| | |
| |
10 ožujak 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 ožujak 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 ožujak 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 ožujak 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 ožujak 2012 16:11 |
| | So, "My music has always been instrumental, which involves no language barrier in its nature"? |
| |
10 ožujak 2012 16:16 |
| | This sentence is also right. It is ok if you use it for Turkish translation. |
| |
10 ožujak 2012 16:23 |
| | OK, I'll edit. But 'in nature' and 'in its nature' are the same?  |
| |
10 ožujak 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 ožujak 2012 16:31 |
| | |
| |
19 ožujak 2012 22:25 |
| | Good job, Mesud2991! Eline saglik! |
| |
19 ožujak 2012 22:30 |
| | Teşekkürler  Sadece Mesud deyin lütfen. |
Omiljeni prijevodi
