Miland:There's a good guidebook on Esperanto style by F. Faulhaber, Ne tiel, sed tiel ĉi! It's in the EAB catalogue as well. It's cheap by the standard of Esperanto books generally. I don't know whether there's a downloadable version somewhere.

http://esperantio.narod.ru/lingve/lingvo/faulhab...

horsto:haltigis sian motoron is certainly wrong. I guess that Castaing doesn't have an engine.

I think it's going a bit too far to call it wrong. It's probably true we don't usually think of an engine as a personal possession in the same way that we would with a car (though as darkweasel pointed out, it undoubtedly is his possession, if the car is). But to me that's only a very minor stylistic detail.

horsto:Also oni ne haltigas motoron, sed la aŭton.

Both concepts seem valid to me, and I see a difference between them. You can stop your car (bring it to a halt) and not necessarily stop the engine. If the translation in question wants to say that he switched the engine off, I see no problem at all with "haltigis sian motoron". Though I would probably say "la motoron de sia aŭto", myself.

tommjames:

horsto:haltigis sian motoron is certainly wrong. I guess that Castaing doesn't have an engine.

I think it's going a bit too far to call it wrong. It's probably true we don't usually think of an engine as a personal possession in the same way that we would with a car (though as darkweasel pointed out, it undoubtedly is his possession, if the car is). But to me that's only a very minor stylistic detail.

horsto:Also oni ne haltigas motoron, sed la aŭton.

Both concepts seem valid to me, and I see a difference between them. You can stop your car (bring it to a halt) and not necessarily stop the engine. If the translation in question wants to say that he switched the engine off, I see no problem at all with "haltigis sian motoron". Though I would probably say "la motoron de sia aŭto", myself.

Thank you, tommjames, for your comment. I also never would say: haltigis sian motoron, I would say haltigis la motoron.
And I still have problems with haltigi motoron. What does it mean? To switch off the engine? Then I would use: malŝalti motoron
And to switch off the engine still doesn't mean that the car stops.

Miland:There's a good guidebook on Esperanto style by F. Faulhaber, Ne tiel, sed tiel ĉi! It's in the EAB catalogue as well. It's cheap by the standard of Esperanto books generally. I don't know whether there's a downloadable version somewhere.

Here's an HTML version and a PDF version.

horsto:
Thank you, tommjames, for your comment. I also never would say: haltigis sian motoron, I would say haltigis la motoron.

From a stylistic point of view, you are right in my opinion.

horsto:
And I still have problems with haltigi motoron. What does it mean? To switch off the engine? Then I would use: malŝalti motoron
And to switch off the engine still doesn't mean that the car stops.

Haltigi just means "to cause to stop (working, moving)" - and I think it’s perfectly logical to say "to cause an engine to stop working" (= haltigi motoron). Though malŝalti is of course also an option.

horsto:And I still have problems with haltigi motoron. What does it mean? To switch off the engine? Then I would use: malŝalti motoron

Yes I think I would usually prefer malŝalti (or elŝalti) too. My understanding is the meaning of haltigi is not limited to stopping things that are in motion, but also things in action or performing some function. So "haltigi la motoron" means "stop the engine" whereas "malŝalti la motoron" means "switch off the engine". Both very similar, and equally valid, but subtly different.

horsto:And to switch off the engine still doesn't mean that the car stops.

Indeed, just as you can stop the car without stopping the engine. However in the translation phrase in question I think the car may already be stationary. If that's the case then "haltigi/malŝalti la motoron" would seem fine to me. But if the car is still moving (maybe sudanglo can confirm?) then yes, I think "sian aŭton" would be better.

The French original is as follows:

On entendait Castaing arrêter son moteur, descendre de voiture, rester un moment sur la route avant de pousser la barrière, et Maigret ne disait toujours rien.

I think Miland makes a good point about rendering the 'On' as 'Ili', since this immediately puts the whole sequence from the perspective of the people in the house.

If I were having a go at putting this in English I don't think I would get bogged down with the idea of switching the engine off. I'd say something like.

They heard Castaing pull up outside in his car, get out and hesitate for a moment on the road before pushing open the garden gate. All the time, Maigret said nothing.

If anybody has the published English translation, then look for how chapter 9 begins.

Don't you feel Jean-luc that 'oni aŭdis iun sonon' is closer to 'something could be heard - was audible?

But 'Ili aŭdis iun sonon' firmly locates the perception from the perspective of a certain group of people.

The use of 'on' (oni) for 'nous' (ni) certainly occurs in French. But I'm not sure that is always transferable to Esperanto.

sudanglo:
The use of 'on' (oni) for 'nous' (ni) certainly occurs in French. But I'm not sure that is always transferable to Esperanto.

It is not. (PMEG: Oni)

En iuj lingvoj oni-pronomo povas esti uzata kun la signifo “ni”. Tio ne eblas en Esperanto: — Kiel vi fartas, amikoj? — Nu, *oni* sufiĉe bone vivas! Diru: ...ni sufiĉe bone vivas.