the newly inaugurated state is unusual, unlike the Qing dynasty.
No.1
the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual in character, entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
Part I Revision:
the new state we have just inaugurated is entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
Part II Analysis:
没发现太大的问题啊，精简一下吧
1.翻译:The new state we have just inaugurated is unusual(in character), entirely different from the (empire of) Qing dynasty.
2.说明: Firstly, let’s look at the meaning of “unusual” :it means remarkable because of different trait. So it is not necessary to say “in character” again. Secondly, in my opinion, we usually use “Qing dynasty” to express “清朝” ,and it is redundant to add “empire”.
补充:改完后自己到百度搜索,居然发现在一个论坛(http://www.zftrans.com/bbs/simple/index.php?t3340.html) 里有这题,看来白马兄在选题上还是需要小心哦!
改词：The new regime we have just founded is distinct in character, differing vastly from the empire of Qing dynasty
调句：The newly-founded regime differs vastly from the Qing dynasty.
My humble try--Our newly founded State with its unusual characteristics is entirely different from the empire of the Qing Dynasty.
part I: Revision
R: the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual , entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty.
Part II: Analysis
in the sentence, "unusual" means having some special characters, which make one thing different from another. so that the phrase "in character" is unnecessary. but in chinese expression, 独特性has an independent place, whick may influence the thinking approach while composing the whole sentence.
1. The state we have just inaugurated is entirely different from Qing dynasty.
2. First, we could hardly inaugurate something "old", so the word "new" should be removed. Secondly, when we say something is unusual, the thing has to exhibit some characteristics unique to itself in the first place. In other words, it should be distinguished from others by nature not just by one or two peripheral features, and this again turns the prepositional phrase "in character" into something unnecessary. Thirdly, when entering upon the adjective "different", we should realize we now come across another case of redundency because no one could, in reality, find something "unusual" from but "the same" as something else. Fourthly, if we take the contexts into consideration, linguistic and situational alike, we may well spot a further example of loose translation here: the speaker and the audience must have long enjoyed the knowledge that Qing dynasty is not an entity created by God or God in the flesh but an "empire" in the history of China.
No.1
the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual in character, entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
Before my answering you, I should point out that your "tip" -- this word is most probably wrongly used, as most of the time we will use its plural form of "tips" or "hints", also, I cannot understand why you don't present your sentence as what a sentence should be, for example, to use the capitalized letter at the very beginning of the sentence, since it seems that you are doing a serious business -- is somewhat misleading, which in some way guides us to the consideration of how to simplify the sentence. (Forgive me, as a teacher of translation, I cannot stand such kind of negligence.)
With this as the basis, my answers go as the following:
Part 1: Revision
The new state is different from the empire of Qing Dynasty.
Part 2: Analysis
a. "have just inaugurated " means the same as "new"
b. "we", in the context can be well deduced
c. "unusual" means the same as "different"
d. "in character", as well as "entirely", rhetorically, is a redundant expression,
By the way, if without your "tip", I will deal with this "sentence" in this way:
Characteristically, the state newly founded by us is different from that of the Qing Dynasty.
Some explanation for mine: To lay emphasis on the difference, the better way is to stress the character, hence "characteristically" as the very beginning; "inaugurate" is hardly encountered when the matter referred to is a nation, hence replaced by "found"; logically, "state" and "empire" are not absolutely on a par,and since the sentence's very intention is to stress the difference, hence you can only consider the contrast between the two lies in the regime or something of the same kind; the last, often when a certain Chinese dynasty is mentioned, we will make it capitalized and put "the" before it.
Finally, despite all the faults-picking acts, I hope you won't be offended, since I know by some of your posters that you are very sincere in your efforts toward English. If you don't mind, you can contact me via this website's online messages for further discussion, which will be more valued than some material awards. Best wishes for you and the tournament.
Part I Revision:
the state we have just inaugurated is unusual in character, entirely different from the Qing Empire
Part II Analysis:
(1) inaugurate v. 开创
“开创”本身就是开创一个新的东西，所以觉得这个"new"没必要。
(2)empire 和 dynasty语义重复，应去掉一个。
The state we have just inaugurated is entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty.
Part I Revision:
the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual, entirely different from the empire of the Qing dynasty
Part II Analysis:
The words "is unusual" mean unusual characteristics, so that "in character" are superfluous.
Part.1 Entirely different from the Qing Dynasty,the character of our new state is unusual.
Part.2 原句句子结构像中式，词意有重复,"dynasty"首字母应大写。所以“Entirely different from the Qing Dynasty”前置，并改为“character”做主语，去掉多余的词。看表达需要，还可简洁为“Our new state is entirely different from the Qing Dynasty."
No.1
the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual in character, entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
Part I Revision:
the new state we have just inaugurated is entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
Part II Analysis:
It is bit redundant for adding "unusual"
修改为：No.1
the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual, entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
分析：本文“in character”纯属多余，我们说“unusual”，"entirely different"已经包含了“in character”的不同，无需赘述。
Part I Revision:The new state we have just inaugurated is entirely different from the empire of the Qing dynasty.
Part II Analysis:1) UNUSUAL IN CHARACTER has the same meaning with ENTIRELY;
2) Revised sentence has clearer structure by using attributive clause to decorate subject "the new state" and copulative struction to make the meaning straight and simple.
"new" should be eliminated,because "inaugurate" means a new terms of goverment.
the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual in character, entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
I. Revision:
The new state we have just inaugurated is unusual, entirely different from Qing Dynasty.
II. Analysis:
"Unusual in character" is wordy and "the empire of Qing dynasty" has a sense of eulogizing its virtues and achievements, so they should be revised.
Par 1: the new state we have just inaugurated has unusual character entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty.
Part 2: The writer want to express the comparison between the new state and the empire of Qing dynasty. The character of the new state is entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty. I don't agree with some friends about their opinion that word "character" repeats word "unusual" in meaning. In order to support my idea, I searched the key phrase "unusual character" and got a lot of results. One of the results is "The unusual character of water" from www.fishdoc.co.uk/water/cocktail04.htm. So word "character" dosen't repeat word "unusual". I think the mistake in this sentence is on its structure. So I adjusted it.
No.1
the new state we have just inaugurated is unusual in character, entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
Part I Revision:
the new state we have just inaugurated is entirely different from the empire of Qing dynasty
Part II Analysis:
literal meaning of "unusual " have the same meaning with "different "
Part One:
The new state that we have inaugurated justly is unusual in character and entirely different tothe empire of Qing dynasty.
Part Two:
The word "just" is adj and it can't be to follow the verb. The subject of the second sentance is absent, and it is the habit of Chinese to make the sentance.