Re: Concerning My Signature...

Emaelivpahr David Peterson:
>In a message dated 09/3/02 2:45:22 AM, arthaey@YAHOO.COM writes:
>
><< ENGLISH:   "You can celebrate anything you want."
>ASHA'ILLE: "Jecatevjair ne sholdaleth no'ae."
>
>        celebrate[able][3su] the desired thing[unspecified]
>
>where [3su] means third person singular, unspecified gender. >>
>
>    Am I right in saying that you took the "you want" part and changed it
>into an adjective, <sholdaleth>?  That gets rid of the necessity of two
>phrases...
Yes. It's derived from the verb <sholdavt>, meaning "to want, desire" (but
not a tangible thing... The sentences "I want money" and "I want love" use
different verbs. In "You can celebrate anything you want," I used the
second type of want.)

If I wanted to do a strictly literal translation of the English phrase,
including the elliptical phrase, it would be longer and more clunky:

"Jecatevjair          ne  no    e'kath sholdavair ivo."
 celebrate[able][3su] the thing [DOM]  want[3su]  [PVO]

"You can celebrate the thing -- that which you want to do [celebrate]."

DOM - direct object modifier; everything following <e'kath> modifies the
direct object
PVO - pro-verb marked as an object rather than a verb

I'm not 100% certain I want to use <no> in this case, as compared to
<no'ae> in the first translation... My reasoning is that because the thing
is identified, it takes the definite form. I was surprised that this second
translation didn't turn out much longer than the first. Either sentence
would do, but I prefer the first.

"You can celebrate anything you want."
"Jecatevjair ne sholdaleth no'ae."
"Jecatevjair ne no e'kath sholdavair ivo."

Is there a term for the type of translation where you are faithful to the
meaning, if not the structure, of the original sentence?


--
Arthaey