+0
Regards to all English speakers on this forum.

I want to ask whether the following sentence is gramatically correct.

One difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match, by which it means that a concept in one language is lost or changed in meaning in translation.

Thanks in advance!
Comments  
Hi. Welcome to EF.
xczzhh One difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match which/that means that a concept in one language is lost or changed in another.
By which = by means of.

He darted after the criminal by which[by doing so] he wanted to catch him up.
xczzhhOne difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match, by which it means that a concept in one language is lost or changed in meaning in translation.
The idea the sentence tries to express is very odd. It says that a concept match means that something is lost or changed in translation. I think the opposite is true: nothing is lost if there is a match.

The by which it means part is also wrong. Clearly the intended antecedent of the relative pronoun (which) is the entire main clause and consequently which would be enough: One difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match, which means that no connotations should be lost or changed.

CB
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Thanks for your reply. Your answer is very helpful to my understanding of this problem. Please excuse me for asking another two questions:

1). Is the following sentence grammatical:

One difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match, by this is meant that a concept in one language is lost or changed in meaning in translation.

?

2). Is it that in a relative clause as "...by which (I/it mean)...", the intendeded antecedent of the relative pronoun "which" must always be a noun or noun phrase instead of the entire main clause?

Thanks a million!
One difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match, without which a concept in one language may be lost or changed in meaning by translation.

Also possible:

One difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match, by which is meant that a concept in one language must be expressable in the other language, or it may be lost or changed in meaning by translation.
________________

"Is it that in a relative clause ... the intendeded antecedent of the relative pronoun "which" must always be a noun or noun phrase instead of the entire main clause?"

No, it's not that.

CJ
Thanks for the reply, CJ. Your revision of the original sentence seems much better to me. I am really grateful for this! But, I am still not sure I understand your second sentence in terms of grammar:
CalifJimOne difficulty in translation lies in obtaining a concept match, by which is meant that a concept in one language must be expressable in the other language, or it may be lost or changed in meaning by translation.
Here are my questions:
1. Should the italicized clause be considered a relative clause?
2. The red part is very confusing to me; would you be so kind as to shed more light on that?

Thanks. ^_^
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
xczzhhShould the italicized clause be considered a relative clause?
Yes. That's what it is!
xczzhhThe red part is very confusing to me; would you be so kind as to shed more light on that?
by which is meant ... = and by this people mean ...

What do you mean by "wicked"? = What do you mean when you say "wicked"?
What is meant by "wicked"? = What do people mean when they say "wicked"?

Doing something like that is wicked, and when they say this, people mean ....
=
Doing something like that is wicked, and by this, people mean ...
=

Doing something like that is wicked, by which is meant ...

CJ
CalifJimWhat do you mean by "wicked"? = What do you mean when you say "wicked"?
What is meant by "wicked"? = What do people mean when they say "wicked"?

Doing something like that is wicked, and when they say this, people mean ....
=
Doing something like that is wicked, and by this, people mean ...
=
Doing something like that is wicked, by which is meant ...
Thank you so much, CJ!