In my opinion, "Okaze ke iu telefonos...", the implication is already that someone will not phone, so you don't need to add an extra word to emphasize the uncertainty.

It gives a similar sense to "Should someone phone, ...", which also does not say explicitly that someone probably won't call.

sudanglo:How would you translate:

The European central bank should do what central banks are supposed to do and become a lender of last resort.

= La eŭropa centra banko faru tion, kion centraj bankoj devas fari, tio estas fariĝi lastinstanca monpruntanto.

sudanglo:Not long to wait. A bus should be along in the next few minutes.

= Ne necesos longe atendi. Aŭtobuso devas alveni post kelke da minutoj.

erinja:In my opinion, "Okaze ke iu telefonos...", the implication is already that someone will not phone, so you don't need to add an extra word to emphasize the uncertainty.

It gives a similar sense to "Should someone phone, ...", which also does not say explicitly that someone probably won't call.

Yes, 'Okaze ke..' seems pretty good.

The full English version would be 'If someone should phone...', or even 'If someone should happen to call'! However, I think it's more common, at least in spoken English (in Britain) to say 'If someone happens to call'.

In the Tekstaro there are a few instances of 'Se hazarde...'. Maybe that fits with the meaning we're after, too?

If I can poke my nose a bit further into this. It makes no sense to try and replicate the nuances between languages; transliteration instead of translation causes needless problems.
This is a problem someone learning their first foreign language eventually comes to realise, when they see that trying to replicate the particular exact structure of one language into another doesn't work, and doesn't need to work that way.

Sometimes you just learn to express the same things in a completely different way, not even looking to find exact replacements for every word. I don't think it even matters at all what the peculiarities of English are because Esperanto doesn't have to cater to every peculiarity, nor even to English.

I've found that speaking German or Dutch with an eye on how I'm going to translate something from English is just a hindrance. Thinking and building in the language one is using is best. It has to be the same in Esperanto, which is simply not structured like English.

sudanglo:I am upset that you should think I did it on purpose = Konsternas min, ke vi povas pensi ke mi intence faris tion. (also povis pensi and possibly povu pensi)

Isn't 'konsterni' a little too extreme for 'upset'? Perhaps it would be better to use 'Ĉagrenas min, ke...'

Without the context it's difficult to judge exactly what the role of 'should' is in that sentence. I would translate it as simply:

"Ĉagrenas min, ke vi pensas, ke mi faris tion intence."

sudanglo:1. I should like to have studied medicine = Mi volonte estus studinta medicinon. or, Mi ŝatus esti studinta medicinon.

2. I was anxious that nobody should be hurt =
Mi tre deziris ke neniu vundiĝu.

Yes, they seem good to me.

Vestitor:If I can poke my nose a bit further into this. It makes no sense to try and replicate the nuances between languages; transliteration instead of translation causes needless problems.

It is true that you will never replicate all of the nuances of a sentence in a target language. But sometimes it's useful to try, just to help learners get an idea of the range of expression that's possible in the target language.

For example, a learner reading this discussion might come away from it having learned the Esperanto expressions of "okaze ke...", the construction of "ke [] -u, ..."

You'll never end up with an exact translation of a sentence, with all of its original nuances intact. But by talking about different alternatives, learners can learn how to express different nuances in Esperanto (which may be entirely different from the nuances that are easily expressed in another language).

Chainy:
Very nice theory, but it would be more useful to actually offer some suggestions about how to translate the sentences under discussion.

The very point is NOT to translate the sentences under discussion, but to build sentences with Esperanto tools according to what you what to say.

No-one gets fluent by working as a translation machine. Translation is for instances already in another language, like: a book; someone you are interpreting for.

erinja:

Vestitor:If I can poke my nose a bit further into this. It makes no sense to try and replicate the nuances between languages; transliteration instead of translation causes needless problems.

It is true that you will never replicate all of the nuances of a sentence in a target language. But sometimes it's useful to try, just to help learners get an idea of the range of expression that's possible in the target language.

For example, a learner reading this discussion might come away from it having learned the Esperanto expressions of "okaze ke...", the construction of "ke [] -u, ..."

You'll never end up with an exact translation of a sentence, with all of its original nuances intact. But by talking about different alternatives, learners can learn how to express different nuances in Esperanto (which may be entirely different from the nuances that are easily expressed in another language).

Yes, I have to agree, it is useful. Though a line has to be drawn or it ends up as an endless stream of: 'how do I say X, in Esperanto'?