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

Check for "nativeness"

Iro4eka — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:46:32 GMT

Hello! I am a Russian language speaker. I'm working at several translation projects now and experience some problems with making my text sound more natural. The target audience is AE speakers so the matter is of vital importance for me. I will be really grateful for everybody who just answers me if the following statements sound natural for native speakers or not. Here they are:
1. Negative information embodies a great amount of distractive energy which might trigger destroying effect of our well-being, feelings and self-evaluation.Â
2. Having lively imagination will make it easier to take advantage of the shielding-in-the-moment method known as âwaterfall techniqueâ
3. Having no possibility to make a trek to the country, go for a stroll to the park to get an eyeful of nature's peace and take the air. The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders of nature, the less we think of all the lifeâs daily stresses and fill up with an amazing sense of peace and well being.
4. Dissipate the onset of negative emotions by letting off steam at the gym. Get physical until the pleasant sensation of weariness arises.
Â
It should be added that these are entries for blogs, so I will appreciate your advice how to make them more "blog-oriented" if they are not. You may contact me by skype or icq.
I thank everybody for the support in advance!!

Re: How to overcome Negative Thinking?

bruno_ts — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:59:23 GMT

Once i readed a book from Paulo Coelho called "The Diary of a magician" (I don't know if this is the right translation) and he talked about an exercise that consist in put your indicator nail under your thumb nail every time you think in a negative thing. The explanation is simple: if you feel in your body how much is bad think in negative way, you'll know how much it's bad to your health. Then, every time you turn to think negative, you'll remember the pain and you'll evict this thinks.

I've never did it, because I can control myself when I think this things. But there's a way to try to leave this bad habit.

Re: Preposition: For

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:04:23 GMT

Words have many meanings and uses. For to doesnÂ´t exist in English as one is trying to put a preposition in front of a infinitive verb.This is a very common translation error in Spanish.For- is used in questions about the purpose ,destination beneficiaries What is this for? I left for Mexico. Here is a gift for you. He had potatoes for dinner.For is used in time expression concerning the duration over a period of time. For + length of time (for ages) (for a month, day, year, week, 5 hours etc)For all = notwithstanding , even if (For all I know he is crazy.) For= considering that (ItÂ´s a fine day for mid-DecemberFor = in favor of, on the side of, ( He is for going to the park) or ( I am for the death penalty)But for = a negative condition, exception or absence. I would have got here on time but for the traffic jam.For can be a conjunction: For connects a fact with its cause Mary went home, for she was sick.They are late, for they got lost.Common collocations of FOR: apologize for, blame for, care for, excuse for , fight for, forgive for, hope for, pay for, pray for, substitute for thank for vote for, bad for, difficult for eager for, easy for, good for ,grateful for, hard for, hungry for, known for, prepared for, qualified for, ready for, remembered for, responsible for, sorry for, suitable for, thirsty for, for example, for the love of God. for instance.

Re: Preposition: For

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:02:48 GMT

Words have many meanings and uses. (For to) doesnÂ´t exist in English as one is trying to put a preposition in front of a infinitive verb.This is a very common translation error in Spanish.For- is used in questions and concerns the purpose ,destination and beneficiaries What is this for? I left for Mexico. Here is a gift for you. He had potatoes for dinner.For is used in time expression concerning the duration over a period of time. For + length of time (for ages) (for a month, day, year, week, 5 hours etc)For all = notwithstanding , even if (For all I know he is crazy.) For= considering that (ItÂ´s a fine day for mid-December)For = in favor of, on the side of, ( He is for going to the park) or ( I am for the death penalty)But for = a negative condition, exception or absence. (I would have got here on time but for the traffic jam.)For can be a conjunction: For connects a fact with its cause Mary went home, for she was sick.They are late, for they got lost.Common collocations of FOR: apologize for, blame for, care for, excuse for , fight for, forgive for, hope for, pay for, pray for, substitute for, thank for, vote for, bad for, difficult for, eager for, easy for, good for ,grateful for, hard for, hungry for, known for, prepared for, qualified for, ready for, remembered for, responsible for, sorry for, suitable for, thirsty for, for example, for the love of God. for instance.

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

not too ... to

Lin1978 — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:19:48 GMT

Dear experts,

I got a little confused with these sentences.

1. I am (only) too glad to help you.

This sentence means" I am glad to help you." because of the coexistence of two negative phrases - "only" and "too ... to"

2. They become too weak (even) to feed themselves.

This sentence means" They are so weak that they can't even feed themselves."

But, the next one confuse me ?

3. Last night we had a fight. And this morning she wasn't too happy to see me.

Accroding to the context, I know the sentence means "she was unhappy to see me." But, if there is no context, I would translate the sentence "she was happy to see me." due to the coexistence of two negative phrases - "wasn't" and " too ... to." So, how should I ascertain the correct translation?

Re: Women in Bible , can't help asking !!

The Sweet Desert — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:23:08 GMT

Nona The Brit wrote:
I think that the difference between translating into another language and translating an explanation into another language is pretty slim, to be honest. I'd say the verses themselves are being translated.

dear Nona, when it comes to Arabic, the language of Qura'n, the difference seems slim but is in fact huge! let's consider the following example, let's see how translation of the vereses(and not their meanings) has badly affected Christianity(the Bible)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."(John 1:1)

"And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's" (I Corinthians 3:23)

now is Christ God or God's?!! according to a Muslim scholar, the mistake could have been in the translation from Aramaic to Greek, deliberately or not. In the Greek language Theos is God, but Theou means God's.. A difference of only one letter but big consequences.

so in this case John 1:1 should have been written: '.... and the Word was God's ' such dishonest translations may give a negative impression about the religion in question, for how come a non-Christian can be sure whether or not the Word is God!?

Nona, you might say, what's the difference, the same may happen to Qura'n! and I agree with you but in the case of Qura'n, Muslims realise it's only the Arabic version they are allowed to recite during their prayers and supplications while for Christians, the Bible may be read in many languages thus making it easy for dishonest translators to stain the purity of this Holy Scripture...

you may agree with me, and you may not but I would like you to make sure it's not my aim to prove myself right or anything, rather, I'm ready to discuss any point you are not so sure about.. after all, the Englishforums is such a lovely rendezvous for interesting discussions...

Re: Help me with this translation!

nona the brit — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:36:18 GMT

compensate - to balance something negative with something positive. The lack of sympathetic understanding is a negative thing about the English, but this is compensated for (balanced out by) their sense of justice and fair play.

'want' in this sentence means 'lack of''

Re: Prophet Muhammed is the super star of western press (HERE ARE ALL CARTO

Ruslana — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:43:38 GMT

Rishonly wrote:
May I suggest we don't get deep inside any specific religion? This way, we can avoid the chances of offending someone.

I myself am not going to offend Muslims. I know Christianity and just would like to learn more about Islam. Muslims know their religion better than I do (I am not a Muslim, as you can guess), so I ask them to correct me if I am wrong, agreed?

Firas wrote:
I didn't get your point? What do you mean by "infidel", can you give me a case for example?

I meant this, for example (taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm).

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imÃ¢m. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

Firas wrote:
BTW, I can tell you for sure that if a Muslim does not respect other divine religions, he is not a real Muslim.

That really sounds better.

But there is something what makes me be puzzled. Here is a quote from the Qur'an.

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85)

I am afraid it is not very respectful. Am I wrong?

Janissary wrote:
infidel means people who are not in the same religion with you. not only for Muslim's case. it s a general word. For Christians we are (i am Muslim) infidels ,too.

That's just the point. Of course, every religion distinguish the people of other religions. But "infidel" is not a general word. At least, I have never heard Christians call the followers of other religion somehow like that. In Christianity we just say "adherents of other faith (religion)" and this has no negative shade whereas "infidel" sounds a bit unrespectful (at least, in the Russian translation). But if "infidel" has no negative shade in Islam religion, then it is OK.

Re: Present perfect continuous in negative sentences

Mowgli — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:13:31 GMT

Hello,

excuse me. It shouhd have been: My grammar book says PRESENT PERFECT SIMPLE is usual with all verbs in negative sentences. I have written PP continuous which was an accident. I try to translate exactly what this book says (ItÂ´s a Czech book for language schools - AngliÄtina pro jazykovÃ© Å¡koly, II, s. 30, 1988, but there are also new editions):

The present perfect simple is usual with the verbs to be, to have to know and all verbs in negative sentences instead of the present perfect simple. explanation if you canÂ´t understand my translation: in the context where we usually use with other verbs the PPcontionuous (The PPsimple in negative sentences expresses that the acction hasnÂ´t occured at all.):

examples from the book for the verbs to have, to be and to know : "IÂ´ve known him for ten years. ItÂ´s been hot since Monday. IÂ´ve had this camera for more than a year"

and negative: "It hasnÂ´t rained since Monday. X affirmative: "It has been raining since Monday."

So, thatÂ´s why I suppose the following sentences should be wrong:

*** hasnÂ´t been raining since Monday.***

or the sentences from my previous post:

*** havenÂ´t been driving/smoking since 2000. ***???However, you have written: "These are OK, but would also be OK without the continuous".

I suppose the verbs which arenÂ´t usually used in the present continuos are also not used in the present perfect continous. So the list of the verbs {have, be, know} which are used in the the present perfect simple in the contexts where other verbs have present perfect continous isnÂ´t probably complete. (I mean not only: be, have and know. I would add other non progressive verbs / to hear, to see in the meaning of :with your eyes, to own and other)

I have a car now. (not *** I am having a car now.***)

so thatÂ´s why I say :

IÂ´ve had this camera for more than a year. and not: *** have been having this camera for more than a year.***

My example for the nonprogressive for the verb own: We have owned this house for ten years. (but: We have been rebuilding this house for ten years.) - both means to me: we still own the house, we are still rebuilding the house - own - nonprogressive verb

And now I am going to try how I understand the book of the Murphy (itÂ´s English Grammar in Use for Intermediate students, however, I donÂ´t have the book here and thatÂ´s why I cannot write it exactly, I am afraid. It concerns the verbs live and work:

It should be possible (according to Murphy) to use either PP simple or PP continuous in the same context with the verbs live and work:

An example from an other textbook (Enterprise III, Workbook, page 10, ex. 6, Express Publishing, 2000 (1997).

According to the key:

How long have you been working/worked there? (I suppose both means: You are still working/you still work there.)

One friend of mine says he knows the same rule for wait. So it should also be possible to say:

How long have you been waiting here/have yow waited here?

I have been waiting since eight oÂ´clock. / I have waited since eight oÂ´clock. - Is there any difference in meaning of those two sentences? (PPcontinous is probably more usual in this context - "since eight oÂ´clock", isnÂ´t it? - I would have said before: I have waited since eight oÂ´clock is wrong.- You have written : "ItÂ´s fine. In fact, since "wait" usually refers to a period of time, IÂ´d say continous is the more common form of the perfect tense of this verb. Does it (also) concern this special context, these two sentences, or is it probably meant in general?

(- You have also written: It is possible to use any verb in these two tenses. Does it also concern the non progressive verbs (have, be, know, own, see, hear, ...)? Can I also normally use them in the PP continuous? - for example: ???I have been having this camera for more than half a year.????

Thank you for your reply Mowgli