メッセージ: 187
言語: English
Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月24日 20:23:08
NothingHere:Nu, ĉu vi vere dezirus por tiuj ĉi geaĉuloj peki ĝis ili falus en Inferon? Vi ne dezirus, ja. Sed kiamaniere ili alie eskapus la fajron?That's pretty good. I might modify peki to ke ili peku or something similar, but you've not done badly at all. Keep it up!
(I'm still something of a beginner).
Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月24日 20:26:24
The word "Now" in my view is one of the hardest to translate. It draws attention, but not explicitly. Another hard question is whether to render "should" as something to be desired (and hence with an imperative), or as something likely (effectively, "would"). For now I have used the imperative where "should" is used, and I would follow the general preference of Esperanto for simpler tenses. Here's my suggestion for a translation:
Pripensu; ĉu vi vere dezirus ke tiuj kompatinduloj pekadu ĝis ili falis en inferon? Mi estas certa ke ne. Sed kiel alie eblis ke ili ekpreniĝu el la flamoj?
If "would" is preferred to "should" in terms of the meaning, we would have pekadus and ekpreniĝus respectively.
I've used flamoj because there are types of "fire" in the modern world used for heating which do not burn coal or wood, and "flames" might better convey to our minds that which "fire" would have to the 18th century author (he was John Wesley, by the way).
It is important to bear in mind that there is no unique best solution for problems like this. So to anyone who thinks "But I would done this or that better" - you may well be right!
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月24日 22:21:27
And it reads more naturally without the ĉi which I put in my translation.
Falis /falus / estus falintaj - I'm inclined to argue for the conditional, but not with great conviction.
Perhaps, a past reference in 'deziri' is not essential.
However, without flagging the past in the first sentence ('ĝis ili falis' works more as a perfect than past - they didn't actually fall) it isn't until the reader reaches 'eblis' in the third sentence that he knows that you are talking about something in the past.
I very much like the feel of your translation Miland.
But it could be translated back into English as 'Would you wish that these miserable wretches sin until they fall (have fallen)..' In other words, the reference to the past sinning is not guaranteed.
If the reader takes it this way, then when he encounters eventually 'But how else was it possible', he then has to do a double take.
I know that there is a school of thought that encourages the avoidance of complex forms on stylistic grounds, but in my reading I have several times been annoyed by misinterpreting a simple form only to have revise my understanding from what comes later in the text.
So readability is not necessarily preserved by complex verb form avoidance.
Translation is certainly an art form, isn't it.
3rdblade (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月25日 0:13:57
sudanglo:Are we ready now for another passage?Yes! I've got a good one but it'll have to wait till I get home. Someone else want to have a go?
sudanglo:But UUano I don't think 'aĉ' is appropriate for the idea of 'wretch' here. The idea is not one of disapproval.I do have one more question about aĉulo/kompatindulo to clear it up. I went with 'ulaĉo' instinctively for my translation, and was pleased to see that the vortaro has 'aĉulo' for 'wretch.' However, does 'aĉ' carry a connotation of judgement/disapproval (for being a miserable wretch), which 'kompatindulo' lacks? (Or were you refering to Uuano's 'kompatindulaĉo'?) I lean towards a non-judgemental tone for a passage like this, though they are sinners we are talking about, so I am still a little on the fence.
Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月25日 9:18:37
sudanglo:'ĝis ili falis' works more as a perfect than past - they didn't actually fall..This point (and others), are well taken; estus falintaj or falintus is certainly possible, though the form because of its complexity focusses a little too much on their (hypothetical) final state for my liking. For that reason, it was a toss-up for me between falus and falis. The latter was intended to be "perfect" in an imaginary sense, but quite possibly falus would be better.
3rdblade:does 'aĉ' carry a connotation of judgement/disapproval (for being a miserable wretch), which 'kompatindulo' lacks?This is a good question, and is the reason why I avoided it. However in my view kompatindaj aĉuloj is quite possible.
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月25日 11:01:21
To what extent can '-is' be detached from its temporal sense and indicate completion only.
In other words, is the following a good sentence 'Ĉu mi atendu ĝis vi finis' (with the meaning 'ĝis vi estos fininta')
On aĉ; you can, I think, use 'wretch' in English in a disaproving way, but 'poor wretches' in the passage is more about the mizeraj kondiĉoj endured by the sinners.
My Concise Oxford gives 1. Pitiable person 2. (playfully) contemptible person.
Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月25日 11:53:54
sudanglo: is the following a good sentence 'Ĉu mi atendu ĝis vi finis' (with the meaning 'ĝis vi estos fininta').The following page from PMEG suggests that we cannot; we need finos (or estos fininta).
PMEG recommends estus X-inta for hypothetical past tenses (second box, last example); this is a reason for preferring falus or estus falintaj. I'm not sure whether or not -is has been used in the way that I did, as a consequence of a hypothetical (continuing) action. That's one for those who know tekstaro programming language!
3rdblade (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月25日 22:25:55
Just where he must have brushed through into clear space, Rhisiart lay on his back, his right hip hollowing the grass under him, shoulders flattened to the ground and arms spread wide. His legs were drawn up under him with bent knees, the left leg crossed over the right. His short, defiant beard pointed at the sky. So, and at the very same slanting angle, did the feathered flight of the arrow that jutted out from under the cage of his ribs.
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2011年3月26日 16:07:20
One day I going to learn the Fundamenta Ekzercaro of by heart so that like Rimmer in Red Dwarf quoting Space Corps regulations, I shall be able to say 'I think FE 23 answers your question.'
Incidentally I find the usage in FE23 particularly pleasing and, unlike in FE24, the scene is set early on by the use of '-inte', so there is no doubt when the conditional 'volus' is encountered later on how that should be interpreted.
Miland I note what Bertilo says, but I am not entirely convinced that we couldn't use 'is' for a future occurence.
In 'Mi atendis ĝis li manĝis la supon', the temporal reference is in a sense already future - relative to atendi. Would I say Mi atendis ĝis li manĝos la supon, if I meant 'I waited until he had eaten the soup'?
With subclauses of verbs of perception it is well established that the reference is relative to the time of the main verb rather than absolute.
Mi rimarkis ke li manĝis la supon
Mi rimarkis ke li manĝas la supon
Mi rimarkis ke li manĝos la supon.
So, in this usage, -is = before then, -as = at that time, and -os = expected.
Here the verb finaĵoj are detached from absolute reference.
Is it really so poor if I said Atendu, ĝis mi finis la supon, with the idea of relative time - with the idea that the '-is' was not absolute, but relative to some future time, just as sometimes '-is' is relative to a past time.