<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
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<br><br>Ingvild
Roald, Norway<br><br><div>> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:28:57 +0530<br>> From: nik.azn@GMAIL.COM<br>> Subject: Re: Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project<br>> To: SW-L@LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU<br>> <br>> Hi! I don't claim that my sentence will not cause any problem in<br>> translation. I accept that languages are really different from one<br>> another to come up with an easily translatable and meaningful<br>> sentence. However, this sentence can be satisfactorily rendered in<br>> most languages, at least spoken ones. I don't have much idea of sign<br>> language grammars.<br>> You should use the version of "we", which includes the maximum number<br>> of people. If there is a difference between inclusive and exclusive<br>> "we", then use the inclusive one. Both the we's refer to the same<br>> group of people. If it's not possible to say the whole thing in one<br>> sentence, you can break this into two, by dropping the "and".<br>> Nikhil.<br>> <br>> On 31/07/2011, Trevor Jenkins <bslwannabe@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Valerie Sutton<br>> > <sutton@signwriting.org>wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Nikhil needs the translations in written SIGN LANGUAGES, not spoken<br>> >> languages!<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >> I am not an ASL expert, or I would do the translation myself in ASL. I<br>> >> actually do not how to sign that phrase in ASL, so that is why I was<br>> >> waiting<br>> >> for someone who knows ASL to do the translation for NIkhil in<br>> >> ASL...written<br>> >> in SignWriting.<br>> >><br>> ><br>> > I'm in a similar situation with BSL. I'm increasing fluent in its use but<br>> > not a native speaker. However, I am fluent in English yet I don't know how<br>> > to understand the phrase:<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >> "We are humans and we are from Earth."<br>> >><br>> ><br>> > How many are the "we"s? English, plus I guess many (all?) of the spoken<br>> > languages given here as exemplars, the first person plural is uncountable.<br>> > It would be possible to translate it into Swedish with "vi" and still<br>> > obscure the number of participants. In BSL, at least, the first person<br>> > plural is countable; up to four maybe five even 10. It is signed differently<br>> > depending on the number of participants. For example, if "we" consists of me<br>> > and my wife then I sign that slightly different from me, my wife, and you<br>> > (Valerie), plus the physical proximity of the "we" one to another would<br>> > change the sign(s) needed. However these small groups are signed entirely<br>> > differently from "we" as the subscribers to this list (if all of us happened<br>> > to be assembled in one locale).<br>> ><br>> > The presence of the "and" indicates that the second "we" is a distinct<br>> > different group from the first but with the speaker (signer) a member of<br>> > both groups. There is a famous phrase that exemplifies the same problem<br>> > "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." In this case the<br>> > AND is a transliteration from the source language but its inclusion creates<br>> > an ambiguity that is not in the original. If that second "we" of the sample<br>> > sentence were to refer to me, my wife and my dog then the "and" is vital.<br>> ><br>> > There's also a BSL issue here. We have no sign for AND. There are ways to<br>> > indicate that two things are connected but not immediately.<br>> ><br>> > The "from" affects the translational choices too. Where is this discourse<br>> > dislocated sentence being transacted and how did the various "we"s arrive<br>> > there, or were "we" there from the beginning. Similarly the actors to whom<br>> > this phrase is being relayed are they from somewhere else coming to the<br>> > "here" or were they there from the beginning. This information will change<br>> > how the sentence can be translated.<br>> ><br>> > It's not that the sentence is un-translatable *per se* but that rather it is<br>> > not context free as Nikhil claimed somewhere (possibly on his web site). At<br>> > least for BSL, context is required otherwise the processing costs in the<br>> > sense of Relevance Theory is astronomically high. Without the enclosing<br>> > context it isn't really possible to provide a BSL translation.<br>> ><br>> > Regards, Trevor.<br>> ><br>> > <>< Re: deemed!<br>> ><br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> निखिल सिन्हा | Nikhil Sinha<br>> nik.azn@gmail.com<br>> www.wahawafe.zxq.net - Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project.<br>> "We are humans and we are from Earth." in several languages.<br>> <br></div> </div></body>
</html>