לתוכן העניינים
להגיב

English modality in Esperanto.

של Solulo, 11 בספטמבר 2011

הודעות: 45

שפה: English

Solulo (הצגת פרופיל) 11 בספטמבר 2011, 20:16:15

It may be the case that many people who take up E-o already have a good command of English.
Thus, I'd like to ask the fluent e-o speakers to provide the best and correct translations of;

1. She should have done it...
2. She might have done it..
3. She could have done it...
4. She needn't have done it...
5. She didn't need to do it...

Dankon.

RiotNrrd (הצגת פרופיל) 11 בספטמבר 2011, 22:01:41

I don't know if I'm the most fluent speaker around, but I'll take a crack at it.

1. She should have done it...
Ŝi devintus[1] fari ĝin.

2. She might have done it..
Ŝi eble faris ĝin.

3. She could have done it...
Ŝi povintus[1] fari ĝin.

4. She needn't have done it...
Ŝi faris ĝin senbezone[2].

5. She didn't need to do it...
Ŝi faris ĝin senbezone[2].

Naturally, word order is arbitrary. I followed a more English-like pattern here, but I could have used any.

----------

[1] Some people object to these constructions, for various reasons. However, these usages have apparently become somewhat common, and now appear to be generally interpreted as lexical units with the (English) meanings should have / could have. At least, they are used to communicate those ideas, whether they literally mean them or have just become idiomatic. There have been long discussions of these constructions here in the past.

[2] Or nebezone. I like to mix it up sometimes.

sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 09:31:18

I seem to recall from previous discussions about the translation of 'should have' that there is a subtlety concerning when the obligation is seen to arise - at the time in the past or acknowledged now.

In one case the translation was 'mi devus estis farinta tion' in the other case 'mi estus devinta fari tion'. In both cases the speaker didn't actually do it.

This distinction is confounded in the form 'devintus' - which can be quite handy.

sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 09:58:59

The English word 'could' is used for both 'povi' in the past and unrealised conditionals.

So for some sentences 'could have' might be translated as 'estis/as povinta'.

'You're right, I could have caught an earlier train' might be rendered as 'Vi pravas, mi estis/as povinta trafi pli fruan trajnon' - there was nothing stopping me - but I decided to have breakfast on the station

But 'If I the car had started, I could have caught the earlier train' would be 'Sen la problemoj kun la aŭto mi estus povinta trafi la pli fruan trajnon'.

Edit: I wonder if the first case (when I chose to have breakfast on the station) might not be also rendered as 'Vi pravas, mi estas/estis povunta'.

erinja (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 11:12:27

-unt- is highly unofficial.

ceigered (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 13:08:39

-unt- is too much of a mind!@%# to understand for me rido.gif. Easier just to chuck in an adjective clause.

Solulo (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 13:37:26

RiotNrrd:
4. She needn't have done it...
Ŝi faris ĝin senbezone[2].

5. She didn't need to do it...
Ŝi faris ĝin senbezone[2].
Thank you. I've got some problems with 4 and 5, though. Identical translaions?

cf; She knew it woudn't rain in Sahara so she didn't need to take the umbrella.

She took the umbrella but it did't rain, so she needn't have taken it.

(???)

gianich73 (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 14:21:55

Wouldn't be easier to say "mi povus trafi trajnon" and "mi povis trafi trajnon"? There are no compound tenses in all languages. For instance, there are no in Russian. So, I think you are just translating an English structure into Esperanto. It is ok since we can enrich the language (Esperanto), but maybe it is not necessary. What do you think?

erinja (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 14:49:16

It's true that just because you CAN translate the exact nuance of something, doesn't meant that you should. Each language has a level of detail that it normally presents, and when you speak that language, you will sound strange if you give more (or less) detail than is normal in that language.

For example, in some languages you may use a different grammatical form to describe someone, depending on whether the person is older or younger than you.

In English, we don't distinguish unless it's important for some reason.

Though we are able to distinguish, it would sound very strange if every time I talked about a friend, I specified whether that friend is older or younger. English can handle more detail. But culturally we do not give that much detail unless it's deemed necessary.

It's true in any language that you learn. You have to learn the level of grammatical detail that the language expects, and then follow that. Otherwise people may make false assumptions about things you say.

Solulo (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בספטמבר 2011, 15:28:01

erinja:It's true that just because you CAN translate the exact nuance of something, doesn't meant that you should. Each language has a level of detail that it normally presents, and when you speak that language, you will sound strange if you give more (or less) detail than is normal in that language.
It's true, very true. I like it.

Some languages are "overloaded" with information. Thus, Polish;

śpiewałyśmy (we sang)informs you about;
1. past tense, 2. feminine gender, 3. plurality.

Likewise Spanish:
Quiero que cantes. Queria que cantaras/ases.
..... to sing.

And English;
She was writing, she wrote, she had been writing,... One Polish = pisała.

Every language has sth to sell. So does esperanto.

לראש הדף