Hi! Thank you very much for your translation! :-) but, could you please rewrite this using the inclusive form of we? Quite a few people have thought of aliens because of the line "from Earth". So, i have mentioned on my site that this project is only for humans and you should use the inclusive form. Sorry for the trouble! Thanks again! :) Nikhil. On 09/08/2011, Ingvild Roald <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > As I suppose the sentence is something you could use if you were to meet > extraterrestrials, I have chosen to use the exclusive but extensive 'we', > and the Norwegian SL-sentence would translitterate something like 'humans we > yes, live Earth we yes', where the 'we' is 'all of us here, but not you'. I > am not a 'native' signer, and cannot guarantee that this would be the best > way of putting it in Norwegian SL, but I think it would do. The sign-text is > a screen dump. as I always have problems with the SignText in combination > with e-mail > > Ingvild > Roald, Norway > >> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:28:57 +0530 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project >> To: [log in to unmask] >> >> Hi! I don't claim that my sentence will not cause any problem in >> translation. I accept that languages are really different from one >> another to come up with an easily translatable and meaningful >> sentence. However, this sentence can be satisfactorily rendered in >> most languages, at least spoken ones. I don't have much idea of sign >> language grammars. >> You should use the version of "we", which includes the maximum number >> of people. If there is a difference between inclusive and exclusive >> "we", then use the inclusive one. Both the we's refer to the same >> group of people. If it's not possible to say the whole thing in one >> sentence, you can break this into two, by dropping the "and". >> Nikhil. >> >> On 31/07/2011, Trevor Jenkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Valerie Sutton >> > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: >> > >> > Nikhil needs the translations in written SIGN LANGUAGES, not spoken >> >> languages! >> > >> > >> >> I am not an ASL expert, or I would do the translation myself in ASL. I >> >> actually do not how to sign that phrase in ASL, so that is why I was >> >> waiting >> >> for someone who knows ASL to do the translation for NIkhil in >> >> ASL...written >> >> in SignWriting. >> >> >> > >> > I'm in a similar situation with BSL. I'm increasing fluent in its use >> > but >> > not a native speaker. However, I am fluent in English yet I don't know >> > how >> > to understand the phrase: >> > >> > >> >> "We are humans and we are from Earth." >> >> >> > >> > How many are the "we"s? English, plus I guess many (all?) of the spoken >> > languages given here as exemplars, the first person plural is >> > uncountable. >> > It would be possible to translate it into Swedish with "vi" and still >> > obscure the number of participants. In BSL, at least, the first person >> > plural is countable; up to four maybe five even 10. It is signed >> > differently >> > depending on the number of participants. For example, if "we" consists >> > of me >> > and my wife then I sign that slightly different from me, my wife, and >> > you >> > (Valerie), plus the physical proximity of the "we" one to another would >> > change the sign(s) needed. However these small groups are signed >> > entirely >> > differently from "we" as the subscribers to this list (if all of us >> > happened >> > to be assembled in one locale). >> > >> > The presence of the "and" indicates that the second "we" is a distinct >> > different group from the first but with the speaker (signer) a member >> > of >> > both groups. There is a famous phrase that exemplifies the same problem >> > "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." In this case >> > the >> > AND is a transliteration from the source language but its inclusion >> > creates >> > an ambiguity that is not in the original. If that second "we" of the >> > sample >> > sentence were to refer to me, my wife and my dog then the "and" is >> > vital. >> > >> > There's also a BSL issue here. We have no sign for AND. There are ways >> > to >> > indicate that two things are connected but not immediately. >> > >> > The "from" affects the translational choices too. Where is this >> > discourse >> > dislocated sentence being transacted and how did the various "we"s >> > arrive >> > there, or were "we" there from the beginning. Similarly the actors to >> > whom >> > this phrase is being relayed are they from somewhere else coming to the >> > "here" or were they there from the beginning. This information will >> > change >> > how the sentence can be translated. >> > >> > It's not that the sentence is un-translatable *per se* but that rather >> > it is >> > not context free as Nikhil claimed somewhere (possibly on his web site). >> > At >> > least for BSL, context is required otherwise the processing costs in >> > the >> > sense of Relevance Theory is astronomically high. Without the enclosing >> > context it isn't really possible to provide a BSL translation. >> > >> > Regards, Trevor. >> > >> > <>< Re: deemed! >> > >> >> >> -- >> निखिल सिन्हा | Nikhil Sinha >> [log in to unmask] >> www.wahawafe.zxq.net - Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project. >> "We are humans and we are from Earth." in several languages. >> > -- निखिल सिन्हा | Nikhil Sinha [log in to unmask] www.wahawafe.zxq.net - Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project. "We are humans and we are from Earth." in several languages.