Re: OT: Corpses, etc. (was: Re: Gender in conlangs (was: Re: Umlauts (was Re: Elves and Ill Bethisad)))
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Monday, November 10, 2003, 19:51|
Quoting Isidora Zamora <isidora@...>:
> At 08:33 AM 11/10/03 +0100, you wrote:
> >Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>:
> > > At 17:16 6.11.2003, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > >
> > > >** Should I better use the English article, or the Meghean one? Ie,
> > > of
> > > >the Camant", or "Elves of Chamant"?
> > >
> > > Elves of the Chamant, obviously ;)
> > >
> > > Actually, would you use the Swedish definite ending in an
> > > English/French/German/Meghean/... context?
> >That's one of those eternal questions. It's particularly annoying with
> >that are always definite - do I in English say "Systembolaget", "the
> >Systembolag" or even "the Systembolaget"? I've heard all three, and they
> >sound wrong.
> "The Systembolaget" definately sounds wrong to me (as a native English
> speaker who also speaks Danish), because I can hear both of the definite
> articles loud and clear and don't like the redundancy. It doesn't seem
> right to duplicate the definate marking.
Swedish, of course, packs duplicate definite marking into every other sentence!
> My vote, if you are speaking in
> English is for "the Systembolag," bacause the vast majority of English
> speakers are not going to recognize "Systembolaget" as having a definite
> article attatched to it. (Though I'll conceed that "Systembolaget" sounds
> *much* more natural than "the Systembolag," if only because I happen to
> know how a Scandinavian word ought to be made definate.) BTW, what is
The state-owned alcoholic drinks monopoly.
> >"Elves of the Chamant" feels about as sensible as "muslims of the
> >Al-Andalus" -
> > I do hope no-one would say that!
> IMHO, the former is about as sensible as the latter, since they both
> duplicate a definate article.
That was the point ... ?