글: 41
언어: English
Tempodivalse (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 17일 오후 10:03:10
How would you translate this sentence into Esperanto most concisely? Specifically, I am interested in "the wine which I saw her drink" bit. My initial reaction was:
-> La du glasoj da vino kiujn mi vidis ŝin malplenigi vespermanĝe igis ŝin babilema.
However, looking at it now, this looks like a bad anglaĵo. Specifically, "Kiujn mi vidis ŝin trinki" looks wrong. So I decided:
-> La du glasoj da vino kiujn mi vidis malplenigitaj de ŝi vespermanĝe igis ŝin babilema.
The second sentence sounds more correct, but I'm wondering what exactly is wrong with the first one - or whether there's an even cleaner way to translate the sentence.
dombola (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 18일 오전 2:05:01
Tempodivalse:-> but I'm wondering what exactly is wrong with the first one -Here is a proposal:
Jen propono:
The two glasses of wine which I saw that she emptied at dinner had made her talkative.
La du glasoj da vino, kiujn mi vidis, ke ŝi malplenigis vespermanĝe igis ŝin babilema.
noelekim (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 18일 오전 2:16:31
dombola:Tempodivalse:And another: Dum la vespermanĝo mi vidis, ke ŝi malplenigis du glasojn da vino, kaj tio babilemigis ŝin
Here is a proposal:
Jen propono:
The two glasses of wine which I saw that she emptied at dinner had made her talkative.
La du glasoj da vino, kiujn mi vidis, ke ŝi malplenigis vespermanĝe igis ŝin babilema.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 18일 오후 12:20:17
But perhaps you could sidestep it this way, since the essence is the quantity of wine that she drank that had the effect.
La du glasoj da vino, kiom mi vidis ŝin trinki je la vespermanĝo, igis ŝin babilema.
or even
La du glasoj da vino, kion mi vidis ŝin trinki je la vespermanĝo, igis ŝin babilema.
Perhaps it is, that kiujn feels wrong to you because it wasn't the glasses that made her drunk, but the wine.
Tempodivalse (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 18일 오후 2:34:13
sudanglo has a good suggestion to connect vino to the verb if I wanted to use trinki here - but what about malplenigi? One cannot empty wine per se, but one can empty (e.g. fully consume) two glasses of wine... Or perhaps this is a bad way of phrasing things in the English, and one should seek a better verb.
sudanglo:Tempo, I find nothing wrong with mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino, so logically why should there be something wrong with la vino, kiun mi vidis ŝin trinki?Fair enough. The first of those sentences is obviously correct. I didn't think of it in those terms.
-> La du glasoj da vino kiujn mi vidis ŝin malplenigi/trinki vespermanĝe (aŭ: je la vespermanĝo) igis ŝin babilema.
So, this looks OK now. It's just not a construction I see used often.
nornen (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 19일 오전 5:26:55
la vino, kiun mi vidis ŝin trinkiIs there any evidence in the tekstaro or any other Esperanto corpus, that you can extract (relativize) the direct object of an infinitive after a full (non-modal) verb?
Is the wine in the subclause accessible?
Some languages allow for this, others don't.
Are these kind of constructions actually permitted and/or generally used and readily understood in Esperanto?
? Tiu estas la viro, kiun mi vidis lin mortigi.
Did I see the killer or the victim?
Velkro (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 19일 오전 7:39:15
Tempodivalse:Sorry, I had meant to say in my initial comment: Specifically, "Kiujn mi vidis ŝin malplenigi" looks wrong.Eltrinki would be my weapon of choice. The English 'empty the glass' calls attention to the glass's emptiness; it's left to the reader to put together (not difficult) that she drank them empty, not say poured them into the geraniums. I think it's clear enough in English, but I wouldn't use it in Esperanto myself, opting for eltrinki.
sudanglo has a good suggestion to connect vino to the verb if I wanted to use trinki here - but what about malplenigi? One cannot empty wine per se, but one can empty (e.g. fully consume) two glasses of wine... Or perhaps this is a bad way of phrasing things in the English, and one should seek a better verb.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 19일 오전 11:06:19
? Tiu estas la viro, kiun mi vidis lin mortigi.Well if you saw someone kill someone, I imagine that you would see both the killer and the victim.
Did I see the killer or the victim?
But I suppose that your point is that there might be uncertainty as to whether the 'kiun' is the object of 'mortigi' or 'vidi'.
But is this plausible?
The structure exemplified by mi vidis lin mortigi is well established and the rule of interpretation is that the part in the accusative (between vidis and mortigi in this case) is considered to be an 'object' of the preceding verb and at the same time a 'subject' of the following infinitive.
If you add an object for mortigi (eg mi vidis lin mortigi mian patrinon) there is no uncertainty about who got killed. Again no uncertainty about kiu vidis lin mortigi mian patrinon?, or jen la viro, kiu vidis la krimulon mortigi vian patrinon
Setting aside whether a sentence like Tiu estas la viro, kiun mi vidis lin (la krimulon) mortigi can be found in the Tekstaro or occurs in speech, there doesn't seem to be any basis for uncertainty in interpretation.
Miland (프로필 보기) 2015년 4월 20일 오후 8:27:00
Tempodivalse:-> The two glasses of wine which I saw her empty at dinner had made her talkative.Here's a couple of suggestions, but they're no more than that:
-> La du glasoj da vino kiujn mi vidis ŝin malplenigi vespermanĝe igis ŝin babilema.
-> La du glasoj da vino kiujn mi vidis malplenigitaj de ŝi vespermanĝe igis ŝin babilema.
..I'm wondering ..whether there's an even cleaner way to translate the sentence.
Ŝi estis babilema pro du glasoj da vino, kiujn ŝi havis kun vespermanĝo, kiel mi vidis.
Vespermanĝe mi vidis, ke ŝi havis du glasojn da vino. Pro tiuj ŝi nun fariĝis babilema.
