| | |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 15:07 |
| | Hi again Salim,
As far as I remember, the expert evaluating the previous translation edited the first sentence in the second paragraph. According to her edits, it was:
My music has always been instrumental, so there is no language barrier naturally.
But isn't that:
My music has always been instrumental, which has known no language barrier in nature(not adverb - in the place where living creatures live)
|
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 15:12 |
| | Thanks for your asking dear Mesud,
The first interpretation is correct. This sentence is not about "nature". It says since instrumental music does not have words, it does not involve language naturally.
 
Salim |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 15:24 |
| | For example, "the only thing not embodying any language barrier in nature/in the world is instrumental." You're talking about this 'nature', right? Of course, the sentences are almost similar but I only asked. |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 16:03 |
| | No. naturally here means "essentially" and this word refers to the word "instrumental" in meaning and it is not meant to be an adverb to the whole sentence only .
Please let me know if there is any further ambiguities. Thanks!
Salim |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 16:11 |
| | So, "My music has always been instrumental, which involves no language barrier in its nature"? |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 16:16 |
| | This sentence is also right. It is ok if you use it for Turkish translation. |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 16:23 |
| | OK, I'll edit. But 'in nature' and 'in its nature' are the same?  |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 16:27 |
| | In English text, "in nature" could be interpreted in two ways:
1. As an adverb
2. as a preposition and a noun
I'm talking about the first and you, the second. I think the first interpretation is more common in English. |
| |
10 Maaliskuu 2012 16:31 |
| | |
| |
19 Maaliskuu 2012 22:25 |
| | Good job, Mesud2991! Eline saglik! |
| |
19 Maaliskuu 2012 22:30 |
| | Teşekkürler  Sadece Mesud deyin lütfen. |
Suosituimmat käännökset
