SS/PS question

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> 
> > > Potioncat:
> 
> > > English is such a precise language. ;-)
> 
> 
> > Carol:
> 
> > Just goes to show what a slippery thing the English language is.
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> Well, I was surprised at first that native English-speakers
> ("wand-carriers" :-)) had different opinions about one rather simple
> sentence :-). But then I thought about it, and now I understand that I
> was surprised mostly because in my own language misunderstandings like
> this are much less likely. 
> 
> Our language structure mostly doesn't allow for different
> interpretations. We have cases, and we have genders (three of them
> :-)), so nouns and adjectives have different endings depending on what
> gender, case and number they are. 
> 
> Different readings are still possible, I guess (I just can't think of
> any example), but in the sentence in question the word "hand" would
> just have one ending if it modified "thing", and a different one if it
> modified "caught". No problem :-)! OTOH, our words order in a sentence
> is not as fixed as it is in English, which can sometimes lead to a
> confusion, I suppose.
> 
> All this kind of makes translators' job more difficult, doesn't it?
> Maybe I'm too hard on them ... :-). Thank you again for your replies!

Geoff:
It has often been pointed out, especially in the age of emails and 
Yahoo groups that the written word does not always reflect 
what was meant by its composer; I have often read flame wars 
etc. which have erupted because the meaning of a contributor's 
message was misunderstood.

So often , you need to be able to see the originator's face or 
hear their voice to fully understand what precisely is meant. 
In message 37135, I described a joking ritual which some of my 
family and friends indulge in, which is to take the comment "This 
is a very serious occasion" and by changing the word which is 
stressed, subtle differences in meaning are produced, which 
would obviously be detected by hearing the altered nuance in the 
person's speech.

Another example is irony. Someone is trying to persuade another 
person to do something for them; they make a hash of the request 
and the other person goes off obviously angry and irritated. A third 
person, privy to the scene, comments "You made a good job of that." 
Which is irony, because the person to whom he is speaking did the 
exact opposite of a good job. The context has to be known and the 
tone of voice used by the speaker has to be heard to realise what 
precisely is meant by the comment.

And here, as I said some messages ago, we really need to hear Professor 
McGonagall - or see her - to pick up on her precise meaning. Pauses in 
the delivery might give slightly different results.

"He caught that thing", here Professor McGonagall paused to gesture 
to the Remembrall in Harry's hand before continuing, "in his hand after 
a fifty-foot dive".

or possibly

"He caught that thing in his hand," she said, sounding slightly awestruck, 
and pausing to glance meaningfully at Oliver Wood, " after a fifty-foot 
dive"

I favour the first because I visualise the Professor not knowing what a 
Remembrall is -hence the use of "thing" and pausing to think 'Surely I 
ought to know what the damn thing is?' before continuing her comment 
to Wood.

But that's just my interpretation; my point being that there is more than 
one way of analysing the comment.

English is indeed precise but slippery.
:-)