not be a correct assumption. Do you have any proof to back it up? Even it were, it does not mean 三明治 is a 'lazy pronunciation'; it is the best we can do as we introduce this word into Chinese. Even today, when we translate a new English term into Chinese, we are still using an similar approach. For instance, Android would become 安卓.
Mingjing Zhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T14:48:26.247Z
@MingjingZhang Hi Mingjing, are you sure we want to get into looking for 'proof'?  On the other hand, these so-called Transliteration are becoming more official these day (just like web languages), that are way more popular than 20 years ago.  I can't imagine what Chinese language looks like in another 10 years.
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T17:35:59.043Z
2014-06-24T17:35:59.043Z
Alex
<p>I am a native English speaker who is learning Mandarin Chinese for the AP Chinese test next year. I stumbled on this "anomaly", and I would like your help. Thank you.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T16:22:30.490Z
I won't post this as an answer since I have no good evidence for my version, but you see, it is written as "3 clear rules" which exactly represents a sandwitch since a sandwitch has 3 parts - top, middle and bottom and they are very distinct and they are the rules by which a sandwitch is made - without them there is no sandwitch, and this is bright clear. Thank you.
noncom
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-24T20:54:30.903Z
@noncom This may work as a mnemonic, but it is clearly an incorrect theory. As made clear by the answers below, it's a _transliteration_, nothing more.
Stumpy Joe Pete
<translation>
Why does 三明治 mean sandwich when 三 means 3, 明 means bright/clear, and 治 means to rule?
# Why does 三明治 mean sandwich when 三 means 3, 明 means bright/clear, and 治 means to rule?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-24)

I am a native English speaker who is learning Mandarin Chinese for the AP Chinese test next year. I stumbled on this "anomaly", and I would like your help. Thank you.

**Tags:** translation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I won't post this as an answer since I have no good evidence for my version, but you see, it is written as "3 clear rules" which exactly represents a sandwitch since a sandwitch has 3 parts - top, middle and bottom and they are very distinct and they are the rules by which a sandwitch is made - without them there is no sandwitch, and this is bright clear. Thank you.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 This may work as a mnemonic, but it is clearly an incorrect theory. As made clear by the answers below, it's a _transliteration_, nothing more.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-06-24. Score: 11

That 三明治 came from transcribing the English word Sandwich into Chinese. That is to say, it is meant to approximate the **pronunciation** of the English word. You aren't meant to interpret the individual characters literally.

As username_4 points out, it is sometimes transcribed as 三文治 as well. Historically it has also been written as 三味治, but that's pretty much extinct.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: And sometimes it is translated as 三文治.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-06-25. Score: 1

I couldnt comment because I dont have 50 reputations but I have something i must say so I'll just post an answer.

**username_2 Joe username_2:**

Since you are talking about in general, there are times education level and the result of borrowing word is relevant. I know linguists tend to consider more linguistic aspects of things, but this is just life and things aren't perfect. someone made a bad or arbitrary decision and people starting to use it, then it became a standard, such things happen. (hint: what are you typing with? Dvorak?)

Of course, this is not the case. username_6's comment might be a bit offensive, but you should try to respond professionally.

**Edit:**
In no way I am saying one is more linguistic than other, that is for linguistic people to debate. I am a native speaker of Chinese, and I am simply commenting which practice I would prefer and why. Borrowing words by sound give new meaning to old characters, this becomes burden of memory and communication when it reaches a certain level. Sounds does not make sense on its own, unless you already know the roots in other language, but a translation by meaning would, to some point.

I do understand there are many today's common expressions are or partially are translated by sound (such as 苹果 for apple), it is not the case I'm against any of those or more of those. Some stuff are just hard to translate I agree.
It is simply the case after arguing with people I still have to use this language every day, and I want it to be something I understand more easily if possible.

**username_6:**

English is common for today's Japanese people. Have you heard them pronouncing it? I think its because the difference in sound is large and whether allowing closed syllables. The fact Chinese is strictly one syllable per character also played some role.

**for the question:**

Since nobody mentioned it. One possible reason this question is asked is: in mainland China, we strive to use less pronunciation based translations. Examples:

* 奶酪 起司 cheese
* 番茄酱 番茄沙司 ketchup(lit. tomato sauce, but we don't use the actual tomato sauce that much so)
* 面包片 吐司 toast
* 出租车 的士 taxi
* 公共汽车 巴士 bus (for public transport system)

the left ones are what thought to be more "official" "written" "professional" in mainland china.

Chinese characters are meant to be the meaning of something mostly. We strive to reduce words like 三明治 is because having more translations that are mere symbol of sounds breaks the system.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: thanks for elaborating on the point why things are not 'translated' correctly back in the old times.  It is hard to explain what is a cassette when everyone owns an iphone~  
> **username_2**: It is true that Chinese generally prefers calques over phonetic borrowings (especially mainland), but it's not the case that one is more "linguistic" than the other. Both are ways that words are borrowed from one language to another. It's also not the case that transliteration in Chinese is new--the meaning for 塔 of "tower" is from a transliteration of Sanskrit "stupa" into Chinese.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-06-24. Score: 0

Adding my 2 cents...  
English was not properly pronunced during earlier age where it is not as common in China / Asia region. People will use similar terms to remember how it's prounced, for e.g.:

**sand-wit-chi** will be used to remember how sandwiches is prounced, and "sand" sounded similar to "三" and so on. These terms are then eventually became the item's name.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Transliteration is _not_ "lazy pronunciation".  
> **username_6**: Try to think of the time where people's average education level is around pre-junior high =)  
> **username_2**: Education level is irrelevant. When a word is borrowed into a language, it needs to be adapted to the phonology of that language. "Bok choy" is pronounced [paːk˨ tsʰɔːi˧] in Cantonese but [bak tʃʰɔːi] in English. This is not because English speakers are uneducated or careless. It's because English phonology is totally different from Cantonese phonology! Similarly, "sandwich" has a phonetic structure that is incompatible with that of Mandarin, including the -nd- consonant cluster and final -ch.  
> **username_6**: I did not mentioned it's the english speakers are uneducated or careless, in fact you might want to stop assuming things, and stop judging if it's correct to for such transliteration.  It is simply a fact why these name comes up in this way.  Speak with Chinese that born in America / Canada nowadays and you won't find such phonology differences.  I do agree with username_5 that it still exists nowaday (e.g. in Japan).  Keep in mind what is the question, and read again my answer.  I do not tend to explain orgins of things, just a fact why it's happening.  
> **username_6**: By the way, education level IS relevant when you are talking about learning foreign language  
> **username_2**: 三明治 is _not_ an English word. It's a _Chinese_ word. Pronounced by _Chinese_ speakers. It's not a foreign language. It's been _borrowed into Chinese_ and _adapted to a pronunciation compatible with Chinese_. The example I gave was going the other way: 白菜 was borrowed into English as "Bok Choy" (and the pronunciation was adapted to English phonology). Phonology is a property of a language, not of an individual. "Sandwich"=[sændwɪtʃ] is not a well-formed Mandarin word, regardless of how well educated someone is. 三明治＝[san˥miŋ˧˥tʂɨ˥˩] is.  
> **username_6**: Sorry I will stop discussing with you Joe, I think I gave the reason why 三明治 means sandwich and also gave some background on it.  Think of **WHY** Sandwich"=[sændwɪtʃ] is not a well-formed Mandarin word in the first place.  It is similar to "why don't we take the plane while car wasn't invented"  
> **username_6**: Oh by the way, Transliteration **comes** from "lazy pronunciation" in many common cases, believe it or not  
> **username_7**: @username_6, In your original answer, you seem to be suggesting that the word 三明治 was initially used by early English learners in China, who had limited education, as a mnemonic, which later becomes an adaptation of the English word into Chinese. This is may or may not be a correct assumption. Do you have any proof to back it up? Even it were, it does not mean 三明治 is a 'lazy pronunciation'; it is the best we can do as we introduce this word into Chinese. Even today, when we translate a new English term into Chinese, we are still using an similar approach. For instance, Android would become 安卓.  
> **username_6**: @username_7 Hi username_7, are you sure we want to get into looking for 'proof'?  On the other hand, these so-called Transliteration are becoming more official these day (just like web languages), that are way more popular than 20 years ago.  I can't imagine what Chinese language looks like in another 10 years.  

---

