Huff had a section on this which I didn’t cover for space reasons but which matches what you say. (p. 293)
In his analysis of the Chinese system of written communication, Derk
Bodde points to the many weaknesses of the Chinese language as an instrument
of clear and unambiguous communication. These include its ancient lack
of punctuation, the habit of ignoring paragraph indentations, capitalization
of proper names (or the use of other signibers), and the lack of continuous
pagination, as well as the absence of a system of alphabetization. 17 The importance
of the last of these as an aid to the organization of knowledge can hardly
be overstated. This state of affairs is itself related to the absence of Chinese
grammarians until the twentieth century.18
Professor Bodde also notes that Chinese characters tend to be monosyllabic,
and although they have undergone relatively little morphological change, they
are capable of taking on very different meanings. Indeed, alternative translations
(which are grammatically correct) may produce diametrically opposite
meanings (on which more later). On another level, Bodde accentuates
the tendency of writers of literary Chinese to use a great variety of archaic
metaphors, allusions, cliches, and notoriously unmarked direct transcriptions
from ancient authors. These practices obviously present many pitfalls for the
unwary reader or unfortunate translator. 19
The ambiguity of Chinese words and their use is illustrated by the following
example. A simple phrase from Confucius is composed of eight terms: Kung
hu yi tuan ssu hai yeh yi. This phrase, Bodde tells us, could be given two
literal translations which are apposite: “Attack on strange shoots this harmful
is indeed” or “Study of strange shoots these harmful are indeed. “20 Given
a fluid English translation, this phrase has four equally correct translations
according to Bodde:
1. “To attack heterodox doctrines: this is harmful indeed!”
2. “Attack heterodox doctrines [because] these are harmful indeed!”
3. “To study heterodox doctrines: this is harmful indeed!”
4. “Study heterodox doctrines [because] these are harmful indeed!”
Ahh, the famous Lun Yu. It is full of such expressions that direct translation gives you a headache. To me the most famous example would be “民可使由之不可使知之”. Due to the lack of punctuation it can be translated in two different ways:
1: 民可使由之，不可使知之：common people shall be commanded, (but) not enlightened.
2: 民可，使由之。不可，使知之。：(if) common people are well educated let them act on their own. If not, enlighten them. Pretty drastically different political ideal here.
Huff had a section on this which I didn’t cover for space reasons but which matches what you say. (p. 293)
Ahh, the famous Lun Yu. It is full of such expressions that direct translation gives you a headache. To me the most famous example would be “民可使由之不可使知之”. Due to the lack of punctuation it can be translated in two different ways:
1: 民可使由之，不可使知之：common people shall be commanded, (but) not enlightened.
2: 民可，使由之。不可，使知之。：(if) common people are well educated let them act on their own. If not, enlighten them. Pretty drastically different political ideal here.