|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/markrose/board/messages/ |
Upload File : |
<html><head><title>Questions</title></head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<center><h1><!--title-->Questions
</h1></center>
<hr size=7 width=75>
<p>Posted by <b><!--poster-->Philip Newton</b>
on <!--date-->11:01 12/5/01
<p>In reply to: <a href="266.html">Celmetát de mudhe</a> posted by Philip Newton</b> on 10:51 11/30/01
<!-- PUT MESSAGE HERE -->
<p>While I was doing the translations of <em>Durm</em> and <em>the
Sojourner</em>, I came up with a couple of questions. Some of them I'm
fairly sure what the answer is and others I had to guess a little.</p>
<p>I apologise for the length of this posting.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>How are streets named in Verdurian? In English or German, streets
named for a person or place simply have that noun placed before the
word for the type of street -- for example, <strong>Lincoln
Avenue</strong> or <strong>Friedrich-Ebert-Straße</strong>.
However, Greek puts the name of the type of street first, followed by
the person or place it is named for <em>in the genitive case</em> --
for example, <strong>odós Metaxá</strong> or
<strong>Leofóros Eleftherías</strong>.</p>
<p>The main source of information appears to be those drilldown parts
that show Verduria city -- <a href="../../drill6.htm">drill6.htm</a>
for the city and <a href="../../drill7.htm">drill7.htm</a> for Ishira
quarter. On the map, the names are given without the word for "street"
(as would also be the case on most Greek street maps; the "default"
noun is "odós" if no other type such as
<strong>leofóros</strong> is explicitly given); I suppose
<strong>prosia</strong> is what is understood in Verdurian.</p>
<p>Most street names appear to be in the nominative case (e.g.
<strong>Rafát, Enäron, Ishira, Mëranac 1e</strong>
or even what looks like an adjective <strong>Bolyáshe</strong>
(though I would have expected
<strong>Bolyásh<em>ë</em></strong>,
to agree with <strong> prosia</strong>). But there is also mention of
a <strong> Prosia Atüchii Flavei</strong> "Yellow Rascal Street",
which uses the genitive. Is this an exception? </p>
<p>I would have expected Verdurian to use the genitive case, since it
doesn't generally allow nouns to modify nouns simply by being placed
next to each other, preferring <a href="../../syntax.htm#noun2">an
adjective, the genitive case, or a compound noun</a> instead. However,
that place also notes the exception "A name or title can follow
another noun", and the preposition <strong>i</strong>, which is used
when saying what something is named for, also takes the nominative. Is
the nominative in street names due to one of those two?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>How does Verdurian handle the case of possession where the
possessors are many and they each possess one thing? For example,
German and English tend to treat this in different ways. English tends
to use the plural (<strong>All the doctors brought their
wives</strong>) while German would tend to use the singular
(<strong>Alle Ärzte brachten ihre Frau mit</strong>), since
each doctor only has one wife. What about Verdurian?</p>
<p>For example, in my translation of <em>Durm</em>, there is the
phrase <strong>he noted the ships' flags</strong>. If we assume that
each ship only has one flag, would one translate this into Verdurian
as <strong>indumne so<em>em</em> znur<em>em</em>
navirië</strong> (plural; this was the form I chose, as a
guess) or <strong>indumne so<em>a</em> znur<em>a</em>
navirië</strong> (singular)? (I think that
<strong>navirië</strong> has to stay plural since he saw
the flags of many ships. Is that also correct?)</p>
<p>Hm, on the other hand, in this case even German would say
<strong>Er betrachtete <em>die</em> Flagge<em>n</em> der
Schiffe</strong>, with <em>flags</em> in the (accusative) plural. So
I suppose <strong>indumne soem znurem navirië</strong> is the
only way to say it. But what about my English/German example
sentence -- is it <strong>Tësî lekaroi ametnu
cir<em>a</em> zaë</strong> or <strong>Tësî lekaroi
ametnu cir<em>em</em> zaë</strong>?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Is it correct to use the accusative in <strong>zet duisre hipco soa
scafa</strong> "He headed down the dock"? Heading somewhere involved
for me more turning in place rather than motion anywhere, but it does
kind of imply motion.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Is it correct to translate <strong>(the) hundreds of
<em>xxx</em></strong> as <strong>(soî) shatemî
<em>xxx</em>ei</strong>? That is, can <strong>shatem</strong> be
treated like a noun, forming a regular plural?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>What verb tenses are used with <em>fayir</em> when the
necessity is not in the present but, for example, in the past (as in
this story)? I wanted to translate <strong>a pair of falcons had to be
captured</strong> as <strong>he had to capture a pair of
falcons</strong>, since Verdurian has no passive, and thought that
<em>had to</em> here was best expressed by <em>fayir
dy</em>, since it wasn't an obligation on him, which
<em>devir</em> probably would have implied.</p>
<p>But which tenses to use? I could imagine any of <strong>fayre dy
matune dhun sokolië</strong>, <strong>fayre dy matue dhun
sokolië</strong>, or <strong>faye dy matune dhun
sokolië</strong>. I decided to use the first, because it felt
most appropriate -- <em>fayre</em> is in the past tense
because the necessity is in the past (at the time where the story is
set) and <em>matune</em> is also past because that's the
tense I would have to use if he had just gone and caught the pair of
falcons. Greek, which uses a similar construction (<strong>prepei na
...</strong>) was not much help here since the main verb is in the
subjunctive, and the only time indicator is thus in the tense of
<strong>prepei/eprepe/tha prepei/tha eprepe</strong>
(<strong>faye/fayre/fayrete/faycele</strong>).</p>
<p>So I still think that any of the three constructions could be
right.</p>
<p>Actually, a construction such <strong>ilun fayre matuan dhun
sokolië</strong> would also have made sense to me, with the
subject of the main verb turning into an indirect object to
<em>fayir</em> and the main verb in the infinitive, which solves such
temporal problems -- but that contradicts the example in Ver2Eng.doc
which goes <strong>Faye dy proshaleei</strong> rather than
<strong>Len faye proshalean</strong>. But
<a href="../../syntax.htm#minor">syntax.htm</a> shows an example with
<em>fayir</em> + infinitive: <strong>Faye zet abilen dör
domán</strong>. And Eng2Ver.doc has a sentence with the
construction dative + <em>fayir</em> + infinitive, though in the
sense of <em>to take (a certain period of time)</em> rather than
<em>to be necessary (to do something)</em>: <strong>Ihanon fayre pan
zonin urokeshen</strong>.
<p>Which is it to be?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>How to express <strong>you have to capture them wild</strong>? I
chose <strong>faye dy tu cam matue dharimi</strong>, using the
adjective in the appropriate form (masculine accusative plural)
after the verb. Perhaps an adverb would be better? (But that might
get confused with a description of the manner of capture -- "you
have to capture them in a wild manner" rather than "you have to
capture them [while they are] wild".)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>How is <em>isu</em> used?</p>
<ol type="a">
<li>
<p>Does it conjugate? Or does it simply take a noun in the
appropriate case and number after it?</p>
<p>For example, would <strong>Do we have enough bread?</strong> be
<strong>Tenom isu lon?</strong> and <strong>Do we have enough
flowers?</strong> be <strong>Tenom isu zhortem?</strong>?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>What about with adjectives? Is the order adjective +
<em>enough</em>, as in English or German (<strong>strong
enough</strong>, <strong>stark genug</strong>), or <em>enough</em> +
adjective, as in French or Greek (<strong>assez fort</strong>,
<strong>arketa dhinato</strong>)? I guessed it's the second --
<strong>isu zol</strong>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>And what about the construction <em><adjective> enough to
xxx</em>? Is that formed with <em>dy</em> + indicative?
For example, is <strong>fue isu bolyáshë dy
epne nasitan pezim lië</strong> for <strong>it was large enough
to carry his weight</strong> correct? What about <strong>fue isu
bolyáshë dy nasitne pezim lië</strong>, without the
<em>epan</em> -- would that give the same meaning, or would it mean
something like <strong>it was strong enough that it carried his
weight</strong> (rather than <strong>...to carry his weight</strong>)
instead?</p>
</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>
<p>What construction is used with <em>tro</em>; specifically, when
one wants to express <strong>too X to Y</strong>? Is <em>dy</em> +
indicative used again? Or maybe the infinitive?</p>
<p>For example, how would you translate <strong>This box is too
heavy to lift</strong>? As <strong>Ci-sista e tro seshuë dy tu
epe ilat sevan</strong>, perhaps? Or <strong>Ci-sista e tro
seshuë dy tu ilat seve</strong>? Or <strong>Ci-sista e tro
seshuë sevan</strong>? Or maybe <strong>Ci-sista e tro
seshuë and ilat sevan</strong>?</p>
<p>Is a pronoun used, as in French <strong>cette boîte est trop
lourde pour le porter</strong>? Is the infinitive used, as in English
or German? Is a preposition used, as in French? Is a finite form of
the verb with impersonal (or, if appropriate, personal) subject
used, as in the first example (which is how Greek would put it AIUI
-- <strong>Afto to kivotio einai poly bary gia na to sikosei
kaneis</strong>)?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Is it correct to translate <strong>they were useless to
him</strong> as <strong>ilun fueu agbütî</strong> --
that is, with the dative?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Do <em>eto</em> and <em>tot</em> have a plural? It seems that they
don't, but that caused me a bit of awkwardness in my translation. I
translated <strong>[the highest-flying of falcons,] <em>those</em> of
the land of the Turicali</strong> as <strong>[soî sokolî
kio letu so mudhe altece,] <em>tot</em> pázhianei
Turicalië</strong>, and I really wanted a plural pronoun here
to refer to "those" falcons.
But <em>kio</em> also doesn't have a plural, which also feels weird
to me, so I suppose that's just the way it is with inanimate objects.
Is the translation of <em>those</em> as <em>tot</em> here
correct?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Finally, a question that's not connected to the translation but
which came to me: how does Verdurian form negative commands? For
example, how to translate <strong>Don't steal my clothes!</strong>?
English uses <strong>don't</strong> at the beginning, German uses
<strong>nicht</strong> ("not") at the end, Greek has a special
particle <strong>mi</strong> which goes with the subjunctive, French
IIRC uses a regular negation <strong>ne <em><imperative></em>
pas</strong>.</p>
<p>If Verdurian does it like French, then I would expect something
like <strong>Rho velenei uverä esë!</strong>. But perhaps
there's a separate word?</p>
<p>And what about the abbreviated form, often used for example by
mothers to tell their children to stop doing whatever they're at? In
English one can use <strong>Don't!</strong>, in German
<strong>Nicht!</strong>, in Greek <strong>Mi!</strong> -- in all
those cases, the separate word used to negate the imperative. I
presume it would be similar in Verdurian, with <strong>Rho!</strong>
meaning not only <strong>No!</strong> but also
<strong>Not!</strong>/<strong>Don't!</strong>. (Or whichever word is
used to negative imperatives, if it's not <em>rho</em>.)</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Cheers,<br>Philip.</p>
<hr><center>
<i>To make a reply, or see replies, see <a href="../">the index page</a>.</i>
</center>
<hr>
<!-- For index page:
<li><a href="messages/271.html">Questions</a> -
<b>Philip Newton</b>
<i>11:01 12/5/01</i>
-->
</body></html>