Re: Incorrect use of "it's" in package control files -- file mass bug?
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 08:00, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > No. "Hoc est", which is also normally translated "that is", and is
> > the more usual Latin phrase--in Latin writing, not in English
> > writing--for "that is".
>
> Hoc = This
> Id = That
>
> (both neuter singular)
"is/ea/id" isn't really "that". The normal word for "that" is
"ille/illa/illud". "is/ea/id" is a special kind of weak demonstrative
which has to be translated differently in different contexts. Often
the best first stab at a translation is "that", but it could also be
"him/her" or "it", or simply left untranslated because it's
unnecessary in English. ("is/ea/id" is often used to provide an
antecedent for relative clauses, because Latin tends to prefer
expressed antecedents where English often leaves them out. If the
antecedent is left out, then the clause starts to feel more like a
consecutive qui [translated often as equivalent to "et is"] than a
relative qui.)
The normal phrase for English "that is", which is used to indicate a
restatement or a paraphrase, is "hoc est". It doesn't really matter
whether you like it or not, the phrase used is "hoc est". "id est" is
much rarer. ("quod est" is also common.)
It would be an incorrect translation to translate this usage of "hoc
est" as "this is", because the English phrase "this is" just doesn't
mean the same thing as "hoc est". Languages don't map one-to-one.
English does not use "this is" to give a restatement or paraphrase; it
uses the phrase "that is". And in Latin one most commonly sees "hoc
est" and "quod est" ; more rarely one sees "id est" and "ille est".
Latin has at least four ways of saying what in English is really only
one, and there really just isn't any difference between these uses of
"hoc est", "id est", and "ille est". ("Quod est" has a consecutive
feel to it that the others lack, often rendered as "and that is"--that
is, when "quod" isn't just a relative pronoun.)
Just as Latin uses "et A et B" to mean "both A and B"--it would be
wildly incorrect to translate as "and A and B" or worse as "also A and
B". "et", in some contexts (like the "et ... et ..." construction) is
correctly translated "both". And this is true even though the normal
Latin word for "both" is "ambo". Latin does not say "ambo A et B",
whether you think it should or not, it says "et A et B".
Likewise, whether you think it should or not, Latin only rarely says
"id est", what it says is "hoc est", and in that context, the right
translation of "hoc" is "that". Pronouns simply do not map one-to-one
any more than prepositions do, and it doesn't matter whether one has a
theory of languages which requires them to or not.
If you want to discuss Latin, you will have to move beyond what you
can look up in the elementary dictionaries and grammars.
Thomas
Reply to: