It’s kind of like the protest names not working sometimes. There has to be a better way to say this.
This is the meaning behind it:
Do not split.
But what is happening in Hong Kong is they come up with a slogan, which is translated as Do Not Split, which is, we know that some people are willing to be confrontational with riot police.
And when they are, that’s going to cost the state in terms of not only resources, but it’s going to cost the state in terms of political capital and support. And we know that there are some people who are not willing to do that. And we are going to abide by the protocol of Do Not Split, which means that we’re not going to criticize them openly, and they’re not going to criticize us openly.
If we’re the pacifists, we’re not going to have them criticize us for being sort of like, I don’t know, limpid or flaccid or not courageous or whatever. And we’re not going to criticize them for being more confrontational. And the thing is that the support is also tacit.
I think you nailed it in the second paragraph. It’s the construction of it. “Don’t Split Us” sounds way better to me. I couldn’t figure out why it seemed so awkward.
Now thinking, perhaps it’s also the lack of an object? As in, would “Don’t Split” and “Do Not Split Us” sound weird for you?
(That might explain why I personally don’t see the slogan as weird - my L1 allows object omission, English doesn’t.)
Yes, those would sound slightly weird to me. Not as weird as “Do Not Split,” but still weird.
That hints both things are in effect - you kind of expect the contraction and the object.