| | |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 00:29 |
| | I can see that it's "pra" and "do" in the original, but does this make sense in Portuguese? It definitely doesn't in English. |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 01:45 |
| | A free parafrase could be:
"The good things are for myself and the rest is for the others"
I think that Rodrigues meant
"What's good is for oneself, what's left is FOR the others." |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 14:44 |
| | The only thing, what irritates is, that there is written "é do outro" <=> "is from the other" instead of "é para o outro" <=> "is for the other" ?? |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 15:09 |
| | That's what I meant - I don't think we can change the original that drastically. |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 15:21 |
| | then this is still better..:
"e" => "and".
or written w/ error? "é" = "is", "e" = "and". |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 15:36 |
| | This makes absolutely no sense in English. Could someone ask rodrigo148 (in Portuguese) to confirm what he meant? |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 15:41 |
| | I've written to him. I would now like to wait for his answer. |
| | 2007年 मार्च 4日 18:29 |
| | If what's left is from the others, what's good is for oneself.
Se o que sobra é para o outro, o que é bom é para si... |
| | 2007年 मार्च 5日 06:46 |
| | Rodrigues wrote:
"é do outro" <=> "is from the other"
But in this context this equivalence isn't true.
The "do" here means "belongs to". What is left belongs to or will be left to the other after oneself have taken what he believes are the good things. |
| | 2007年 मार्च 5日 06:53 |
| | This sounds like a good explanation, Borges, but since Rodrigues has written to the requester, let's wait until we hear back from him. |
| | 2007年 मार्च 6日 16:42 |
| | I've decided to make the correction as Borges suggested and accept the translation. |
| | 2007年 जुन 27日 09:01 |
| | The requester didn't answer till today...
The correction was done fine by kafetzou. |