From sentto-44114-1897-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed Feb 02 21:31:57 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 11547 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2000 21:31:55 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 2 Feb 2000 21:31:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 18191 invoked by uid 40001); 2 Feb 2000 21:33:44 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 18188 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2000 21:33:43 -0000 Received: from hh.egroups.com (208.48.218.10) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 2 Feb 2000 21:33:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1897-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Feb 2000 21:33:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 22046 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2000 21:33:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.37 with QMQP; 2 Feb 2000 21:33:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nickel.cix.co.uk) (194.153.0.18) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2000 21:33:35 -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 VAA24299 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:33:31 GMT X-Envelope-From: C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: <200002022133.VAA24299@nickel.cix.co.uk> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: lojban@onelist.com 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: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:33:41 +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 cdw> So, how do you know that the information that cdw> I don't have a million pounds is not important? cdw> The ... question was how one should translate cdw> it, not whether ... it's important. r_t> The point I was trying to make is that we should be r_t> wary of assuming that just because in language A it r_t> is compulsory to mark feature X, we should mark it r_t> in language Y. Agreed, and perhaps the counter-point is that the subjunctive is not only not compulsory, but in some quarters is actively deprecated (e.g. Fowler the great's "Modern English Usage") cdw> I generally rely on the precise expression of single cdw> ideas, and for a translator to decide that information cdw> is irrelevant is dangerous. r_t> True, but it is also bad to assume that something is r_t> important just because it's embedded in the grammar. Agreed. And while the subjunctive isn't, I completely agree with you that other things are, and shouldn't by default be translated. cdw> ... the more I have studied language I have come to the cdw> conclusion that it simply cannot work at all !! r_t> Quine seemed to come to the same conclusion ;-) cdw> I accept that you know more about translation than cdw> I do or ever will, r_t> That I seriously doubt! Don't. I have no languages other than English, University mathematics, a smattering of lojban, and about 12 computer languages. I don't translate at all, ever, except for my poor and faltering efforts in lojban. cdw> if ever I expect some of my work to be important enough cdw> to translate, I had better not use language the way I cdw> usually do, since I can't expect a translator to express cdw> everything important *in_my_opinion* (as the author) in cdw> the original. r_t> ... that's one reason why we have Lojban - it's much r_t> easier to specify what is and isn't important. Questions r_t> of fluency aside, it should be much easier to translate r_t> from Lojban into a natlang than vice versa. Again, agreed. r_t> Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think r_t> that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that r_t> I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars. cdw> But if I express it with the subjunctive, then I *do* think cdw> it's important. r_t> zo'o semantics of "if" again? r_t> If you think it's important' you use the subjunctive, r_t> but that doesn't imply that if you use the subjunctive, r_t> you think it's important. English also demands that I r_t> choose gender when using a personal pronoun, whether or r_t> not the gender of the person referred to is important or r_t> even known. Of course. Let me say it differently. The subjunctive is actively deprecated, and if I use it, it will always and only be because it is carrying information. I didn't use it in that last sentence, from which you may deduce that I do expect to use it. Re: the semantics of IF cdw> So, how would you translate the following: cdw> " If I were to have a million pounds cdw> then I'd be rich. " cdw> given that I, as the author, have used the subjunctive, cdw> an otherwise obsolete form, to carry the additional cdw> information that I believe the antecedent to be unlikely cdw> ever to be true. r_t> I think other people have answered this fairly completely. I must have missed that, and will have to re-read the messages. It seemed to me that most have gone off on a different tangent, so I may have over-looked it. -- \\// ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9 percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com