Synalepha - English

[Synalepha]

New account, new thread.

I've decided to try to translate some of Epicurus' aphorisms just to practice my translation skills. If you want to, you can link me to the official translation, but I'd rather have mine corrected (both grammar and punctuation, which I think I suck at). I'm sorry, but can't find the original in Greek.

Non è felice il giovane, ma il vecchio che ha vissuto bene; il giovane infatti, spinto ad eccedere nel fiore dell'età, è facile bersaglio degli strali della sorte, mentre il vecchio ha trovato il suo porto nella vecchiaia, e quei beni prima agognati li tiene racchiusi nella sicura gioia del ricordo.

It is not the youth who is happy, but rather the elderly who has lived well; for the youth, allured by excess in the heyday of his age, is easy target to the arrows of chance, whereas the elderly has found his harbor in the old age, and the goods once desired he now treasures in the secure joy of memory.

[linguoboy]

Non è felice il giovane, ma il vecchio che ha vissuto bene; il giovane infatti, spinto ad eccedere nel fiore dell'età, è facile bersaglio degli strali della sorte, mentre il vecchio ha trovato il suo porto nella vecchiaia, e quei beni prima agognati li tiene racchiusi nella sicura gioia del ricordo.

It is not the youth who is happy, but rather the elderly who has lived well; for the youth, allured by excess in the heyday of his age, is an easy target tofor the arrows of chance, whereas the elderly has found his harbor in the old age, and the goods [he][*] once desired he now treasures in the secure joy of memory.

[*] I know that the Italian omits the subject (and finite verb) but it sounds smoother to me with them there.

[Synalepha]

Thanks!

---

La scienza della natura non forma uomini vani, né fabbricanti di parole, ostentatori di quella cultura attorno alla quale il popolo si affanna, ma forma uomini fieri, autosufficienti, orgogliosi di ciò che possiedono e non di quello che ottengono dagli eventi.

The science of nature does not shape vain men, nor does it shape "word-smiths" who flaunt that culture about which ordinary people are troubled, but rather it shapes noble men, self-sufficient ones, proud of what they possess and not of what they obtain from events.

[Synalepha]

This is something that has bugged me for years. When the object of a sentence is a verb, I've seen it in the infinitive, the infinitive without "to", and I think the gerund as well sometimes. And I wonder if there's a rule.

Like, should I say: "all I want to do is go home / to go home / going home". Now, my intuition would make me say "all I want to do is go home", but the intuition of an L2 speaker is quite unreliable.

On the other hand, I would say "the goal of this mission is to bring him back home", am I correct in my assumption?

As for the gerund, I'm pretty sure I've seen it used too sometimes (less often though) but I have no clue when it should be used.

[linguoboy]

This is something that has bugged me for years. When the object of a sentence is a verb, I've seen it in the infinitive, the infinitive without "to", and I think the gerund as well sometimes. And I wonder if there's a rule.

Like, should I say: "all I want to do is go home / to go home / going home". Now, my intuition would make me say "all I want to do is go home", but the intuition of an L2 speaker is quite unreliable.

My feeling as an L1 speaker is that the "short infinitive" is used here because a second "to" would be pleonastic. That is, you've already used "to" before "do", you don't need to repeat it again before "go". But that's a hard rule to generalise. (For the record, "All I want to do is to go home" isn't even unidiomatic, it's just not as stylistically felicitous.)

On the other hand, I would say "the goal of this mission is to bring him back home", am I correct in my assumption?

Right, because here the subject is an ordinary noun, not an infinitive. Replace it with something like "what we need to do for this mission" and I would feel comfortable omitting the to.

As for the gerund, I'm pretty sure I've seen it used too sometimes (less often though) but I have no clue when it should be used.

The difference is predominately lexical. That is, some verbs typically take infinitive arguments, some take gerunds, and a few accept either (albeit with a difference in meaning). Here's a website that attempts to give some rules:

https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/gerunds-and-infinitives/

And here's another with eschews rules and simply lists verbs based on what follows them:

https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/english-language/gerunds/

[Dormouse559]

This is something that has bugged me for years. When the object of a sentence is a verb, I've seen it in the infinitive, the infinitive without "to", and I think the gerund as well sometimes. And I wonder if there's a rule.

Like, should I say: "all I want to do is go home / to go home / going home". Now, my intuition would make me say "all I want to do is go home", but the intuition of an L2 speaker is quite unreliable.

My feeling as an L1 speaker is that the "short infinitive" is used here because a second "to" would be pleonastic. That is, you've already used "to" before "do", you don't need to repeat it again before "go". But that's a hard rule to generalise. (For the record, "All I want to do is to go home" isn't even unidiomatic, it's just not as stylistically felicitous.)

Agreed. Compare "All I want is to go home", where the to-infinitive becomes necessary now that "to do" has been deleted.

[Synalepha]

Þanks!

[linguoboy]

Þanks!

Ȝou're ƿelcome!

[azhong]

What's the language you are using? So similar to English.

BTW, hi Synal, we met before in the thread of "creative sentences". This is Zhong from Taiwan, Asia. I do keep an eye on your posts here since your first one in that thread. Your English is much, much better than mine. Nice to meet you, anyway, and wish you be happy everyday in 2020!

[Naava]

What's the language you are using? So similar to English.

It is English, they're just using Ye Olde Spelling. You can read more about that here, under the subtitle 'alphabet'.

[Synalepha]

This is Zhong from Taiwan, Asia. I do keep an eye on your posts here since your first one in that thread. Your English is much, much better than mine.

Hi Zhong. I'm flattered by your words, I always try to use new lexycon that I find in the books I read mainly, but I do hope you follow the native-speakers on here more than me. English is not my native language after all.

[linguoboy]

Hi Zhong. I'm flattered by your words, I always try to use new lexicon that I find in the books I read mainly

Although "lexicon" is sometimes synonymous with "vocabulary", it can't substitute in this particular context. You might be able to get away with "lexis" is you don't mind sounding rather pretentious.

[Synalepha]

Hi Zhong. I'm flattered by your words, I always try to use new lexicon that I find in the books I read mainly

Although "lexicon" is sometimes synonymous with "vocabulary", it can't substitute in this particular context. You might be able to get away with "lexis" is you don't mind sounding rather pretentious.

Do you know why I can't?

[linguoboy]

Hi Zhong. I'm flattered by your words, I always try to use new lexicon that I find in the books I read mainly

Although "lexicon" is sometimes synonymous with "vocabulary", it can't substitute in this particular context. You might be able to get away with "lexis" is you don't mind sounding rather pretentious.

Do you know why I can't?

Because lexicon is a count noun, not a mass noun. (Vocabulary can be either but is primarily a mass noun.)

[Osias]

What's the language you are using? So similar to English.

It is English, they're just using Þe Olde Spelling. You can read more about that here, under the subtitle 'alphabet'.