Problemčić lingvistički englesko-hrvatski

[colbert]

camundongo kaže:

evo jezicnih pogrjeska iz popularnih sangova

If I was a rich girl (Gwen Stefani)
What if God was one of us (J. Osborne)
If I ain't got you (Alicia Keys)
I can't get no satisfaction (M. Jagger)
Ain't nobody (Rufus and Khan Chaka)
Me and you are supose to be together (Ashley Tisdale)

Mislis Chaka Khan?

[goranbo]

Možda netko može pojasniti frazu: "This/It is not your dad's Oldsmobile"

Kao, nije to nesto bezveze/jedostavno, nesofisticirano... ili kaj?

To se izgleda izvorno pojavilo ka slogan u nekakvoj kampanju.

[virgils]

goranbo kaže:

Možda netko može pojansiti frazu: "This/It is not your dad's Oldsmobile"

Kao, nije to nesto bezveze/jedostavno, nesofisticirano... ili kaj?

"Your dad's Oldsmobile" was a middle class family car, popular before the 1980's.

So if the reference is to a car, the implication is that it is better: perhaps sportier, or more powerful, or more luxurious, or all of the above.

[goranbo]

Ne ne, referencira se na odredjenu tehnologiju, a ne na otomobil.

[virgils]

goranbo kaže:

Ne ne, referencira se na odredjenu tehnologiju, a ne na otomobil.

OK. Then it's generalized, but with the same meaning.

If it's about a computer, or a yacht, the same considerations would apply.

[cp.tar]

camundongo kaže:

evo jezicnih pogrjeska iz popularnih sangova

Da mi je samo znati koji ti je qrac "sang"...

Inače, baš me zanima gdje su ovdje jezične pogreške...

If I was a rich girl (Gwen Stefani)
What if God was one of us (J. Osborne)

Subjunktiv u ovim slučajevima nije obavezan, iako se u prvom slučaju malo više preporučuje; u drugom je slučaju već praktički posve nestao iz upotrebe, osim valjda u službenoj upotrebi.

Visoki registar nije jedini, a bogme ni jedini ispravan; naročito ne u engleskom. Izbacivanje subjunktiva iz prvog primjera bi se još danas možda i ispravilo na jezičnim vježbama, ali u američkom engleskom subjunktiv dosta nestaje; pretpostavka da će za 20 godina to biti posve normalna forma i nije toliko smjela.

If I ain't got you (Alicia Keys)

Oblik ain't, doduše, spada u nestandardni engleski, ali radi se o obliku koji je prisutan u apsolutno svim varijantama engleskog jezika. Dakle, prisutan je svugdje osim u standardu. S jednog posve preskriptivističkog stanovišta, da, to bi bilo pogrešno jer bi svaki profesor to prekrižio. S lingvističke strane, pogreške nema.

I can't get no satisfaction (M. Jagger)

Pravilo je o izbjegavanju dvostruke negavije u engleskome preuzeto iz latinskog; 'prirodan' engleski dvostruku negaciju itekako dobro poznaje.

Opet, pogreška postoji ako nam je standard jedino mjerilo, ali u jezičnom sustavu engleskoga ovo itekako dobro funkcionira. I kao i ain't, postoji u apsolutno svakoj varijanti.

Ain't nobody (Rufus and Khan Chaka)

Isto kao gore.

Me and you are supose to be together (Ashley Tisdale)

Pretpostavljam da govoriš o "me and you", iako vidim da ne znaš ni "supposed" napisati kako spada... Nominativni se i akuzativni oblici ličnih zamjenica u engleskome često miješaju; izvan visokog stila, ovdje greške nema.

[virgils]

cp.tar kaže:

Da mi je samo znati koji ti je qrac "sang"...

Inače, baš me zanima gdje su ovdje jezične pogreške...
Subjunktiv u ovim slučajevima nije obavezan, iako se u prvom slučaju malo više preporučuje; u drugom je slučaju već praktički posve nestao iz upotrebe, osim valjda u službenoj upotrebi.

Visoki registar nije jedini, a bogme ni jedini ispravan; naročito ne u engleskom. Izbacivanje subjunktiva iz prvog primjera bi se još danas možda i ispravilo na jezičnim vježbama, ali u američkom engleskom subjunktiv dosta nestaje; pretpostavka da će za 20 godina to biti posve normalna forma i nije toliko smjela.
Oblik ain't, doduše, spada u nestandardni engleski, ali radi se o obliku koji je prisutan u apsolutno svim varijantama engleskog jezika. Dakle, prisutan je svugdje osim u standardu. S jednog posve preskriptivističkog stanovišta, da, to bi bilo pogrešno jer bi svaki profesor to prekrižio. S lingvističke strane, pogreške nema.
Pravilo je o izbjegavanju dvostruke negavije u engleskome preuzeto iz latinskog; 'prirodan' engleski dvostruku negaciju itekako dobro poznaje.

Opet, pogreška postoji ako nam je standard jedino mjerilo, ali u jezičnom sustavu engleskoga ovo itekako dobro funkcionira. I kao i ain't, postoji u apsolutno svakoj varijanti.
Isto kao gore.
Pretpostavljam da govoriš o "me and you", iako vidim da ne znaš ni "supposed" napisati kako spada... Nominativni se i akuzativni oblici ličnih zamjenica u engleskome često miješaju; izvan visokog stila, ovdje greške nema.

I agree with your perceptive comments in general.

The double negative is rarely heard in America except among uneducated hillbillies from, say Appalachia or the Deep South, or among some blacks, or among immigrants in whose native tongues the double negative is the norm.

The Rolling Stones' I ain't got no satisfaction is an example of their cultivation of an American Southern working class image.

[virgils]

virgils kaže:

The Rolling Stones' I ain't got no satisfaction is an example of their cultivation of an American Southern working class image.

Sorry, I meant I can't get no satisfaction.

but I tried

[cp.tar]

virgils kaže:

I agree with your perceptive comments in general.

The double negative is rarely heard in America except among uneducated hillbillies from, say Appalachia or the Deep South, or among some blacks, or among immigrants in whose native tongues the double negative is the norm.

While it is true that the double negative is rarely heard at least in parts of the USA, it occurs naturally in England, Australia, Canada... it is only because of the Latin influence on (early) English grammarians that the double negative is still frowned upon.

[virgils]

cp.tar kaže:

While it is true that the double negative is rarely heard at least in parts of the USA, it occurs naturally in England, Australia, Canada... it is only because of the Latin influence on (early) English grammarians that the double negative is still frowned upon.

I don't know why you consider the double negative "natural". Is it a natural feature of languages in general? Is it needed for accurate and efficient communication?

Or are you invoking ancient Indo-European? As I'm sure you know, over the past millennium English has moved towards a simplified grammar and has discarded much of the redundancy of the older or the more conservative tongues. Modern Romance languages are also simplified compared to Latin. It seems that the information transfer is still effective, without too much apparent indeterminacy.

I don't know much about modern Chinese (Mandarin) but I understand its structure is even simpler. I guess information specificity must rely on context: you don't know for sure what you have been told until you hear the last word of an entire paragraph.

[cp.tar]

virgils kaže:

I don't know why you consider the double negative "natural". Is it a natural feature of languages in general? Is it needed for accurate and efficient communication?

It is "natural" in English, as it appears in every single variety; it is a feature native speakers understand and spontaneously produce - and children are explicitly taught (by their parents or at school) not to use it.

I don't think it is a feature of languages in general; however, it does help accurate and efficient communication. Namely, double (or even multiple) negation increases redundancy, which can facilitate communication greatly.

Single negation is "logical" and "elegant", but it is a rule strange to the English language, imposed on it by grammarians impressed with the "elegance" of Latin grammar.

All in all, I consider the double negative "natural" solely because it occurs spontaneously.

[virgils]

cp.tar kaže:

It is "natural" in English, as it appears in every single variety; it is a feature native speakers understand and spontaneously produce - and children are explicitly taught (by their parents or at school) not to use it in everyday speech.

Are you sure that American children spontaneously form the double negative? I mean those whose parents don't use it.

I asked a native Chinese (Mandarin) speaker and she stated that they don't use the double negative. On the other hand a (non native) student of Japanese said that the Japanese do use it. Hungarians have it as well, as do most modern IE languages.

There is something to be said for redundancy, as a communications engineer would confirm.

[cp.tar]

virgils kaže:

Are you sure that American children spontaneously form the double negative? I mean those whose parents don't use it.

Yep; most, if not all, do so. They do learn not to use it, though, due to their parents' influence.

I asked a native Chinese (Mandarin) speaker and she stated that they don't use the double negative.

Of course not; it would be overly complicated in their language system.

On the other hand a (non native) student of Japanese said that the Japanese do use it. Hungarians have it as well, as do most modern IE languages.

You do know that Hungarian isn't an IE language, don't you?

I never said it was a feature used in all the languages of the world, anyway, and the fact that some unrelated languages use it means very little when we talk about English.

There is something to be said for redundancy, as a communications engineer would confirm.

Well, sure... mind this example:

If I never told anybody anything, anywhere...

Now suppose you mis-heard never as ever - suddenly the meaning changes, drastically.

Compare that with the Croatian version:

Ako nikad nisam nikome ništa nigdje rekao...The chance of mis-communication is much slimmer now, isn't it?

[virgils]

cp.tar kaže:

Yep; most, if not all, do so. They do learn not to use it, though, due to their parents' influence.

Do you have any links to scientific studies of American (or any other) children spontaneously using double negatives when their parents don't?

You do know that Hungarian isn't an IE language, don't you?

Yes. That's precisely why I mentioned it.

If I never told anybody anything, anywhere...

Now suppose you mis-heard never as ever - suddenly the meaning changes, drastically.

Compare that with the Croatian version:

Ako nikad nisam nikome ništa nigdje rekao...The chance of mis-communication is much slimmer now, isn't it?

Yes, the requirements on language, like on other human activities, are conflicting. Speed and ease of communication conflict with the usefulness of built-in redundancy for noisy conditions.

[cp.tar]

virgils kaže:

Do you have any links to scientific studies of American (or any other) children spontaneously using double negatives when their parents don't?

No.

This is basic sociolinguistics, really, mixed with some things I learned in my ELT class... I don't even know whether any such studies were done at all; I just know that parents correcting their kids using a double negative is quite common (and even used in movies and TV shows as a common mistake parents correct ).

[Ioannes.]

Prevodim jedan tekst (sv. Alfons) koji govori o vrijednosti patnje i njezinom podnosenju. Malo me muci ova recenica: "Oh, how edifying it is at the time of suffering to preserve a cheerful peace and resignation!"

Unaprijed hvala!

[Abyssus]

cp.tar kaže:

Ako nikad nisam nikome ništa nigdje rekao...

Ovo je kao cvrči, cvrči cvrčak aliteracija.

[dioptrija]

KOJI JE ENGL. IZRAZ ZA "MREŽASTE SAMOSTOJEĆE ČARAPE"?
Hvala!

[colbert]

dioptrija kaže:

KOJI JE ENGL. IZRAZ ZA "MREŽASTE SAMOSTOJEĆE ČARAPE"?
Hvala!

Moze fishnet thigh high (stockings). Npr.
A moze i fencenet, ako su 'rupe' velike.

[goranbo]

Dakle Fishnet Thigh Highs

Ioannes kaže:

Prevodim jedan tekst (sv. Alfons) koji govori o vrijednosti patnje i njezinom podnosenju. Malo me muci ova recenica: "Oh, how edifying it is at the time of suffering to preserve a cheerful peace and resignation!"

Unaprijed hvala!

Znam da je malo kasno, al kaj te tu tocno muci (u toj recenici)? Nije bas preteska recenica...