Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

20013Re: [Czechlist] What does "should" actually mean??????

Expand Messages
  • Terminus Technicus
    Mar 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Jo jo jo jo jo :)

      To uz prece davno vime, ze existuji "areas" kde nejde prelozit ABC jako DEF
      tak, aby to melo absolutne stejny vyznam a jeste aby to znelo jako original
      veta v cilovem jazyce... nerikam, ze je to jasne nebo jednoduche, ale od
      toho tu jsme, abychom posoudili a prelozili jak nejlip umime...

      Vim, ze se mnou v tomhle nesouhlasis, Helgo, a tohle je jeden z prikladu,
      kde bychom mohli diskutovat do zblbnuti...

      Cestina je tady IMHO asi tak stejne striktni jako Nemcina - i nase povahy -
      pokud jde o prikazy a zakazy - jsou rekl bych blize nes ty za
      oceanem/Anglickych mluvcich..., ale presto mi to nepripada jako takovy

      ve vetsine pripadu proste zhodnotim, co tim autor myslel (see Jamie's
      comments) a pak to nejak pojednam... pokud by na tom jedinem sluvku zavisel
      zivot, (neco us oudu, nebo ten priklad co uvadel Simon) - prelozim to stejne
      tak (aby to bylo co nejblize zamyslenemu vyznamu - pokud jej znam), plus
      dodam poznamku podobnou jako uvadi Simon (ze jako v A neni nekdy jasne,
      jestli should je muset nebo moci, nebo melo by.., takze at si daji
      pozor...)... ale jak rikam, troufam si tvrdit, ze tak v 90% mych prekladu
      (smlouvy delam bezne, ale na soud ani podobne veci se nespecializuji) tenhle
      problem nenestava - tedy alespon pokud si zachovam chladnou hlavu a nezacnu
      ve tri rano zmatkovat a vymyslet 99 verzi jedne vety zavisejicich na
      drobnych nuancich kazdeho slova v ni (coz se nekdy stava)..

      A vim, ze se mnou nebudes souhlasit :), ber to jako muj nazor, zivot neni
      skoro nikdy nalinkovany a cernobily, tak proc by takove mely byt i vsechny
      popsane papiry (i kdyz nektere by takove SHOULD byt :)


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Helga Humlova" <prekladatelka@...>
      To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 2:41 PM
      Subject: RE: [Czechlist] What does "should" actually mean??????

      > No, no, no, no, no. Imagine you translate a "must-should" as
      > "should-should" and something happens, because the user saw it as
      > "recommendation only" and for various reasons did not do what he was
      > "recommended" to do because you translated it as "should-should" which
      > showed it as not being imperative.
      > On the other hand, if you translate a "should-should" as "must-should"
      > and it is actually only a "should-should" you might get in trouble with
      > someone for excluding him/her from something because he/she does not
      > fulfill this "must-should" requirement, even though it is only a
      > "should-should" requirement and this person, had he/she known that it is
      > only a "should-should" requirement would not have had to refrain from
      > doing/using because of the non-fulfillment of a requirement, which
      > actually was not meant to be an imperative requirement.
      > It seems that something I never saw as being a problem is actually more
      > than a problem.
      > H.
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Terminus Technicus [mailto:czechlist@...]
      > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 2:22 PM
      > To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [Czechlist] What does "should" actually mean??????
      > Ahoj Helgo,
      > Don't think we're that desperate... in contracts, if the author wants to
      > say
      > "someone must do something", they usually say "someone shall do
      > something"... haven't seen many contracts with "should" in them. In
      > notices
      > and instructions, you'll probably be able to judge what they meant by
      > the
      > meaning/context of the sentence...
      > In the bus driver example you gave, I think it's safe to assume it means
      > MUST, or at least it SHOULD mean must :), otherwise the sentence would
      > not
      > have to be written in the first place... common sense, context and
      > instinct
      > should be enough to carry you trhough most problems... but I've got a
      > feeling that your question/discussion comes from a German-speaking group
      > and
      > the frustration comes from the German (and Austrian) looooove for
      > "ordnung" - n'est ce pas?
      > Matej
      > > So, how in the world a non native speaker of E knows, when "should" is
      > > actually "must" and in which cases it is "recommend". I am so
      > suspicious
      > > about that because we all know that - especially - Americans "love"
      > law
      > > suits and I would think that companies are extremely careful about
      > _how_
      > > they say things. So, if I were a US company I would avoid the word
      > > "should" when I mean "must" because any US lawyer would interpret
      > > "should" as just being a recommendation and as we all know,
      > > recommendations are not binding. So if I only "recommend" something,
      > > this is not binding for my client and therefore he can sue me that I
      > > have not told him that this and that is absolutely imperative.
      > >
      > > From what I have said so far I come to the point, that for the purpose
      > > of _correct_ translation it is extremely important for us to exactly
      > > understand what a certain word stands for, or the translation may be
      > > totally wrong. I think you would agree with me, that it is definitely
      > > wrong to say "musite udelat/mit/...." when the author actually meant
      > > "byloby dobre, kdybsyste...." and vice versa it would be even worse.
      > >
      > > So, what am I supposed to do, think, believe??????
      > >
      > > Helga
      > >
      > >
      > > > The basic concern is: does this "should" express a "must" or a "is
      > > > recommended"
      > > >
      > > As when my ESL students ask an "either/or question", my answer is
      > "yes".
      > >
      > > > Examples:
      > > >
      > > > Before riding with a passenger, the driver should become highly
      > > familiar
      > > > with the operation of the vehicle.
      > > >
      > > Translation: "You can run the vehicle without being highly familiar
      > > with
      > > its operation, but you could get yourself into big trouble if you
      > don't
      > > orient
      > > yourself first. So you had better get familiar with it."
      > >
      > > > Protective clothing that should be worn by the operator:
      > > >
      > > In this case, it means "must".
      > >
      > > > No one under the age of 16 should operate this vehicle.
      > > >
      > > In this case it means "had better".
      > >
      > > In general speech, "should" usually means "ought to" or "it is
      > > recommended".
      > > However, it can sometimes mean "you had better, if you don't want
      > > trouble,
      > > but it's still your choice". Occasionally, someone uses the word to
      > > sound
      > > friendly when they really mean "must", or at least where a German or a
      > > Czech
      > > would want to say "must".
      > >
      > > Remember that in English we don't say "must" as much as the Germans or
      > > Czechs, possibly because we have a longer history of egalitarianism.
      > > German
      > > managers coming to the US often have to be trained to stop saying
      > "must"
      > > unless they
      > > are being extremely forceful. It is to be replaced with "should" or
      > > "have
      > > to", so that, as in one case I know, the German does not end up with
      > the
      > > office
      > > nickname of "The Gestapo".
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > Czechlist Users' Guide:
      > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/newfaq.html
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic