China has also made initial progress in making investments abroad. China has more than 160 foreign investment markets, and 5,793 investment enterprises outside Chinese territory. China’s total agreed investments have come to 6.5 billion US dollars-worth. These overseas investment enterprises are engaged in a wide range of businesses, including foreign trade, real estate investment, information consultancy, finance, insurance, catering, tourism, contracting for labor services, culture, education, public health and technology development.
By “has more than 160 foreign investment markets” does the author mean “has relations with them”, “has access to them” or “has control over them” or something else???
And why is it grammatically correct to say “has them” instead of what it means?
It could mean any of those, but I think the most probable interpretation is that it has relations with them.
I am not a native English speaker and I don’t read much so it sounds quite weird to me if the author meant that. Are you sure you are absolutely correct?
The best explanation to this I could think of is that “has more than 160 foreign investment markets” is a metaphor. Is that so?
I’m sure I’m right. It’s not a metaphor. It means it “has its fingers in” 160 foreign investment markets. That means that it has investments in 160 countries, but not that it has control over those markets or merely has access over them. It means that China has investment relationships in 160 countries.
So are you saying that it is an ellipsis?
I don’t see how “have those markets” could translate into “is involved in those markets”.
It’s not an ellipsis but just an awkward, somewhat ambiguous wording. If I were to write it myself, I would say that China is active in more than 160 foreign investment markets.
I’m sure the original is not the author’s best writing.
Then it’s an error?
Hmmm, would you mind reading this and tell me if you’d agree that it is a dead metaphor and why?
A dead metaphor is one in which the sense of a transferred image is not present. Example: “to grasp a concept” or “to gather you’ve understood.” Both of these phrases use a physical action as a metaphor for understanding (itself a metaphor), but in none of these cases do most speakers of English actually visualize the physical action. Dead metaphors, by definition, normally go unnoticed. Some people make a distinction between a “dead metaphor” whose origin most speakers are entirely unaware of (such as “to understand” meaning to get underneath a concept), and a dormant metaphor, whose metaphorical character people are aware of but rarely think about (such as “to break the ice”). Others, however, use dead metaphor for both of these concepts, and use it more generally as a way of describing metaphorical cliché.
I didn’t say it was an error! I just said it was slightly awkward, ambiguous language.
And it’s not a dead metaphor. You’re way off track, Molly.
Have means “to be in possession of”. You can’t be “in possession of a market” literally.
Who cares what it means literally?
Besides, “have” has quite a few different dictionary definitions, including (Oxford American Dictionary):
“used to indicate a particular relationship”
“have gained”
“to suffer from”
“let”
…and many, many others.
The only definition that is close to mean literally what would be proper here is:
- to take part in; hold (=to cause to take place; carry on)
But the thing is that you cannot hold a market!
You can hold/have a conversation, but you can’t “have” a market!
Nevermind, you are right. I lose.