Talk:Interlingua grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 'Let them eat cake' 2 missing alternative forms 3 Duo vices tanto 4 Esser and ser?

[edit] 'Let them eat cake'

(Que illes mangia le brioche)

Can this be said in this way:

Lassa illes mangia le brioce.

--Jondel 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, it could be, if the intended meaning is "Permit them to eat cake". But what Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote (later attributed to Marie Antoinette) was "Qu'illes mangent de la brioche", which is more like "They should eat cake". If you've never heard it, the old story runs like this:

"My lady, the peasants are rioting."

"Rioting? Whatever for?"

"Bread, my lady. They have no bread."

"No bread? Well, let them cake. It's much nicer." --Chris 14:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jondel: The correct form would be "Lassa les mangiar le brioche", with "les" being the object form of "illes" and "mangiar" the infinitive form. As Chris said, the meaning would be more along the lines of "permit them to". Incidentally, "cake" in Interlingua would be "torta", (if small) "patisseria", or simply "cake" as in English. Brioche, a French word, is not translated in either English or Interlingua and it's not cake. – McDutchie 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, McDutchie and Chris. I needed to clarify this.--Jondel 08:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

McDutchie is strictly speaking correct, of course, but brioche was the word used in that French quotation usually ascribed to Marie Antoinette, so at least in that one case it has been translated as 'cake'. 'Cake' isn't an exact translation, but it catches the point better than a more literal version would. Permit me my pedantry.

Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.165.57 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] missing alternative forms

It's good to see this all laid out, CJGB. However, there are several alternate forms at [1] that I don't see here. Even if they're rare, it would be good to include them, so that people can identify them if they come across them.

• Future vol + INF (Io vol scriber te.)
• Demonstratives: ce, is, esse, isse (no distinction for distance); este, celle, id
• Comparisons: tam ... quam (as ... as), minime, maxime
• Conjunctions:

atque, et (and), aut, vel (or), dunque (therefore), itaque (that's why), ma (but), nec (neither nor), pois (because), sive ... sive (whether ... whether)

Perhaps aut and vel represent an inclusive/exclusive distinction?

There are also alt versions of subjunctions and prepositions, but the regular forms aren't covered yet. kwami 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to include this kind of stuff, and plan to put some of them (the more common ones) in the "Variants" section. I wouldn't put it all of them, though. First, 'cos this is an overview, not a textbook; second, 'cos I think they belong in a different article, maybe one on Interlingua vocabulary.--Chris 07:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about, there should be a Prepositions section. But I wouldn't list every preposition there. This isn't a dictionary. My feeling is the article as a whole should follow Gode's preferences as expressed in Gode & Blair's 1951 Grammar. The Variants section should cover significant variants (meaning, in widespread use), basically the usage you find in Panorama, plus Stan Mulaik's innovations. I'd also include things like ella, cos they're mention in the Gode & Blair. That's where I'd put the cutoff point, 'cos you don't want long lists of (to the reader) meaningless particles from IED. We should mention, I think, that the original Interlingua-English Dictionary contains those "square bracket" words, most of which are not used by anyone.

I think you're right that aut/vel is supposed to be an inclusive/exclusive distinction. As far as I know, no-one uses it.

Perhaps there should be an article on Interlingua Variants, not for lists of alternative particles, but to document actual alternative versions of Interlingua, like the "Blair" version from 1951, Josu Lavin's Romanica, and a couple of others. It could provide more info on the variants you get within normal Interlingua, but I'd only want to talk about stuff that is in actual use (e.g., by competant users in Interlng or wherever), not totally stillborn stuff from the IED.--Chris 14:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duo vices tanto

CJGB reverted two changes I made: mild revert - "reclamo" not used a mass noun AFAIK - "duo vices tanto" was too literal a translation -- other edits were OK

Piet Cleij's big Dutch-Interlingua dictionary gives "tres vices tanto" as the translation of "drie keer zoveel" (three times as much), so I've got this one on good authority. Nevertheless I've asked the opinion of other Interlinguists and will try to figure out the usage in the source languages before insisting that it's correct.

As for "reclamo", it may be my Dutch bias (in my language, "reklame" is definitely a mass word) but I'm not sure you're right about that – I'll have to research further. IED gives "facer le reclamo" as a translation of "to advertise", but in Interlingua (as in the Romance languages) the definite article is often used for mass words; the same does not apply for the indefinite article.

Sometimes the literal translation is actually the correct one. McDutchie 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish "vende dos veces tanto" supports Cleij's version, but Italian "vende il doppio" supports my version. I'd say both versions are logically transparent enough to be acceptable Interlingua. However, the phrase "ille venderea duo vices tanto" strikes me as terribly awkward and rather unclear for an English speaker. "Venderea le duple" strikes my ears, at least, as fairly elegant. I could have translated it as "he would sell double", but consciously chose a slightly non-literal translation to make it more interesting for the reader.

If you really insist, I'd be willing to change the English to "he'd sell double", but I would rather not change the Interlingua to "venderea duo vices tanto". It'd be better to write an entirely new example sentence.

...the same does not apply for the indefinite article. I'm not sure I agree with this. It seems to me that if "face reclamo" is wrong (or at least, not as good as it could be), then "face melior reclamo" must also be wrong. On the other hand, "face le melior reclamo" would have to mean "do the best advertising", which isn't the meaning we want. So, what choice is there besides "face un melior reclamo"?

One could argue that "face un melior reclamo" means "create a better advertisement" rather than "do better advertising". But, after all, "face le reclamo" means both "create the advertisement" and "do the advertising", so the same semantic blurring must extend to "face un melior reclamo".

CJGB (Chris) 18:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I have it on word from a native Italian that "due volte tanto" is the current expression in Italian: [2]. If correct, that establishes the expression in Interlingua according to the 'regula de tres' (en, es, it). I cannot agree that the expression is any more awkward than it is in English, since it is word-for-word the same.

In French the expression seems to be "deux fois plus". In Interlingua, "duo vices plus" would seem quite comprehensible, and maybe less awkward to you. "Due volte più" (it), "dos veces más" (es), etc. also seem to be in use if Google is any indication. I only find these as prepositional phrases though, not as adverbial ones.

Incidentally, "vende el doble" is Spanish just as well as "vende il doppio" is Italian, "vend le double" is French and "vende o dobro" is Portuguese; I don't believe it's more Italian than any of these. That's not the translation of "sells twice as much", though. Yes, you could change the English to "sells double" but that's a cop-out. :-P

Regarding mass words: I do not think "facer reclamo" is actually wrong without the definite article. Some Google searches suggest that "fare reclamo" (it), "faire publicité" (fr), "hacer reclamo" (es) are in fairly widespread use.

McDutchie 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, "vende el doble" is Spanish just as well as "vende il doppio" is Italian, "vend le double" is French and "vende o dobro" is Portuguese; I don't believe it's more Italian than any of these. That's not the translation of "sells twice as much", though. Yes, you could change the English to "sells double" but that's a cop-out. :-P

It's not a cop-out! I composed the phrase in Interlingua and then translated it into English, so there' no reason to edit the Interlingua rather than the English. I suspected that the phrases existed in other source languages, but hadn't confirmed it. So at least we've established that "vende le duple" means something in Interlingua, even if we're debating the best translation.

I'm assuming we agree that "vende duo vices tanto" and "vendo le duple" cover the same semantic concept, and our disagreement is over whether we want a tight fit or loose fit. In a general-interest article like this one, a loose fit is actually desirable, since a long series of utterly literal translations tends to bore the reader. If we were translating a technical document, it would be different.

Who says that English "sells twice as much" is elegant? Having taught ESL, I'd say it's the sort of phrase that beginners often trip over. However, it's certainly normal English, which we expect readers of the English Wikipedia to have mastered. But for the Interlingua examples I think we should favour examples with more prime vista comprehensibility.CJGB (Chris) 22:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"sells twice as much" would be "vende duo vices plus", e non "vende duo vices tanto". --Antonielly 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esser and ser?

I looked through the whole article, and it gave me no information on how to conjugate the essential verbs, ser and esser. Also, "haber" means to have? As in "I have two dollars?" In Spanish, I know it's much different. Haber is used to say "I have done something" (Yo he hecho algo). I think this article needs a lot of expansion. It focuses on all of the regular verbs, but what about the irregular ones? We can figure the regular ones out with the charts. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)