讯息： 41
语言: English
erinja (显示个人资料) 2012年6月15日上午10:49:26
per capita means, for each one head, how much [whatever] do we have.
po kapo would mean, going head by head by head - treating each head individually. Whenever a noun comes after "po", I put in an understood "unu" between "po" and the noun.
I'd translate it less literally, "laŭ loĝantaro" (according to population), perhaps. That's really what we're saying, when we say "per capita". We're comparing numbers that have been adjusted for relative population.
"sub surprizo" also doesn't make sense. Under surprise?
xdzt (显示个人资料) 2012年6月15日下午1:36:51
fajrkapo:Yes, sub surprizo would be under surprise, when someone does not know that something is going to happens, mainly in investigation.
I dont know how translate in fraganti, surprize then?
erinja (显示个人资料) 2012年6月15日下午8:31:22
fajrkapo:Yes, sub surprizo would be under surprise, when someone does not know that something is going to happens, mainly in investigation.Maybe that makes sense in your language but it doesn't make sense in English, and I wouldn't have understood the meaning in Esperanto, either.
You have to be careful when translating those kind of idiomatic statements. It makes sense in English to say that someone is "under investigation", something is taken "under advisement", etc. but I would never translate those phrases using "sub" in Esperanto, it wouldn't make sense.
"sub surprizo" wouldn't make sense in any definition of "sub" used in Esperanto.
I also agree that "in flagrante delicto" or "in flagrante" also has nothing to do with surprise. It has to do with being blatent, very obvious, very visible.
I'd translate "in flagrante delicto" as "en evidentega kulpo", perhaps.
fajrkapo (显示个人资料) 2012年6月15日下午9:02:16
erinja: "sub surprizo" wouldn't make sense in any definition of "sub" used in Esperanto.yes, well possibly I confused with -by surprise-, and for that I tried to traduce in Eo, sub surprizo, maybe -en surprizo- or -je surprizo-
I also agree that "in flagrante delicto" or "in flagrante" also has nothing to do with surprise. It has to do with being blatent, very obvious, very visible.
I'd translate "in flagrante delicto" as "en evidentega kulpo", perhaps.
But yes, it does not good for in flagrante, though I do think that expression do have some surprise element, but why not simply -en evidenta delikto- aŭ -en evidento-?
Hyperboreus (显示个人资料) 2012年6月16日上午12:27:12
erinja (显示个人资料) 2012年6月16日上午1:22:22
Hyperboreus:We all know this.erinja:I also agree that "in flagrante delicto" or "in flagrante" also has nothing to do with surprise. It has to do with being blatent, very obvious, very visible.In flagrante actually has nothing to do whether the crime was blatent, obvious or visible.
I'd translate "in flagrante delicto" as "en evidentega kulpo", perhaps.
You wrote a long message about how being caught red-handed is different than being blatantly guilty.
But being caught red-handed is EXACTLY the meaning of being blatantly guilty. You are being caught in the act, so your guilt is very obvious.
kulpo, I said in my previous message, guilt - not krimo, crime. I didn't translate it as a blatant crime, I translated it as blatant/obvious/visible guilt. It is visible and obvious because you have caught someone in the act (red-handed, according to the idiom).
And in idiomatic English today, we don't even say in flagrante delicto to talk about crimes - we talk about catching someone in the sexual act with someone off-limits. I won't even try to translate that specific meaning into Esperanto.
Hyperboreus (显示个人资料) 2012年6月16日上午3:01:08
erinja (显示个人资料) 2012年6月16日下午12:31:02
Hyperboreus:I don't see where the US judicial system enters into it. Being caught committing a crime is different than being found guilty in a court of law, obviously. It doesn't matter how obvious your guilt is, you will still get a trial before being sentenced to some sort of punishment.erinja:But being caught red-handed is EXACTLY the meaning of being blatantly guilty. You are being caught in the act, so your guilt is very obvious.I really hope that this your personal opinion and not how the US juridical system works...