| |
|
Translation - Danish-Italian - Lær mig at kende, og se, hvem jeg er (: ...Current status Translation
| Lær mig at kende, og se, hvem jeg er (: ... | | Source language: Danish
Lær mig at kende, og se, hvem jeg er (: Er ikke en skuespiller, men en person i virkelighedens spillefilm blandt andre.. | Remarks about the translation | Bridge by Bamsa: "Learn to know me and see who I am. I am not an actor, but a person in the real life movie, among others." |
|
| Impara a conoscermi e guarda chi sono. | TranslationItalian Translated by alexfatt | Target language: Italian
Impara a conoscermi e guarda chi sono (: Non sono un attore, ma una persona nel film della vita reale, fra gli altri. |
|
Validated by alexfatt - 16 January 2012 17:23
ตอบล่าสุด | | | | | 13 January 2012 18:46 | | | | | | 13 January 2012 18:54 | | | "Vedrai chi sono" is a set phrase. Using an imperative is correct but, you know, unusual. | | | 13 January 2012 21:04 | | | But IMO, the future tense implies a condition.
"(If you) learn to know me you'll see who I am"
I think the original (as it was bridged) means:
"Learn to know me (and) see who I am" (do both things - one does not depend on the other) | | | 13 January 2012 22:28 | | | Thanks for your comments Lilian, but I'm afraid I don't understand.
"Learn to know me" and "See who I am" are not related? Logically I can't imagine doing both things without them being related. Of course, only after learning to know someone you see who (s)he is. "See who I am" happens necessarily after, in my humble opinion. That's why the set phrase appears mostly at the future tense in Italian. It's often placed after imperatives, i.e. "Lascialo fare e vedrai chi è" - "Dagli gli strumenti e vedrai che farà " etc.
I mean, it barely makes sense to me to consider the two actions happening at the same time and not related.
I hope not to spend too much time on a simple issue.
| | | 13 January 2012 23:51 | | | I know what you mean. Your version sounds more "familiar", but as I said, according to Bamsa's bridge the verb tense should be imperative.
Anyway... even if I agree with you that this does not deserve too much discussion, I'd like Bamsa's input about the exact meaning in the original and if the future tense could be acceptable as well, ok?
@ Ernst? What do you say? CC: Bamsa | | | 15 January 2012 21:59 | | | Hi
"Lær" is imperative.
If it was future, there should be an auxiliary verb + the infinitive of the verb. | | | 15 January 2012 22:07 | | | Ok. To avoid the resulting oddity, I'll just use a different verb.
Thanks a lot Ernst and Lilian |
|
| |
|