 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010It's all the meaning that is lost
Hi! I would like to know the meaning and use of "all" in the following passage. I think the "all" is an adverb used for emphasis. Would you please paraphrase the sentence for me? Such translation programs still have a long way to go before they become truly useful. The fact that their translations need to be heavily corrected isn’t the problem. It’s ***all*** the meaning that is lost, especially between Japanese and English. LP > Hi! I would like to know the meaning and use of "all" in the > following passage. I think the "all" is an adverb used for emphasis. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > LP Maybe so: It's only meaning, [but not exact words] that is lost, especially between Japanese and English :) On 28 Jan 2010, Zurab57 wrote >> Hi! I would like to know the meaning and use of "all" in the >> following passage. I think the "all" is an adverb used for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's only meaning, [but not exact words] that is lost, > especially between Japanese and English :) No, this use of "all" means "the amount of", and it implies a large amount. I'd paraphrase it as "The problem isn't that the output needs to be corrected; the problem is the large amount of meaning that is lost in the translations."  SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 28 Jan 2010, Zurab57 wrote > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - 引用テキストを表示 - Thanks a lot for everyone! BTW, I wonder what the "it" refers to; does it refer to "the problem" in the preceding sentence, or is it a subject used in a emphatic structure such as "It is me who are to blame."? Such translation programs still have a long way to go before they become truly useful. The fact that their translations need to be heavily corrected isn’t the problem. It’s ***all*** the meaning that is lost, especially between Japanese and English. a) It (= The problem) is all the meaning that is lost. (The subject "It" refers to "the problem" and "that" is a relative pronoun) b) It is the meaning that is lost. ( The subject does not refer to anything in particular, but just emphasises the subject "The meaning" in the following sentence; "The meaning is lost." LP On 28 Jan 2010, Lazypierrot wrote > Thanks a lot for everyone! BTW, I wonder what the "it" refers > to; does it refer to "the problem" in the preceding sentence, or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > subject "It" refers to "the problem" and "that" is a relative > pronoun) That's certainly how I'd read it: "it's" could be replaced by repeating "the problem is". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > Hi! I would like to know the meaning and use of "all" in the > following passage. I think the "all" is an adverb used for emphasis. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > heavily corrected isn?t the problem. It?s ***all*** the meaning that > is lost, especially between Japanese and English. One could also write "It's the amount of meaning that is lost, ..." or "It is the fact that a significant amount of meaning is lost, ...". In other words (as you say), "all" emphasises the fact that meaning is lost in translation and that the extent of the loss is not trivial. SignatureLes (BrE) >Hi! I would like to know the meaning and use of "all" in the >following passage. I think the "all" is an adverb used for emphasis. >Would you please paraphrase the sentence for me? It can't be an adverb becaues it's modifiying a noun, meaning. I guess it's an adjective, but the rest of my post is unconcerned with it's grammatical role. >Such translation programs still have a long way to go before they >become truly useful. The fact that their translations need to be >heavily corrected isnt the problem. Its ***all*** the meaning that >is lost, especially between Japanese and English. It's the part of the meaning that is lost, not included in the translation, and there is so much of it. So much that is lost. "All" means that not just a little of the content is lost, but a lot of it. "You've forgotten all the good times we had." "You remember the text but forget all the subtext." (This is more important than the fact that the translation needs corrections. Because one can make corrections to a machine translation, but one is much less likely to add meaning that was omitted. Especially if the corrector doesn't understand Japanese, and is only putting bad English into correct English.) >LP SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years I really appreciate your helps! Could it be paraphrased as follows? Do you find any problem in the sentence? The problem is not the fact that their translations need to be heavily corrected, but the amount of meaning that is lost. Would it be possible to say "their translations need heavy corrections" instead of "their translations need to be heavily corrected"? Thanks in advance. LP >I really appreciate your helps! Could it be paraphrased as follows? >Do you find any problem in the sentence? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >LP "Heavy corrections" is not idiomatic, no one would say it. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years Lazypierrot <lazypierrot@gmail.com> wrote in news:0e49fa2a-01e4-43f3- a23a-1d03c8f94f89@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > I really appreciate your helps! Could it be paraphrased as follows? > Do you find any problem in the sentence? > > The problem is not the fact that their translations need to be > heavily corrected, but the amount of meaning that is lost. That's ok. The grammar is fine. But whereas the original version ('The fact that their translations need to be heavily corrected isn’t the problem') makes it clear that heavy correction IS needed, your version might suggest that it isn't. > Would it be possible to say "their translations need heavy > corrections" instead of "their translations need to be heavily > corrected"? Possible, yes, and the meaning would probably be understood, but it's not very elegant! It is a subtle point, but it's the correcting that is heavy: not the corrections. To correct something heavily means to make a great many corrections to it. 'Heavy corrections' describes rather ugly repairs, made with a thick pencil. Also (VERY subtle point!), 'their translations need heavy corrections' puts together two (Latin) words with similar endings, and that doesn't sound good. 'Their translations need to be heavily corrected' sounds better. 'The nation's salvation' is perfect grammar, but 'the country's salvation' sounds more natural. Peter > Lazypierrot <lazypier...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0e49fa2a-01e4-43f3- > a23a-1d03c8f94...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Peter Thank you very much mm and Peter for your instructive comments! > > The problem is not the fact that their translations need to be > > heavily corrected, but the amount of meaning that is lost. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > problem') makes it clear that heavy correction IS needed, your version > might suggest that it isn't. Would it be better if I say as follows, which do not omit the necessity for translations to be heavily corrected? 1. The problem is the amount of meaning that is lost, as well as the fact that their translations need to be heavily corrected. or 2. The problem is not just the fact that their translations need to be heavily corrected, but also the amount of meaning that is lost. LP >> > The problem is not the fact that their translations > need to be [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> the problem') makes it clear that heavy correction IS needed, your >> version might suggest that it isn't. > Would it be better if I say as follows, which do not omit the > necessity for translations to be heavily corrected? > > 1. The problem is the amount of meaning that is lost, as well as the > fact that their translations need to be heavily corrected. That's good. > or > 2. The problem is not just the fact that their translations need to be > heavily corrected, but also the amount of meaning that is lost. That's very good indeed. But in both of these you have made the two problems equally important. These might be better: 1 The problem with their translations lies not so much in the poor grammar (or poor English), which needs to be heavily corrected, as in the considerable loss of meaning. 2 As well as needing a great deal of correcting, their translations lose much of the meaning, which is a bigger (worse, more intractable) problem. 3 Not only do their translations need comprehensive (or extensive) correcting, but they also result in a considerable loss of meaning, which is a greater (worse, more intractable) problem. I have avoided 'amount of meaning': it's slightly unidiomatic. > Thank you very much mm and Peter for your instructive comments! You're welcome, LP! Peter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.