글: 187
언어: English
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 4일 오전 10:26:15
There is of course a genuine ambiguity in the old Sultan's Palace - could be the Sultan was old, or could be former Sultan, or former Palace.
Gusts - I see everybody has handled this differently. The French have a word which would handle this perfectly, 'rafale'.
It has a wider range than English gusts, covering wind and rain but also snow (flurry) and machine gun fire (burst). I am tempted to innovate here with 'rafalo', which could be used broadly for any sudden activity. And I think it is onomatopoeic.
I think Miland's version is best without introducing a neologism -'Venis ekblovoj de pluvo el plumbe griza ĉielo'. But I get the feeling that the idea of flurries of activity is a universal concept, and is possibly a gap in Esperanto's lexicon.
I don't like 'sufiĉe da lumo por mi rigardi/vidi' which I find ungrammatical and much prefer Tom's 'Ankoraŭ estis (or restis) sufiĉa lumo, ke mi povis vidi'.
solitary - In English we have sole, solitary, single, lonely, lone. The force of 'solitary' is on its own, unaccompanied. I think I prefer 'soleca' to 'sola' here to capture this nuance.
thrashing - rather than seeing this as active, would it be better to say 'palmon kies frondoj draŝiĝis en la vento?
Miland, isn't a 'standardo' something different to a flagpole.
More musings, later.
Miland (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 4일 오후 2:33:39
sudanglo:I don't like 'sufiĉe da lumo por mi rigardi/vidi' which I find ungrammatical and much prefer Tom's 'Ankoraŭ estis (or restis) sufiĉa lumo, ke mi povis vidi'.That was my rendering of "enough light for me to see".
Here's a parallel example from the tekstaro, in fact from Zamenhof's address to the first World Congress, where he speaks graciously about the founder of Volapuk. It will be also found on page 364 of Zamenhof's Plena Verkaro:
"li estis unua, kiu havis sufiĉe da pacienco, por ellabori plenan lingvon de la komenco ĝis la fino."
Possibly you object to the insertion of mi before rigardi. I don't see a problem myself.
sudanglo:isn't a 'standardo' something different to a flagpoleA standardo is a flag (hence the poem Preĝo sub la verda standardo). Fosto is the "pole" in question here. You'll find the rendering in Wells as well as Butler. I used the word to mean something that could stand on its on, sunk in the ground, bigger than something hand-held. I considered standarda fosto and fosto por standardo as possible alternatives.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 5일 오전 8:40:33
Sorry, Miland I misread/misrecalled your translation - somehow the 'fosto' didn't register.
I think I agree that fosto is better than stango for a pole. So why not 'standardo'?
Of course we could use another image entirely (eg lanternfosto), but with the waving fronds the palm is more flag-like.
Miland (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 5일 오전 9:28:57
sudanglo:Yes Miland, Sufiĉe da is fine, grammatically. It is the insertion of the subject before the infinitive I find ungrammatical.I would justify it by saying that in Zamenhof's example, the infinitive does have a subject, but at the beginning of the sentence (li).
tommjames (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 5일 오전 10:44:18
Miland (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 5일 오전 11:39:54
From Zamenhof's Esenco kaj Estonteco de la Ideo de Lingvo Internacia:
Ne malfacile estos por ni pruvi, ke ekzistas nur unu sola lingvo, kiun ili povus elekti.
From Vojaĝimpresoj:
Danke nur al Esperanto estis eble por mi fari la viziton al la poloj.
The pattern por + pronoun + infinitive might not be that common, but there are a few examples. It's true that in the tekstaro, a form of esti + adverb precedes the pattern, but in my view a different type of clause shouldn't be a problem.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 5일 오후 10:07:54
Pruvi ke .. ne estos malfacile por ni.
Fari la viziton estis eble por mi.
But try that re-ordering on the sentence in your translation and it doesn't work.
*Vidi la palmon estis sufiĉe da lumo por mi
Which is different to Vidi la palmon estis facile/eble por mi (analogous to the Tekstaro ekzamples)
Tom, nothing wrong with sufiĉe da lumo por vidi' but that doesn't justify *'sufiĉe da lumo por li vidi'
3rdblade (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 6일 오전 12:42:52
mi:Ankoraŭ sufica lumo por mi vidi la solan palmon...should be
"Ankoraŭ estis sufiĉa lumo ke mi povis vidi la solan palmon..."
Miland (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 6일 오전 9:50:48
sudanglo:rearrange those sentences from the Tekstaro and you can see that the pronoun is not the subject of the infinitiveThere is a subtle shift of meaning in your rearrangement; the phrase which had succeeded the pronoun is now something more abstract, whereas originally it was directly applied to the pronoun.
The rearranged sentences in those cases still make sense, because the phrase esti + infinitive in the original have the property of describing that which went after the pronoun.
But such is not always the case. Here some more examples from the tekstaro, which cannot be rearranged in such a way:
From Robinson Kruso:
estas tempo por mi ĝin esplori, which cannot be rearranged to make ĝin esplori estas tempo por mi.
From the same work:
Ĝi kuŝis tro malproksime por mi vidi.., which cannot be rearranged to make vidi .. ĝi kuŝis tro proksime por mi.
From Patroj kaj filoj:
tempo venis por ni interparoli kun la intendanto, which cannot be rearranged to make interparoli..tempo venis por ni.
Therefore, I would maintain that Estis sufiĉe da lumo por mi vidi la palmarbon.. is legitimate.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2011년 4월 6일 오후 4:58:28
It's something to do with whether the 'por X' belongs to the first part or whether in effect X becomes the subject of the infinitive.
I would have no problem with 'Estis tro mallume por li, sed estis sufiĉe da lumo por ni, vidi klare la signalon.
I'm OK also (I think) with 'Tempo venis por ni, interparoli kun la intendanto'