| |
|
نتائج21- 29على مجموع تقريبا29 | | | 21 شباط 2008 01:42 | | I would either say "If you would only return" or "If you returned", not "If you only returned". "If only you returned" is also possible.
What do you think he means with the charger, then? | | 21 شباط 2008 11:27 | smyعدد الرسائل: 2481 | I think he considers "saz" as a gun and its strings as "charger" and then he plays his longing with saz, that means "ÅŸarjörüne hasret sürdüm sazımın" but kfeto used "adorned" which means "süsledim". What about "I charged my saz's strings with longing" -->thinking "strings" are "charger" ? | | 21 شباط 2008 11:41 | | "Also, kfeto, why did you use the word "welding" in the first line?"
yes more correct would be 'wrapped' or 'surrounded' i deviated because i thought welding conjured up a more poetic imagery.
literally 'ne vardi' means 'what was' or 'what existed' as in 'what existed (that stopped you from returning or doing whatever it is that i want you to do)'
| | 21 شباط 2008 14:59 | | "welding" conjures up an image of metallic industrial work. "clinging to" might be better here, but I don't totally understand the grammar of the first line. Why is "sensizlik" in the objective case? What verb is it the object of?
kfeto, you and smy, who are both native speakers, seem to disagree about the meaning of "ne vardi". I also thought it meant "what was there", which is why I wrote my suggested translation, which you can see in my note above (20 February 2008 07:06). | | 21 شباط 2008 15:12 | | hi Laura:-)
i don't think smy and i disagree.
we both agree that 'ne vardi' is the same as 'ne olur' literally 'what would happen', the infinitive being 'ne olmak'= 'to happen'
yeah welding is bad...but 'cling to' is not recommended because the object of that would be the person itself, not the absence being 'clung on'.
sensizlik is the object of 'sarip' from 'sarmak'
literally 'having wrapped your absence around the memories, i drank' | | 21 شباط 2008 15:32 | | kfeto, you're confusing me. In your post above you said, "literally 'ne vardi' means 'what was' or 'what existed' as in 'what existed (that stopped you from returning or doing whatever it is that i want you to do)'", but now you're saying, "we both agree that 'ne vardi' is the same as 'ne olur' literally 'what would happen'" - which is it????
Thanks for the explanation of the first line. In that case, I would say, "This evening I wrapped the memories in your absence and drank," but your last version is OK, too. | | 21 شباط 2008 16:10 | smyعدد الرسائل: 2481 | this will be revaluated, I've made the change as dramati said I could in a pm, now you can edit the 1st, 9th and 10th lines kfeto.
As "Ne vardı" is used as a conjunction here, it means the same with "ne olur/du (what would happen)", if it was used to mean "exist" as the verb of a sentence (e.g. "bu bardağın içinde ne vardı" ) then it would mean "what was there in..."
| | 22 شباط 2008 02:33 | | 20 februari 2008 07:06 kafetzou translates 'ne vardi' as ""What happened?"
20 februari 2008 14:52 i explained giving two examples:
"Ne vardı" is equal to 'ne olur' and means something like:<example 1>"what's the worst that could happen?" or <example 2>"why not?"
20 februari 2008 12:02 smy suggests a translation which basically corresponds with the first example i give in my previous post(would- could):
"Why, I say, don't you return at the last moment" should be
"What would happen if you returned at the last moment"
20 februari 2008 15:41 kafetzou asks:
"Ne vardı" means "What would happen"????
21 februari 2008 11:41 i translate 'ne vardi' LITERALLY to clarify to kafetzou:
literally 'ne vardi' means 'what was' or 'what existed' as in 'what existed (that stopped you from returning or doing whatever it is that i want you to do)'
which is true since it is derived from 'var olmak'= 'to exist'
i never said that here "it was used to mean "exist" as the verb of a sentence", if i believed that i would've translated it as such to begin with.
i didn't. i used 'why not' since that, i felt, conveyed the meaning most accurately; namely a hypothetical question asking whether there is any reason not 'to return at the last moment'
Soit...i edited like this:
original:Why, I say, don't you return at the last moment
smy's suggestion: I say, what would happen if you only returned at the last moment
i slighty changed it because of the uncertainty expressed:
'you'd return'
hope this is acceptable to all because my laptop's charger is beginning to be filled with longing for conclusion...;-) | | 22 شباط 2008 07:13 | | LOL!
I think the translation is good now. |
|
| |
|