From C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk Wed Feb 2 13:33:41 2000 X-Digest-Num: 352 Message-ID: <44114.352.1898.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:33:41 +0000 From: C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk Subject: Re: Subjunctive? 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