WA-Catalog
/
en_tm
forked from WycliffeAssociates/en_tm
5
0
Fork 0
Files Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity See in Reader

Changed smart quotes to dumb quotes 

ESV and ULB verses are fine.
This commit is contained in:
Susan Quigley 2018-10-09 12:36:57 +00:00
parent 19027ba078
commit 2ba1be58ad
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
translate/figs-explicitinfo/01.md
View File

@ -38,9 +38,9 @@ In the biblical languages, it was normal to introduce direct speech with two ver
* Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and drew near to the door of the tower <u>to burn it</u>.
* Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and drew near to the door of the tower <u>to set it on fire</u>.
In English, it is clear that the action of this verse follows the action of the previous verse without the use of the connector “and” at the beginning, so it was omitted. Also, the words “with fire” were left out, because this information is communicated implicitly by the word “burn.” An alternative translation for “to burn it” is “to set it on fire.” It is not natural in English to use both “burn” and “fire,” so the English translator should choose only one of them. You can test if the readers understood the implicit information by asking, “How would the door burn?” If they knew it was by fire, then they have understood the implicit information. Or, if you chose the second option, you could ask, “What happens to a door that is set on fire?” If the readers answer, “It burns,” then they have understood the implicit information.
In English, it is clear that the action of this verse follows the action of the previous verse without the use of the connector "and" at the beginning, so it was omitted. Also, the words "with fire" were left out, because this information is communicated implicitly by the word "burn." An alternative translation for "to burn it" is "to set it on fire." It is not natural in English to use both "burn” and "fire," so the English translator should choose only one of them. You can test if readers understand the implicit information by asking, "How would the door burn?" If they know it was by fire, then they have understood the implicit information. Or, if you choose the second option, you can ask, "What happens to a door that is set on fire?" If the readers answer, "It burns," then they have understood the implicit information.
* **The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.”** (Matthew 8:8 ULB)
* The centurion <u>answered</u>, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.”
* **The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."** (Matthew 8:8 ULB)
* The centurion <u>answered</u>, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."
In English, the information that the centurion answered by speaking is included in the verb “answered,” so the verb “said” can be left implicit. You can test if the readers understood the implicit information by asking, “How did the centurion answer?” If they knew it was by speaking, then they have understood the implicit information.
In English, the information that the centurion answered by speaking is included in the verb "answered," so the verb "said" can be left implicit. You can test if the readers understand the implicit information by asking, "How did the centurion answer?" If they know it was by speaking, then they have understood the implicit information.