From sentto-44114-1892-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Tue Feb 01 08:31:43 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 9207 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2000 08:31:41 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2000 08:31:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 29878 invoked by uid 40001); 1 Feb 2000 08:33:24 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 29875 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2000 08:33:23 -0000 Received: from fl.egroups.com (208.48.218.18) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2000 08:33:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1892-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.39] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Feb 2000 08:33:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 5300 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2000 08:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.39 with QMQP; 1 Feb 2000 08:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nickel.cix.co.uk) (194.153.0.18) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2000 08:33:15 -0000 Received: from solipsys.compulink.co.uk (solipsys.compulink.co.uk [194.153.10.165]) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA25608; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:33:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: <200002010833.IAA25608@nickel.cix.co.uk> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: lojban@onelist.com, Robin Turner Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:33:42 +0000 From: C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk Subject: Re: [lojban] Subjunctive? Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk > > The logical if/then simply does not carry the same > > implications that the English does, and the question > > is - how can the following be translated accurately: > > > > If I were to be given a million pounds > > then I'd be rich. > > > > Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same > > implication concerning the implausibility of the first > > part of the statement. > This is where I disagree, though a lot depends on your > interpretation of the word "translation" ... I would > hold that a translation should include the important > information contained in the original (of course) but > does not need to include all the information. and then: > ... I would rely on context for the tense and direction > information, and would only include them if there was some > danger of misinterpretation So, how do you know that the information that I don't have a million pounds is not important? The original question was how one should translate it, not whether, in your opinion, it's important. I am a terse writer. Unless I have evidence that it will be necessary for a given audience to write the same thing in six different ways, I generally rely on the precise expression of single ideas, and for a translator to decide that information is irrelevant is dangerous. I agree entirely that translation is hard. In fact, the more I have studied language I have come to the conclusion that it simply cannot work at all !! language itself is a miracle, and translation a mysterious art. I accept that you know more about translation than I do or ever will, and it's now clear that if ever I expect some of my work to be important enough to translate, I had better not use language the way I usually do, since I can't expect a translator to express everything important *in_my_opinion* (as the author) in the original. > Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think > that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that > I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars. By if I express it with the subjunctive, then I *do* think it's important. > As for the semantics of IF, I do not see any major problems. (snip) > Granted, it includes the possibility that I may be rich if > I do not possess a million dollars, but this is true in any > case, since I am also rich if I possess two million dollars, > 999,999 dollars, or no money at all but a large quantity of > gold. I agree. However, there are questions that remain, and I believe that most of this discussion arises because people have been giving examples and assumed that you would see the question they are ntending to ask. So, how would you translate the following: " If I were to have a million pounds then I'd be rich. " given that I, as the author, have used the subjunctive, an otherwise obsolete form, to carry the additional information that I believe the antecedent to be unlikely ever to be true. And how would you translate the following: " If I were to finish this project today then I would use it tomorrow. " given that I, as the author, want to include the implication that the dependent clause has no real meaning in the absence of the truth of the antecedent. Not only is there a causal connection, but consideration of the second part is completely pointless without the first. cdw -- \\// ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- FREE ADVICE FROM REAL PEOPLE! Xpertsite has thousands of experts who are willing to answer your questions for FREE. Go to Xpertsite today and put your mind to rest. Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com