Search results for 'tag:Pronouns tag:Translation' matching tags 'Pronouns' and 'Translation'

Re: translation into English: text 11/03 (Patrick)

MrPedantic — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:10:37 GMT

Hello Hela, yes, it's nice to see you too! I'm not posting here much at the moment, because my pc is defective; but I hope to be re-kitted-out shortly...

Hela
Actually I wrote "he was leaving for Ireland for work", is it wrong too?

I think that would be ok too.

Hela
2) Do you accept
a) "he was going to work in Ireland as soon as
- his exams were [had been = wrong?] over
- he finished / had finished his exams

Yes, all fine except "had been".

Hela
b) "he was goint to work in Ireland right after
- he finished / had finished his exams
- he would finish / would have finished (?) his exams
- his exams would be / would have been (?) over"

- Is it also possible to use the present, even though it's reported speech, since the period referred to has not happened yet?

Only the first two versions. The present would be fine.

Hela
a) "he called me to say that he is going to Ireland as soon as
his exams are / have been (?) over OR he finishes / has finished (?) his exams

All ok except "have been over".

Hela
b) "he called me to say that he is going to Ireland right after
- he finishes / has finished his exams
- his exams will be over
- he will finish / will have finished his exams"

Only the first two.

Hela
3) Je ne me rappelles pas l'avoir entendu dire...
Are hearing and having heard both possible here? What's the nuance betwenn them?
"I don' / can't remember ever hearing / having heard (?) him talk about such daring plans"

I think it's a difference in focus: "hearing" is more immediate, "having heard" more remote. But I don't think it's a significant difference, for most users.

Hela
) Moi aussi j'aimerais beaucoup aller travailler en Irlande.
Which tenses should be used here, please?
a) I would quite / really like to work in Ireland as well (possible ?)
b) I wish I could work / I wish I worked in Ireland
c) I wish I went (?) to Ireland to work as well / too.

Not "quite"; and I would change it to "go to work in Ireland"; and for me, b) and c) wouldn't quite capture the original. (Expression of a wish, rather than a desire.)

Hela
5) Is this use of pronoun acceptable ?
"One doesn't want to let everybody know what they want to do" ? Is "they" ambiguous or incoherent here, or is it all right ?

If "they" refers to "one", it's a little unusual; I would repeat "one".

Hela
) On se connaÃ®t depuis si longtemps, lui et moi
Even though it is not necessary to translate "lui et moi" in English would you say:
"It has been a such a long time since we have known one another, he and I [and not "him/he and me" ?

Not "it has been a such a long time"; perhaps "We have known each other for such a long time". If you had to translate "lui et moi", "he and I" would best suit the register.

Hela
7) Il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire de mettre tout le monde au courant de ce qu'on a envie de faire. Il y a des tas de gens qui rÃªvent bruyamment d'accomplir de grandes choses et ne sortent jamais de chez eux. Quant Ã son niveau d'anglais, un sÃ©jour de deux mois ne peut que l'amÃ©liorer.

a) Would you translate this passage this way?

"you don't have to / you neednât / there's no need to tell everyone what youâre up to / want to do / feel like doing all the time. Lots of people dream aloud (?) about accomplishing / achieving (?) great things they're going to do and then never give it a try (?) / make it real (?). As for his English, a two-month stay / sojourn (?) in England can but / just (?) improve it.

That's a bit too difficult to answer, in that form â there are so many permutations!

Hela
b) What you meant by the following:
My idea would be as yours, except:

"...to keep everyone posted...have grandiose ideas about accomplishing great things but never leave home...can only improve it."

is that you would not use "to keep everyone posted", "have grandiose ideas..." and "can only improve it" ?

Sorry, I meant I would use those phrases instead, in the relevant parts.

Hela
What's the meaning of "to harp on about something" then? How would you use it?

If I say that you're harping on about X, I mean that you are obsessively talking about X, in an irritating and excessive way. (It sounds quite tetchy.)

Have a good Wednesday!

MrP

Re: translation into English: text 11/03 (Patrick)

Hela — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:23:46 GMT

Good evening, Mr P, nice to read you again. I often ask questions on the site but you seem not to have seen my posts

I don't think it's necessary to translate "allait partir travailler" literally; "was going to leave to work" would sound too clumsy

Actually I wrote "he was leaving for Ireland for work", is it wrong too?

2) Do you accept
a) "he was going to work in Ireland as soon as
- his exams were [had been = wrong?] over
- he finished / had finished his exams

b) "he was goint to work in Ireland right after
- he finished / had finished his exams
- he would finish / would have finished (?) his exams
- his exams would be / would have been (?) over"

- Is it also possible to use the present, even though it's reported speech, since the period referred to has not happened yet?

a) "he called me to say that he is going to Ireland as soon as
his exams are / have been (?) over OR he finishes / has finished (?) his exams

b) "he called me to say that he is going to Ireland right after
- he finishes / has finished his exams
- his exams will be over
- he will finish / will have finished his exams"

3) Je ne me rappelles pas l'avoir entendu dire...
Are hearing and having heard both possible here? What's the nuance betwenn them?
"I don' / can't remember ever hearing / having heard (?) him talk about such daring plans"

4) Moi aussi j'aimerais beaucoup aller travailler en Irlande.
Which tenses should be used here, please?
a) I would quite / really like to work in Ireland as well (possible ?)
b) I wish I could work / I wish I worked in Ireland
c) I wish I went (?) to Ireland to work as well / too.

5) Is this use of pronoun acceptable ?
"One doesn't want to let everybody know what they want to do" ? Is "they" ambiguous or incoherent here, or is it all right ?

6) On se connaÃ®t depuis si longtemps, lui et moi
Even though it is not necessary to translate "lui et moi" in English would you say:
"It has been a such a long time since we have known one another, he and I [and not "him/he and me" ?

7) Il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire de mettre tout le monde au courant de ce qu'on a envie de faire. Il y a des tas de gens qui rÃªvent bruyamment d'accomplir de grandes choses et ne sortent jamais de chez eux. Quant Ã son niveau d'anglais, un sÃ©jour de deux mois ne peut que l'amÃ©liorer.

a) Would you translate this passage this way?

"you don't have to / you neednât / there's no need to tell everyone what youâre up to / want to do / feel like doing all the time. Lots of people dream aloud (?) about accomplishing / achieving (?) great things they're going to do and then never give it a try (?) / make it real (?). As for his English, a two-month stay / sojourn (?) in England can but / just (?) improve it.

b) What you meant by the following:

My idea would be as yours, except:

"...to keep everyone posted...have grandiose ideas about accomplishing great things but never leave home...can only improve it."

is that you would not use "to keep everyone posted", "have grandiose ideas..." and "can only improve it" ?

8)

("Harp on about" doesn't seem quite right here; I'm not sure about my "never leave home" â I feel there's a more natural alternative, but can't place it.)

What's the meaning of "to harp on about something" then? How would you use it?
Best regards,
Hela

Mistakes made by Chinese Learners

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:30:26 GMT

Hi everyone

I just wondered if anyone could help - I have to write a profile of a chinese learner of English (completely made up). In it I must put any difficulties that the learner has in learning English as an L2. I have got so far:

Intonation transfer from L1 may cause them to be perceived as rude/inconsiderate, more serious transfer may affect comprehensiveness.
No inflections in L1 - tenses difficult to learn in L2 as L1 has no true tenses and concept of time is expressed by adverbs/implicit or contextual assumptions.
Difficulty distinguishing [r] & - Does anyone know why this is as I can't find a reason?!!
Prepositions such as 'on', 'in' & 'at' have one chinese translation in many contexts, 'zai' - may be confused resulting in phrases such as 'on Taiwan' instead of 'in Taiwan'.
Use of awkward gerunds e.g. 'no noising', excessive use of verbs ending in 'ing' e.g. 'do not climbing', confusion of 'ed' & 'ing' verbs e.g. 'i am bored' vs 'i am boring' --- all of these errors occur because verbs are not conjugated in chinese, for tense or pronoun.
No equivalent word for 'the' so may be used excessively when not needed e.g. 'The China' or missed out when needed. May also be confused with 'a'/'an'.
Confusion over countable and uncountable nouns, use of 'how much?' vs 'how many?' - leads to phrases such as 'I want a soup' & 'a lot of shoe'. This is due to there not being plurals in chinese - no inflections.

Switching between 'he' & 'she' - Does anyone know why this is?

If anyone can think of anymore it would be greatly appreciated or if anyone knows the answers to my questions about gender switching and distinguishing [r] & this would also help a lot!!

Thank you in advance.

Shannon

Re: 'most vs. almost

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:10:35 GMT

Here's an interesting article with regards to the confusion amongst Japanese learners of English:

Almost a Problem...

In Whatâs in a Word? In Japan Currents, July 1997: http://www.trussel.com/jap/almost.htm

I'm often struck by errors in non-native English which arise from the confusion of the words 'most,' 'almost' and 'mostly.' Some cause unexpected ambiguity, when I find that I can't quite guess what the speaker is trying to say. Others often convey strikingly comical images. Both may provide potentially useful examples for revealing the native speaker's sense of these words.

When I hear that "almost my friends are going to Hokkaido," assuming that the error is with the use of 'almost,' I'm faced with the dilemma of whether she means that most of her friends are going, though some aren't, or that they'll spend their time mostly in Hokkaido, but will also go to some other places. What should have been 'most of' or 'mostly' came out as 'almost,' and left me up in the air.

In the case of errors like "Almost Americans are fat," the intended meaning is not elusive -- the target is no doubt "Most Americans are fat." "Americans are mostly fat," while grammatically possible, is not so likely: the human body is mostly water. If I hear that "the water is mostly hot enough for tea," which should be 'almost hot enough,' it doesn't confuse me so much as conjure up a humorous image -- I find myself imagining little pieces of hot-enough water floating among some not-yet-hot-enough ones.

Historically, both "almost" and 'most' date back nearly 1,000 years in English, with 'almost' being formed as a compound of all+most. There was apparently no word 'mostly' until late in the 16th century, and until that time the meaning of 'almost' included the idea 'mostly all, nearly all' which is quite close to the way it's often used in error by non-native speakers today. With the development of "mostly," that sense correspondingly disappeared from 'almost,' leaving it with only the slightly negative implication of "very nearly," "all but," "a little less than (completely)."

'Almost' seems to correspond in meaning and to a large extent in usage, to the Japanese [hotondo], and this is probably the root of the problem for Japanese speakers of English: ideas which are expressed with [hotondo] may appear as 'most (of)', 'almost' or 'mostly' in English, a one-to-three (or four) correspondence bound to result in confusion.

Among these three "confusables," the use of 'most (of)' seems the least likely to cause trouble, being so close to [hotondo no], though in fact less experienced speakers may be bothered by when to use the 'of.' It only appears when the modified noun is preceded by 'the, these, those, a possessive form, or before the pronoun 'them.' So, "most boys," or "most of the boys," but never "most of boys" or "most the boys."

Considering the usage of 'almost,' it appears as the first choice for numerical expressions like "That lesson cost me almost a hundred dollars," "They first settled here almost 75 years ago," or "Almost 1000 people showed up at the opening." These suggest a basic idea of modifying something complete, perfect, 100%, to make it less so. So when 'almost' is used with words like "finished, done, dressed, built, written" etc., or "ready, full, empty, dead..." it adds that meaning of "not quite, nearly." "Almost late" isn't late, and "almost empty" isn't empty. So, "I was almost asleep," "the vacation is almost over," or the old song title, "It's almost like being in love." 'Almost' appears frequently with time expressions like "I left there almost three hours ago," "We'd better leave; it's almost morning," or "I can't believe it's the 20th -- it's almost Christmas already!" with the similar sense of 'not yet.'

With 'mostly,' the historical 'newcomer' of the group, the idea of 'for the most part' shows up when it is used for expressing quantities without numbers, especially when in some sense they can be counted, like "I don't know why they call this beef stew -- it's mostly potatoes," or "The students in that school are mostly Chinese." English and Japanese seem to part ways here. "I'm mostly at home on weekends" might be a likely candidate for [hotondo] in Japanese, but it's not a case where "almost" could be used in English, unless it were as "almost always." In "That garden is mostly weeds," or "Those boys are mostly from the neighboring town," English isn't aiming for the "less-than complete" idea, and so "almost" doesn't fit.

It seems that the English 'almost' emphasizes 'less-than-ness' while the Japanese [hotondo] focuses on 'mostly-ness.' Of course these are two sides of the same coin, but there are clearly some times when they don't match well enough for 'translation' English to succeed. Like most areas of language fluency, it's an area where we have to strive to somehow get in touch with the spirit of the language, and put the dictionaries aside.

Stephen Trussel

Interestingly, in a short article on Correct American Usage, Russell (1940:431-2) criticises Strattonâs description of good usage:

âAlmost and most,â he writes, âdo not mean the same things, though from the numbers of supposedly educated writers and speakers who use the shorter most incorrectly for the longer almost, one would almost believe that the distinction has disappeared.â Again, the author notes that advertisement should eb accented on vert, not tise, even though âPractice in this country seems to be about evenly divided.â Obviously the philosophy of language implied in these two articles may seriously affect any judgment the author makes on usage.

I just happen to be looking into this at the moment ... probably more info but hey ...

Cheers,

Phil Brown
Tokyo

People fought in a Chinese translation forum

Lafingn — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:25:09 GMT

Hi, everyone! Happy New Year!

But I'm trying to be happy. I'm pulled into a debate over "the very English standard" in a Chinese translation forum. A "sensible" lad who crammed in China's New Oriental Language School asserts that many usages, including those in nytimes.com, economist.com, native speakers' blogs and more, are actually non-stardard and thus wrong. Even some in Oxford dictionaries now become "obsolete" or "unacceptable". One of his examples is about "which" used as relative pronoun:

A student who talks about 'strong rain' may make himself understood, but possibly not without provoking a smile or a correction, which may or may not matter.

He says which, referring a circumstance here, is a misuse. The original sentence is from the introduction to an Oxford dictionary. By the way, he also laughs at the part "but possibly not without provoking a smile or a correction" because he thinks it's bad English (maybe not very smooth for his limited reading), while I don't agree.

Also denied is another example from American Traditional Dictionary:

He left early, which was wise.

He says every teacher in New Oriental would frown on this because they were taught in school that the relative pronoun "which" should in no way substitute a foregoing sentence in the proceeding non-restrictive attributive clause.

Is that true, or the dictionary wrong?

My next question is what's your opinion about education New Oriental offers, if you happen to know. Since I really doubt about it.

He posted his comments(sorry for his dirty words)ï¼

Should any native English speaker look at what you put down here, he or she will definitely go to see a doctor as this foreigner will not only be amused, but also be suffering from a nausea and vomiting disease. Such trashy and junk words were put together to display how poor and messy your so-called English (in fact, even worse than typical Chinglish) is . You can certainly regard me as stinky because I have been so unluckily gotten into contact with you, a piece of ***. You can rest your mind that I am far inferior to you in this regard. How funny a stupid idiot like you could have an idea of building up a team! Do you believe that there are many other people on this world, who can be as similarly asinine as you are. Just go to the hell and kiss your mom's ass! Your so-called dream ( actually a kind of deliria) will never come true. Otherwise, our society as a whole will run into an overall catastrophe of deterioration of our population quality. BTW, you shall never compare yourself with violinqq, as doing so is like comparing a piece of *** with a brillant piece of jade.

My reply and comments on his English (he says he can't read because "it's a mess"):

while "poor" is my guts feeling to your lanugage, a second thought is carefully given to the reasoning why it should look so awkward. considering the paragraph Aurorean offered as a prototype in many aspects, a thorough examination helps to identify some factors that are about the language per se and that can be quickly wiped off upon notice; the rest factors, however, extend far beyond language due to their much deeper roots in thinking habits upon which words and patterns are selected.

Generally the language in question features lengthy and humdrum, which is often the lesson of Chinese English. On the whole, Chinese tolerates more repetition than English does. Oftimes parallel words and phrases, or structures of like meanings in Chinese break out powerful rather than demolish the strength. But in English, it's the other way around. Silimar elements piled on can be worse than grammar mistakes with their lower efficiency in conveying meaning and the breakup in reading, for it distracts readers, even annoys them. And Chinese is a more detailed languge. While many elements in English are self-evident and can be safely left out, doing so in Chinese is risky and would give an abrupt sense, though it can still be understood with a little extra effort. Chinese English is humdrum not just for a considerable amount of repetition, but also for a lack of lively vocabulary, sentence patterns, and other forceful expressions.

The above mentioned, it becomes apparent why and how literal translation, or writing English from Chinese structures, is problematic.

Let's proceed to the problems packed in the following paragraph, by courtesy of our Mr. Aurorean, the personality of amusing grudges and grievances, not thoroughly denied though could have been, thanks to the benevolence of the translation industry and many open-minded people. Thanks to Mr. Aurorean, for his unabashed display of his self-styled good english, which may otherwise help to benchmark many translators' work.

Should any native English speaker look at what you put down here, he or she will definitely go to see a doctor as this foreigner will not only be amused, but also be suffering from a nausea and vomiting disease.
Comments: very low efficiency. Simply put it like this: Any English native speaker at your words will... Well, "what your put down here" is self-evident in the context so it's needless. Should..... is a relatively big structure here but we don't like it to do a small job. "not only be amused, but also be" is childish logic, it's dull, not interesting, not funny.

Such trashy and junk words were put together to display how poor and messy your so-called English (in fact, even worse than typical Chinglish) is .
comments: just select one between trashy and junk, since either repeats the other here. We know such words "were put together", you don't have to speak it out, which means to emphasize. So it's needless too. poor and messy, just choose the latter, because messy conveys "poor". so-called is not a good word; the meaning is not ironic enough translated from chinese literally. So see my changes:
The bundle of words makes a valueless display of the english of yours. One won't think futher if it's chinglish or not.

See? You don't have to look sissy by shouting words like "such", "how poor", "how messy". You may have never been praised as a sense of humour by females. Well, that's okay. But you should at least know how to say barbed words in a polite manner. Or how you dare to pick up english as a gun?

You can certainly regard me as stinky because I have been so unluckily gotten into contact with you, a piece of ***.
Comments: a master of english don't end a long sentence with "***." the logic is baby level too. not attractive at all. Well, try some Shakespeare way:
What's in the name "Aurorean"
that we don't call by ***
but smells at well

You can rest your mind that I am far inferior to you in this regard. How funny a stupid idiot like you could have an idea of building up a team!
Comments: you know why you look sissy? because you tag and cap others with boorish lore. now calm down and check back your words, you were being so desperate. God won't tag you with "idiot", because he's merciful. We won't too, because it's overtly evident what a kind of thing before us. Your words reflect yourself. you are your words.

Do you believe that there are many other people on this world, who can be as similarly asinine as you are. Just go to the hell and kiss your mom's ass!
Comments: really childish logic. i'm so sorry but your imagination is so flat. You just hurt your mother. You are 30 something. So your mother is a senior now. God bless her. hope she survives you 'cause you two are to split into different ends of the world in the long run. Cherish the rest time.

Your so-called dream ( actually a kind of deliria) will never come true. Otherwise, our society as a whole will run into an overall catastrophe of deterioration of our population quality. BTW, you shall never compare yourself with violinqq, as doing so is like comparing a piece of *** with a brillant piece of jade.
Comments: Yuk, instead just say "I'm worried about your dream" to avoid sissy impression and create gentleman image. don't say "our society as a whole" because you are not supposed to be one of the leadership level right? "an overall catastrophe of deterioration of our population quality" sound lousy: words are too long. simply try "the end of the world", and it's more vivid and impressive. by the way, i'm not that great, and the world won't collapse for my individual existence. I'm so worried about your state of health. check your family tree and see if one or two cases of Alzheimer's disease or mongolian exist. by the way, who grants you the big position to compare? look at yourself, even a far cry from a botched creature by god.

Whose English is more acceptable? I'm in want of your opinions.

Thank you all in advance.

Re: Isaiah 53

TheProcess — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:55:31 GMT

Clive wrote:

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

You say Don't worry about the Hebrew . . .

However, my first reaction is to think that the crux of the matter is the intention of the original Hebrew writer. So, what is to be gained by debating the nuances of English pronouns? Surely the nuances of Hebrew pronouns are more to the point?

Best wishes, Clive

Yes, the Hebrew may be important, ( I understand that the Hebrew switches between the singular and plural, which would seem to rule out an individual) but the issue, for the most part, can perhaps be adequately considered looking at a translation.

Re: Correction of a Translation (Compulsory: British English)

Bennyman — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:52:58 GMT

Can you unpack a bit more the nuance of the colloquial Danish expression? Phrases that spring to mind in English are things like "arranged marriage", which isn't quite right, or "bartered with other plantation owners", which doesn't quite bring across the dehumanising element of treating enslaved men like animals put out to stud or women like broodmares.

Well, it basically means that a said person, be it father or slave owner, can decide to marry you away to a stranger. However, it is not quite the same as arranged marriage as that strikes me as something very fatherly or domestic.

Furthermore, to 'Marry them/her away' can be done by anyone "owning" another person, like a slave owner.

In any case, the exact translation of it, word for word: "Gifte dem bort" = "Marry them away".

So what do you think the correct translation would be?

I thought of this one:

- [pronoun] away in marriage

NB: Yes. It's hard to believe that human beings could treat their own as animals to be bartered and used for mating as if they were stud dogs.

The American Negro

In 1620 the first Negroes were shipped to the state of Virginia on the American East Coast by Dutch merchants. In the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th century large cargo loads of African Negroes - men, women and children - were sent across the Atlantic Ocean. Many died from the inhumane conditions on board the ships. The survivors were sold like cattle to white planters at auctions, where the men were often separated from their wives and children. The strongest men and women worked in tobacco and cotton fields in the South and at cane mills in the West Indies. Only a few â especially the beautiful, young Negro girls â worked as house slaves: looking after children, cooking and washing for the white families. The Negro families lived in small cabins and had a little piece of land, where they could grow their own vegetables and keep hens and geese. They were the plantation ownerâs property, and he could punish, sell or give them away in marriage. Many Negroes tried to run away to the North; others protested by working slowly, simulating illness or by instigating open rebellion. Quite often, the slave owners feared their own slaves. The plantation owners lived considerable distances from each other, and there were many more slaves than whites. One of the slavesâ most dangerous weapons was arson. A whole yearâs revenue could go up in smoke, if a barn full of corn or tobacco was set ablaze, and it was difficult to identify the culprits. In the 1830s and 1840s many men and women, both white and black, worked for the abolition of slavery. More and more people felt that slavery was irreconcilable with the beautiful words of the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, which states that all men are created equal and have certain rights, amongst them freedom. A lot of progress was made, and in 1865, after a long and bloody civil war, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that slavery was abolished and the Negroes free.

This looks better.

Re: Question

Clive — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:45:06 GMT

Hi again.

In this sentence,

That is an oversimplification as to what we have in mind

your translation=That way of explaining as to what we are thinking about is too simple to show our meaning adequately.

Sorry ,but i can't undrestand what he is thinking about?He didn't explain anything that made it too simple to understand?what made it too simple ?Yes, it's not really clear as to what exactly he means here. Probably the idea of 'a system of volunteers' is what he means, but he is saying that these few words do not give all the details of how this system would work. Does he agree to making the listing valuntary or is he against it? He's in favour of it. English is so confusing to me. To me, too, sometimes.

Can you explain alittle bit about presprective regulation? Is it oppsitive of voluntary? Yes and how about conscripts ?What is the meaning of conscripts, 'A conscript' is someone who is forced to do something, often by law. eg If young men join the army because the government/law says they must, they are called 'conscripts' and the susyem is called 'conscription'.

MY MIND IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE I think mine already did. I usually feel better after it does that.

Here is another question

PAUL McCARTHY: It's a trend that's long been worrying heritage groups, and it's feared proposed federal heritage laws might throw open the door altogether for developers and their bulldozers.

ALAN GRAHAM, NATIONAL TRUST CEO: It basically reverses 25 years of established practice. The whole existing heritage regime would be reviewed and one would assume, as a consequence of any review that's undertaken, that places would be reconsidered and perhaps, as a consequence of that, delisted

I have problem with this one here it can refer to the thing he regards to as that places would be reconsidered or deisted (so it will mean:one thing that would be assumed as a consequence of any review that's undertaken ,is, that places would be delisted or reconsidered) NO or it can refere to someone like you or me(so it will mean someone would assume as a consequence of that ,those places would be reconsidered or delisted. YES. It's the impersonal, rather formal pronoun 'one', meaning a person or people in general. eg One should not eat with one's mouth open.)

what do you thing which one is it?but i think i understood as i was trying to type it to ask you ,cause i used ed at the end of the word assume for the first example so it can't refer to something,right?does it refer to someone? Yep.

Here in this part:

PAUL McCARTHY: The National Trust believes what's proposed favours developers when there should be a more holistic approach. It wanted measures to ease the burden of costs on heritage building owners; instead, it might give them the option to sidestep conservation.

i cann't figure out the true meaning of the part all together in the bold.

believes what's proposed believes that this suggested plan

favours developers is better for developers, offers them more benefuts/advantages

when there should be a more holistic approach. an approach that looks at the whole problem and does not just look at parts of it.

This is not easy English that you have chosen to read. You are doing OK. Just be patient, and your understanding will slowly improve.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Latin expression

Tanit — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:27:09 GMT

Seems as if this thread is turning into an "Italianforum!"

Well, "coloro" has nothing to to with "loro." It's a demonstrative pronoun, while "loro" is a personal pronoun.

A correct translation, to my mind, would be:

- loro => they/them

- con loro => with them

- coloro (che) => those (who)

What's more, coloro che (see also MrPatrick's and MrP's posts) is an archaism for quelli che. Although it's grammatically fine, I'd be very surprised if somebody used it in spoken language.

Lastly (for Clive), colour = colore.

Re: Face value

Clive — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:07:39 GMT

Hi,

So the article is wrong. Yes. It seems to me like it might be a translation of some kind. It should also begin with People can say anything

You wouldn't write 'at the face value'. Could you tell me why it is incorrect? It's really just idiomatic, that's just the way we like to say it. The standard expression is 'at face value', although you could also say 'at their face value'.

Strictly speaking, it is the words rather than the people that should not be taken at face value. Thus, the pronoun 'them' does not have a valid antecedent. I'd prefer to say But you should not take their words at face value.

Best wishes, Clive