Al la enhavo

Translation competitions

de sudanglo, 2011-januaro-14

Mesaĝoj: 187

Lingvo: English

Miland (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-07 18:06:44

NothingHere:Nu, ĉu vi vere dezirus por tiuj ĉi geaĉuloj pekus ĝis ili falus al Inferon? Vi ne dezirus, ja. Sed kiamaniere ili alie eskapus la fajron?
I'm still something of a beginner..
I think you've done pretty well for a beginner! Watch how other people translate it, particularly where any use the imperative form -u. I will make only a few comments for now:
If you want to use por for "that", then you need the infinitive afterwards: peki. For "into" I would use en.

3rdblade (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-07 21:34:45

Miland:"Now, would you really have desired that these poor wretches should have sinned on till they dropped into hell? Surely you would not. But by what other means was it possible they should have been plucked out of the fire?"
Nun, ĉu vi vere deziris ke la ulaĉoj pekus ĝis ili falis Inferen? Ja ne. Tamen, per kiu alia maniero eblis ke, ili ekprenitus el la fajro?

sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-08 14:21:49

Nu, ĉu vi vere estus volinta ke ĉi tiuj kompatinduloj (povraj mizeruloj?) daŭre peku ĝis ili falus Inferen. Mi ne kredas ke jes. Sed per kiu alia rimedo oni estus povinta ilin savi.

UUano (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-21 16:41:18

Miland:Here it is:

"Now, would you really have desired that these poor wretches should have sinned on till they dropped into hell? Surely you would not. But by what other means was it possible they should have been plucked out of the fire?"
Nu, ĉu vi vere dezirus ke tiuj ĉi kompatindaj geaĉuloj pekadus ĝis ili estus falintaj inferen? Laŭeble ne. Sed per kiaj aliaj rimedoj eblis ekkapti ilin el la fajro?

darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-21 16:47:07

UUano:geaĉuloj
It is not at all necessary to use ge- here. Aĉuloj does not imply any particular sex, so there is no problem to use just that.

UUano (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-21 20:54:21

darkweasel:
UUano:geaĉuloj
It is not at all necessary to use ge- here. Aĉuloj does not imply any particular sex, so there is no problem to use just that.
OK. How about "kompatindaĉuloj", which is what I started to write?

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-22 05:19:00

UUano:
darkweasel:
UUano:geaĉuloj
It is not at all necessary to use ge- here. Aĉuloj does not imply any particular sex, so there is no problem to use just that.
OK. How about "kompatindaĉuloj", which is what I started to write?
Nup. Only a few things have gender connotations, and for some writers that number is dwindling (e.g. with bovoj). It's more for parents and siblings and other family relations.

sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-22 10:14:36

The reference that Dark Weasel gives seems to me to give a very balanced view of the topic (sex implication).

But UUano I don't think 'aĉ' is appropriate for the idea of 'wretch' here. The idea is not one of disapproval.

As regards tense usage. I have no beef with using the indicative in the last sentence.

A more general point is what to do in cases where the meaning is estus -inta .... estus -inta. If you are going to simplify to achieve a less cumbersome expression, then which verb gets reduced to just -us.

I am not a fan of reducing both verbs to -us when the reference is to the past.

So, 'se mi havus a monon, mi aĉetus la aŭton' can clearly mean something different to 'se mi estus havinta la monon, mi estus aĉetinta la aŭton'.

I have seen quite a few cases in the literature where the author has preferred -us -inta, -us (or vice versa) to double -us -inta.

I think the principle might be to get the -inta in early.

The problem arises in our translation text with regard to the voli clause and the fali clause. UUano I think the peki clause should be in the -u formo because of the traditional usage after verbs like voli.

sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-24 13:54:47

Are we ready now for another passage?

Reen al la supro