Re: Translation

Fighting tigers can be dangerous. This sentence is ambiguous. Does it = mean:

gerund / object of gerund / modal / verb / adjective Fighti= ng tigers can be dangerous.

or:

p= resent participle / subject / modal / verb / adjective Fighting = tigers can be dangerous.

Esperantists are pro= ud of the fact that such ambiguities cannot occur in their language. Doe= s this make English inferior to Esperanto? No, English can restate the s= entences with the proper information to remove the ambiguities when this = is needed:

Fighting with tigers can be dangerous. Tigers that figh= t can be dangerous.

By the way, Glosa shares the same structures as Engl= ish:

Pugna tigri posi es risko. Pugna anti tigri posi es risko. = Tigri; qi pugna, posi es risko.

These examples are quite useful and just = like a similar one I thought about. In fact, Mondlango also has the same am= biguous problem as follow: Mondlango: Katos esan manjanta musos. Cats are e= ating mice. Glosa semani: /1: Plu feli du vora plu mus. /2: Plu feli es pl= u (du-)vora mus. Esperanto: /1:Katoj estas mangxantaj musojn. /2:Katoj est= as mangxantaj musoj. Here, you can see, Glosa is more exact than Mondlango = and some languages having the same problem. Saluta! Li Zhenyu

— In glo= salist@yahoogroups.com, Gary R Miller <justi.miller@…> wrote:

Dear Ro= bin,

I’m afraid you have missed the point. My translation of the Qo = akti? article does not differ from your translation (which is indeed a v= ery understandable translation based on logic) because of my perception o= f German, but because my perception of Glosa differs from yours.

You= have pointed out that Glosa semantics are based more on vocabulary than = grammar. What if a Glosa word has a different meaning in my head than it= has in yours? Certainly, Glosa words are not yet that clearly defined. =

For example, I said:

“Homo solve anti lingua difere…”

Y= ou said:

“Iso u solutio ad difere de lingua…”

I perceived pr= oblems caused by language diversity as something to be “fought against.” = You perceived them as something a solution can be “applied to.” The ori= ginal German really had more the idea that you translated, even though yo= u do not know German. (German uses the preposition f=FCr, more akin to= the English “for.”) Logic is a tool that in my hand produced one transl= ation and in your hand produced another. One translation might be more u= nderstandable to one person and the other to another. If there were a RE= GULAR USAGE of either preposition that could be asserted, there would be = no argument here. (Or perhaps just my own personality or feelings about = international auxilary languages is showing through.)

There are also= grammar differences. I like Hogben’s idea of “amplifier,” as seen in my= translation here:

Cina-pe detekti id ma no-facili. [Chinese find it= more difficult.]

What Hogben calls an amplifier would be called an = appositive in English in this instance. (The phrase “more difficult” m= odifies “it.”) Many languages use appositives. Your solution was a stru= cture using the preposition kausa. Both are understable to me, and bot= h use logic.

One of Noam Chomsky’s favorite sentences was:

Fight= ing tigers can be dangerous.

This sentence is ambiguous. Does it mean= :

gerund / object of gerund / modal / verb / adjective Fighting = tigers can be dangerous.

or:

prese= nt participle / subject / modal / verb / adjective Fighting = tigers can be dangerous.

Esperantists are proud o= f the fact that such ambiguities cannot occur in their language. Does th= is make English inferior to Esperanto? No, English can restate the sente= nces with the proper information to remove the ambiguities when this is n= eeded:

Fighting with tigers can be dangerous. Tigers that fight ca= n be dangerous.

What a headache for a translator who gets only the amb= iguous sentence! Every language contains different information attached = to its words. Translators must sometimes supply missing information or o= pt to leave out information that is not usually contained in the second l= anguage. This leads to differing translations by more than one translato= r and even mistakes. The proverbial “It loses something in the translati= on” also applies here.

By the way, Glosa shares the same structures = as English:

Pugna tigri posi es risko. Pugna anti tigri posi es ri= sko. Tigri; qi pugna, posi es risko.

Using the verboid also helps h= ere:

Akti pugna anti tigri es risko. (Akti makes pugna an object= , requiring the use of a preposition to connect it with tigri.)

I = admire the flexibility of Glosa, as I do the interesting differences in o= ur translations.

Saluta, _ _ /. Gary #/# ###

__= ______________________ The best thi= ng to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE= TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! =