>argal
Based word. I didn't know it existed until now. My only reservation is that I bet it's popular to use on reddit when you sarcastically debunk chuds.
did you even read the post? i don't know what the mistake is (i would have pointed it out otherwise), therefore i am clearly an efl. stop posting here and continue your duolingo english streak. with enough effort, you'll be able to read joyce and shakespeare like the rest of us
>The off thing is that she's slightly depressed from the alcohol and suffers from negativity bias: the grammatical error is not in the letters, but in the action and resulting negative thoughts the letters describe. If there was an error in the grammar or interpunction, it serves to underscore her brain and entropy state 'Off', as her judgement is temporarily suspended.
>I did what no one else would...I LISTENED.
This is the type of shit that would get you a standing ovation in a class discussion. I can tell you're a literature student by that response lol, even if it was facetious. You probably hear crap like that every day in your classes.
There's a hidden Kanye 'Graduation' quote in there, and isn't Kanye the voice of the United States masses? Excuses, this isn't IQfy.
You have that right though, good judgement. Weirdly enough, I'm so accustomed to effortposting on 4chins that I don't dare express thought streams like those ad hoc for fear they'll know I'm an Anon and discredit me on that political (in the sense of engaging with the politeia, not the modern meaning of 'power and ruling / who's in charge') opinionated basis. Literature students are supposed to read books, I did so but got tired of being impressed by stories and honestly just want to write my literary diaries when I'm not engaging with the world outside. Anyhow, studying literature was fun. The professors clearly state that when it comes to discussion, everything goes, and since I'm living in a constitutional parlementary democratic monarchy I guess I'd better express something, if anything, because, well, I am what I say and it's good for self-knowledge and morality to know where I currently am in the matrix, whatever matrix I'm using at any moment. I've a literature studies anecdote.
>2020 >Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' was up for discussion in class >I didn't read The Handmaid's Tale >The topic of the discussion steered via means of demography towards the forced impregnation of the women in the book and the unfair power of the patriarchy >Weeks later I realized 'I was born in a town around which there are lands with cows and they do that with cows, it's called artificial insemination and it supplies milk and a seemingly endless but CO2 and methane-intensive amount of beef' >I still laugh when I liken farming cows to literature but something clicked and I eat less beef and drink less milk and eat less cheese
It's also fun to play with interpretations and pragmatics. Thanks for the (You).
It's also a word-expensive way to evade the question and change the subject towards practical application of the text instead of going inside the grammar cave, which could be the class we're in right now but I guess I'm more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist. Does that answer the question? No? Okay, I'll throw in a 'I'd use quotation marks instead of a hyphenation, but I wouldn't change the inebriated verb structure, since it serves a point in the story, which is that Luce is inebriated, and discussing which treatment to use for the sympton should go hand in hand with discussing the core of the problem. Also, waiting around for people of whom you suspect will kill you is a point in time which we've as a society hopefully surpassed, then yet again, given the substance, albeit legal, it might be a reference to the current war between Ukraine and Russia - since vodka is a signature drink cliche'd with Russia.' Then would follow verbose justifications of my statements, but I'd at least try my best on those.
Luce is an ex-revolutionary socialist type. She actually does drink vodka because it's considered Russian lol. A few pages later she quotes Voline on Mahknov and Order No. 1824
They're both grammatically correct. Doesn't matter what "sounds better" as that's subjective. The question was to spot the error, not to fix it anyway.
>Also that prose is lamentable.
There it is. The shitting on my translation. I'll excuse it by saying this is the first draft where I go through and just translate. I still need to go back and edit to make things resemble English grammar more, and then go back again to give it a uniform style, fix verb tense changes, etc. But yeah, I realize my end result probably won't be good. It will probably be serviceable, but I've had fun translating and learning from the process.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Also, here's the original passage so I can get flamed even further.
If you plug this into DeepL or ChatGPT you have no room to comment. Otherwise, crucify me at will.
2 months ago
Anonymous
anon with your permission i'll post this in the french learning refold server.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I don't care, as long as you don't mention me or my translation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
no worries anon , i just need to know the exact grammatical rule at play here. Also good for you man that's admirable. You've inspiredme to translate as an exercise some greek or albanian poems in french
Two errors:
1) There's a tense-shift, from the future-simple tense of the first clause to present-simple of the second clause (from "will" to "is")
2) The pronoun in the second clause, "it" doesn't refer to a noun or noun-phrase in the first clause--it presumably refers to the nominalization of the concept of 'his coming,' but because it's never made explicit in the sentence it can't be referred to by a pronoun without it sounding slightly fricked up--most readers won't catch something like this, but a copy-editor probably would
Applying correction from 1) above, we get:
"If he will come, it will be to kill you"
Then applying correction 2) above, we get:
"If he will come, he will come to kill you"
There's no real way to PERFECTLY grammatically correctly render the sentence without rephrasing, as pronouns referring to verb-phrases are no-nos to most professional copy-editors; but again, the first correction above might not even flagged as problematic by most
You're over-complicating it. Literally, it's "if he comes, it's to kill you." If you speak English fluently, you know that that sounds the most natural to our ears. Get rid of the future tense or double-down and render it in a Latin way: "if he shall have come, it will be to kill you," aut: >Si venierit, erit te interficere.
2 months ago
Anonymous
"If he comes" and "If he'll come" have different shades of meaning
The first is uncertain as to whether he appears, period
The second is uncertain as to whether he will intend to come and follow through on that intention
Think of the distinction if someone asked me to a party and I said: "I'm not coming" vs. "I won't come"--these are obviously different messages
In my corrections I made the assumption that the "will" is an important part of the original phrasing
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's not about different shades of meaning; it's about the fact that one is correct and the other one sounds awkward and unnatural. If someone invited you to a party, you wouldn't say, "No, I won't come." That to me is way too formal and thus wrong; the future tense is too strong and no native speaker would respond that way. You'd say, "no, can't make it," or "I can't."
Same thing here. Nothing can make "If he will come" sound natural in that sentence. It's wrong. Read more.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That to me is way too formal and thus wrong
Unless you're trying to make a point of your INTENDING to not come
The idea that only one of those two phrasings sounds "right" to you and the other sounds "wrong," rather than both having a different meaning that might be invoked by choosing one or the other isn't an indication that you're ESL, it's an indication you don't think very carefully about what you read
If I asked a friend to come and he said "I won't come" I wouldn't think his language is wrong, I would think he's making a point of conveying to me that he's CHOSEN not to come--the statement becomes a statement about his intention, his will, as the word suggests
>Read more.
Read better
2 months ago
Anonymous
Correct.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Way too formal and thus wrong--you could've just written "right"
2 months ago
Anonymous
Don’t be salty.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'd ask you in turn to develop a more subtle understanding of the English language, but then we'd be in a true deadlock
2 months ago
Anonymous
You’re just salty I don’t agree with your bs.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I think you're an unsubtle thinker, but I only have this ephemeral contact with you--you get the pleasure of living with yourself, which I'll have to be consoled by
2 months ago
Anonymous
OK but you dropped this —
2 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't have an extension to track post IDs
Can we move the discussion from grammar towards the subject that is key to the given text, namely: That it would be a good idea for us Anons to use our corpores and go tan in these upcoming two meteorological seasons, instead of drinking vodka in rocking chairs or burning eachother online about very, very small shadows in Plato's Electronical machine-cave?
>The title of the text urges us to go outside and play in the sun
Frick you, I like arguing, and in the boreal months I argue outside
2 months ago
Anonymous
Also, valid, but using periods to punctuate sentences in an online forum makes it feel like I'm having a conversation with Frasier Crane, or one of my less computer-literate aunts.
I offer you the foregoing period in demonstration of my ability to learn and grow
2 months ago
Anonymous
Zoomer autism.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The given (con)text states that it is unsure to Luce whether Rhino will come, so that's a justification to the poster you're replying to. I think this the analysis difference between you two is between 'Sentence analysis' (You) vs. 'Analysis of sentence within a context' (Him).
2 months ago
Anonymous
Or (Her), naturally.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Nothing can make "If he will come" sound natural in that sentence.
Voice can. The character can be expressing a thought more formally given the dramatic nature of her circumstances where she's getting drunk and anticipating a potentially fatal confrontation. That's how I took it.
You're doing apples to oranges with the colloquial example, and anyways I can think of a context off the cuff where a person would reply "No, I won't come" to a party invitation. Guess what it is.
Your fussy analysis makes you sound autistic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
She’s calling someone a stupid c**t. Don’t think she cares for “formality”. This is pulp, not Shakespeare.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The literal translation would be "Poor c**t", but I think I let my incel mindset get in the way and rendered poor as stupid. Others might disagree that "conne" should be translated as c**t, but honestly I see no alternative. Maybe bawd, but c**t seems more fitting and full of self-loathing. A few pages back she tells Lambert that she hates herself and she hate society.
I am looking forward to Max Lawton's interpretation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Alternating between high and low language is a matter of deliberate style. It creates (or is often intended to create) humorous contrast. DFW for example employed it constantly.
Nor would a writer (or a fictional character) have to choose between one or the other and stick to it, not in a single book, or even a single sentence. Again - your autism is showing.
She's calling herself a stupid c**t, by the way. Good reading comprehension.
2 months ago
Anonymous
> Again - your autism is showing.
it’s actually your autism. You want so justify some moronic expression that sounds unnatural, no matter how many times you try to justify it. It’s your translation either way but I wouldn’t read this bs.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Wait, are you actually fundamentally disagreeing with the text, to the point where you are advocating that the sentence should be translated in a grammatically correct fashion?
That's wild.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't sound unnatural, it barely sounds overly formal given the context, which is not comparable to the narrow example of a text message convo with friends. (Maybe your friends are stupid homosexuals who'd find anything weird?)
There's numerous uses of language on that page that would sound unnatural is casual conversation, if that's the standard you want to hold it to. "Thumbed my lighter" is not language that anyone would say out loud. All the cursing is not something you're gonna hear in this lighthearted way, a woman "gently" calling herself a stupid c**t. You think you'd sound normal if you said out loud "My judgment suspended, I feel fricking smart"? These are all conceits of the author and do not reflect reality, yet you wanna be like 'if I'll come be soundin goofy bruh frfr.'
This author sucks dick and is stupid. "If he'll come" is not a problem, it's an almost completely insignificant grammatical nitpick that reduces this conversation to a matter of tone, not the irregularity of tense in question. The pretentious fixation on it to challenge the "dear reader's" austistic grammatical knowledge, awkwardly contrasted on the same page as frickedy frick frick shit c**t, is, while not grammatically incorrect, more worthy of discussion in my opinion if you're going to make this a quibble about the faux pas of formality.
Two errors:
1) There's a tense-shift, from the future-simple tense of the first clause to present-simple of the second clause (from "will" to "is")
2) The pronoun in the second clause, "it" doesn't refer to a noun or noun-phrase in the first clause--it presumably refers to the nominalization of the concept of 'his coming,' but because it's never made explicit in the sentence it can't be referred to by a pronoun without it sounding slightly fricked up--most readers won't catch something like this, but a copy-editor probably would
Applying correction from 1) above, we get:
"If he will come, it will be to kill you"
Then applying correction 2) above, we get:
"If he will come, he will come to kill you"
There's no real way to PERFECTLY grammatically correctly render the sentence without rephrasing, as pronouns referring to verb-phrases are no-nos to most professional copy-editors; but again, the first correction above might not even flagged as problematic by most
>tfw ESL >tfw native language conditional mood over engineered
It's wrong because English has a limited conditional mood, and indicative and subjunctive forms, as does french. "It will be to kill you" makes the most sense of the limited possibilities.
As the translator, my personal opinion is it should be >If he were to come, it would be to kill you.
That's my personal preference on the "correct" grammar.
Imagine being this much of a fricking homosexual about some shit book.
I mean he's not wrong to be worried about NYRB coming after him. If he ever releases the full translation for free, it hurts NYRB and their future in-house translation's profits. IQfyners will download his for free over purchasing the NYRB translation.
Personally though, I don't think NYRB even has the rights for this novel, otherwise they would've published it by now. I think Jean-Pierre Bastid, the oft-forgotten co-author, is begrudgingly holding onto the translation rights.
NYRB intern here. We were paying attention but now we don’t care. Thank you. >if he will come
LOL, everyone at the office was laughing. “We were worried about THAT?”, someone said.
The action marker 'She said gently' and 'She repeated' shouldn't fall under the hyphenation, because that's what she does, that's not what she says. Correction: >"Stupid c**t," she said gently. "Stupid c**t, if he'll come, it's to kill you."
Can we move the discussion from grammar towards the subject that is key to the given text, namely: That it would be a good idea for us Anons to use our corpores and go tan in these upcoming two meteorological seasons, instead of drinking vodka in rocking chairs or burning eachother online about very, very small shadows in Plato's Electronical machine-cave?
>The title of the text urges us to go outside and play in the sun
I think readability is more important than tightly following the original grammar, even more so in a pulpy tale, else you end up with P&V/google translate dogshit.
Man, I can't wait until publishing companies decide that AI can handle professional translation and everything published in translation sounds like Chrome patchnotes
It doesn't stand out as incorrect in common speech, where many worse incongruencies slide.
But I suppose it's because the tenses don't match. Like it should be, to be perfectly proper, either >If he will come, it will be to kill you
or >If he comes, it's to kill you
>ESL
But the book is written in fricking French.
Ok, I'll give you the French so you can play along.
>S'il viendra, répéta-t-elle, c'est pour te tuer?
And now I'm about to be roasted on how I translated that. Well come what may, come what may...
s'il viendrais?
ce sera…
efls in anglo countries never get taught serious grammar. argal, only esls could know what the mistake is
>argal
Based word. I didn't know it existed until now. My only reservation is that I bet it's popular to use on reddit when you sarcastically debunk chuds.
Lmao. Esl post.
did you even read the post? i don't know what the mistake is (i would have pointed it out otherwise), therefore i am clearly an efl. stop posting here and continue your duolingo english streak. with enough effort, you'll be able to read joyce and shakespeare like the rest of us
>it would be to kill you
winner
not really.
is better
>The off thing is that she's slightly depressed from the alcohol and suffers from negativity bias: the grammatical error is not in the letters, but in the action and resulting negative thoughts the letters describe. If there was an error in the grammar or interpunction, it serves to underscore her brain and entropy state 'Off', as her judgement is temporarily suspended.
I just wanted to apply literary concepts, not get lost in grammar and interpunction theories. Otherwise, what am I learning?
>I did what no one else would...I LISTENED.
This is the type of shit that would get you a standing ovation in a class discussion. I can tell you're a literature student by that response lol, even if it was facetious. You probably hear crap like that every day in your classes.
There's a hidden Kanye 'Graduation' quote in there, and isn't Kanye the voice of the United States masses? Excuses, this isn't IQfy.
You have that right though, good judgement. Weirdly enough, I'm so accustomed to effortposting on 4chins that I don't dare express thought streams like those ad hoc for fear they'll know I'm an Anon and discredit me on that political (in the sense of engaging with the politeia, not the modern meaning of 'power and ruling / who's in charge') opinionated basis. Literature students are supposed to read books, I did so but got tired of being impressed by stories and honestly just want to write my literary diaries when I'm not engaging with the world outside. Anyhow, studying literature was fun. The professors clearly state that when it comes to discussion, everything goes, and since I'm living in a constitutional parlementary democratic monarchy I guess I'd better express something, if anything, because, well, I am what I say and it's good for self-knowledge and morality to know where I currently am in the matrix, whatever matrix I'm using at any moment. I've a literature studies anecdote.
>2020
>Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' was up for discussion in class
>I didn't read The Handmaid's Tale
>The topic of the discussion steered via means of demography towards the forced impregnation of the women in the book and the unfair power of the patriarchy
>Weeks later I realized 'I was born in a town around which there are lands with cows and they do that with cows, it's called artificial insemination and it supplies milk and a seemingly endless but CO2 and methane-intensive amount of beef'
>I still laugh when I liken farming cows to literature but something clicked and I eat less beef and drink less milk and eat less cheese
It's also fun to play with interpretations and pragmatics. Thanks for the (You).
(Me)
>...when I liken farming cows to the oppressive power of the patriarchy [...]
It's also a word-expensive way to evade the question and change the subject towards practical application of the text instead of going inside the grammar cave, which could be the class we're in right now but I guess I'm more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist. Does that answer the question? No? Okay, I'll throw in a 'I'd use quotation marks instead of a hyphenation, but I wouldn't change the inebriated verb structure, since it serves a point in the story, which is that Luce is inebriated, and discussing which treatment to use for the sympton should go hand in hand with discussing the core of the problem. Also, waiting around for people of whom you suspect will kill you is a point in time which we've as a society hopefully surpassed, then yet again, given the substance, albeit legal, it might be a reference to the current war between Ukraine and Russia - since vodka is a signature drink cliche'd with Russia.' Then would follow verbose justifications of my statements, but I'd at least try my best on those.
Luce is an ex-revolutionary socialist type. She actually does drink vodka because it's considered Russian lol. A few pages later she quotes Voline on Mahknov and Order No. 1824
If he comes, she repeated, it’s to kill you.
This is the only answer. The conditional clause sounds better in the present tense. Making it future is unnecessary and awkward.
They're both grammatically correct. Doesn't matter what "sounds better" as that's subjective. The question was to spot the error, not to fix it anyway.
Also that prose is lamentable.
>Also that prose is lamentable.
There it is. The shitting on my translation. I'll excuse it by saying this is the first draft where I go through and just translate. I still need to go back and edit to make things resemble English grammar more, and then go back again to give it a uniform style, fix verb tense changes, etc. But yeah, I realize my end result probably won't be good. It will probably be serviceable, but I've had fun translating and learning from the process.
Also, here's the original passage so I can get flamed even further.
If you plug this into DeepL or ChatGPT you have no room to comment. Otherwise, crucify me at will.
anon with your permission i'll post this in the french learning refold server.
I don't care, as long as you don't mention me or my translation.
no worries anon , i just need to know the exact grammatical rule at play here. Also good for you man that's admirable. You've inspiredme to translate as an exercise some greek or albanian poems in french
You're over-complicating it. Literally, it's "if he comes, it's to kill you." If you speak English fluently, you know that that sounds the most natural to our ears. Get rid of the future tense or double-down and render it in a Latin way: "if he shall have come, it will be to kill you," aut:
>Si venierit, erit te interficere.
"If he comes" and "If he'll come" have different shades of meaning
The first is uncertain as to whether he appears, period
The second is uncertain as to whether he will intend to come and follow through on that intention
Think of the distinction if someone asked me to a party and I said: "I'm not coming" vs. "I won't come"--these are obviously different messages
In my corrections I made the assumption that the "will" is an important part of the original phrasing
It's not about different shades of meaning; it's about the fact that one is correct and the other one sounds awkward and unnatural. If someone invited you to a party, you wouldn't say, "No, I won't come." That to me is way too formal and thus wrong; the future tense is too strong and no native speaker would respond that way. You'd say, "no, can't make it," or "I can't."
Same thing here. Nothing can make "If he will come" sound natural in that sentence. It's wrong. Read more.
>That to me is way too formal and thus wrong
Unless you're trying to make a point of your INTENDING to not come
The idea that only one of those two phrasings sounds "right" to you and the other sounds "wrong," rather than both having a different meaning that might be invoked by choosing one or the other isn't an indication that you're ESL, it's an indication you don't think very carefully about what you read
If I asked a friend to come and he said "I won't come" I wouldn't think his language is wrong, I would think he's making a point of conveying to me that he's CHOSEN not to come--the statement becomes a statement about his intention, his will, as the word suggests
>Read more.
Read better
Correct.
Way too formal and thus wrong--you could've just written "right"
Don’t be salty.
I'd ask you in turn to develop a more subtle understanding of the English language, but then we'd be in a true deadlock
You’re just salty I don’t agree with your bs.
I think you're an unsubtle thinker, but I only have this ephemeral contact with you--you get the pleasure of living with yourself, which I'll have to be consoled by
OK but you dropped this —
>doesn't have an extension to track post IDs
Frick you, I like arguing, and in the boreal months I argue outside
Also, valid, but using periods to punctuate sentences in an online forum makes it feel like I'm having a conversation with Frasier Crane, or one of my less computer-literate aunts.
I offer you the foregoing period in demonstration of my ability to learn and grow
Zoomer autism.
The given (con)text states that it is unsure to Luce whether Rhino will come, so that's a justification to the poster you're replying to. I think this the analysis difference between you two is between 'Sentence analysis' (You) vs. 'Analysis of sentence within a context' (Him).
Or (Her), naturally.
>Nothing can make "If he will come" sound natural in that sentence.
Voice can. The character can be expressing a thought more formally given the dramatic nature of her circumstances where she's getting drunk and anticipating a potentially fatal confrontation. That's how I took it.
You're doing apples to oranges with the colloquial example, and anyways I can think of a context off the cuff where a person would reply "No, I won't come" to a party invitation. Guess what it is.
Your fussy analysis makes you sound autistic.
She’s calling someone a stupid c**t. Don’t think she cares for “formality”. This is pulp, not Shakespeare.
The literal translation would be "Poor c**t", but I think I let my incel mindset get in the way and rendered poor as stupid. Others might disagree that "conne" should be translated as c**t, but honestly I see no alternative. Maybe bawd, but c**t seems more fitting and full of self-loathing. A few pages back she tells Lambert that she hates herself and she hate society.
I am looking forward to Max Lawton's interpretation.
Alternating between high and low language is a matter of deliberate style. It creates (or is often intended to create) humorous contrast. DFW for example employed it constantly.
Nor would a writer (or a fictional character) have to choose between one or the other and stick to it, not in a single book, or even a single sentence. Again - your autism is showing.
She's calling herself a stupid c**t, by the way. Good reading comprehension.
> Again - your autism is showing.
it’s actually your autism. You want so justify some moronic expression that sounds unnatural, no matter how many times you try to justify it. It’s your translation either way but I wouldn’t read this bs.
Wait, are you actually fundamentally disagreeing with the text, to the point where you are advocating that the sentence should be translated in a grammatically correct fashion?
That's wild.
It doesn't sound unnatural, it barely sounds overly formal given the context, which is not comparable to the narrow example of a text message convo with friends. (Maybe your friends are stupid homosexuals who'd find anything weird?)
There's numerous uses of language on that page that would sound unnatural is casual conversation, if that's the standard you want to hold it to. "Thumbed my lighter" is not language that anyone would say out loud. All the cursing is not something you're gonna hear in this lighthearted way, a woman "gently" calling herself a stupid c**t. You think you'd sound normal if you said out loud "My judgment suspended, I feel fricking smart"? These are all conceits of the author and do not reflect reality, yet you wanna be like 'if I'll come be soundin goofy bruh frfr.'
This author sucks dick and is stupid. "If he'll come" is not a problem, it's an almost completely insignificant grammatical nitpick that reduces this conversation to a matter of tone, not the irregularity of tense in question. The pretentious fixation on it to challenge the "dear reader's" austistic grammatical knowledge, awkwardly contrasted on the same page as frickedy frick frick shit c**t, is, while not grammatically incorrect, more worthy of discussion in my opinion if you're going to make this a quibble about the faux pas of formality.
As an ESL, I say:
>If he were to come, it would be to kill you.
Ah, the rarely used subjunctive "were." Ce marche, mon ami, ce marche.
Bump. I don’t see a lot of talking and no formatting.
What the frick is wrong with this board
Two errors:
1) There's a tense-shift, from the future-simple tense of the first clause to present-simple of the second clause (from "will" to "is")
2) The pronoun in the second clause, "it" doesn't refer to a noun or noun-phrase in the first clause--it presumably refers to the nominalization of the concept of 'his coming,' but because it's never made explicit in the sentence it can't be referred to by a pronoun without it sounding slightly fricked up--most readers won't catch something like this, but a copy-editor probably would
Applying correction from 1) above, we get:
"If he will come, it will be to kill you"
Then applying correction 2) above, we get:
"If he will come, he will come to kill you"
There's no real way to PERFECTLY grammatically correctly render the sentence without rephrasing, as pronouns referring to verb-phrases are no-nos to most professional copy-editors; but again, the first correction above might not even flagged as problematic by most
If he will come, it will be to kill you.
Yes, I'm an ESL and grammar is boring
>tfw ESL
>tfw native language conditional mood over engineered
It's wrong because English has a limited conditional mood, and indicative and subjunctive forms, as does french. "It will be to kill you" makes the most sense of the limited possibilities.
As the translator, my personal opinion is it should be
>If he were to come, it would be to kill you.
That's my personal preference on the "correct" grammar.
Max Lawton would mog you.
This
This is the guy who thinks NYRB is going to backtrace IQfy posts and somehow "steal" his translation.
I mean he's not wrong to be worried about NYRB coming after him. If he ever releases the full translation for free, it hurts NYRB and their future in-house translation's profits. IQfyners will download his for free over purchasing the NYRB translation.
Personally though, I don't think NYRB even has the rights for this novel, otherwise they would've published it by now. I think Jean-Pierre Bastid, the oft-forgotten co-author, is begrudgingly holding onto the translation rights.
>IQfyners will download his for free over purchasing the NYRB translation.
Wow, all three of them?
NYRB intern here. We were paying attention but now we don’t care. Thank you.
>if he will come
LOL, everyone at the office was laughing. “We were worried about THAT?”, someone said.
Imagine being this much of a fricking homosexual about some shit book.
The action marker 'She said gently' and 'She repeated' shouldn't fall under the hyphenation, because that's what she does, that's not what she says. Correction:
>"Stupid c**t," she said gently. "Stupid c**t, if he'll come, it's to kill you."
Also, the OP 'Prove you aren't an ESL' doesn't go, since I don't have to prove untruths, but I'll do my best to contribute anyway.
Yes it does. Read a French book, or read Gaddis. Or read Joyce for that matter. Or read Proust. Continental style is different fron Anglo style.
Can we move the discussion from grammar towards the subject that is key to the given text, namely: That it would be a good idea for us Anons to use our corpores and go tan in these upcoming two meteorological seasons, instead of drinking vodka in rocking chairs or burning eachother online about very, very small shadows in Plato's Electronical machine-cave?
>The title of the text urges us to go outside and play in the sun
I think readability is more important than tightly following the original grammar, even more so in a pulpy tale, else you end up with P&V/google translate dogshit.
Man, I can't wait until publishing companies decide that AI can handle professional translation and everything published in translation sounds like Chrome patchnotes
Are you resentful because they don’t accept your translations so now you’re simping for AI?
lol
>accused of unsubtle readership
>can't detect sarcasm
Presented without notes
There's art hidden in being able to interpret literally.
Well, then at least you have an anecdote for back in the cave! Something for the prisoners to totally derail and scorn!
It doesn't stand out as incorrect in common speech, where many worse incongruencies slide.
But I suppose it's because the tenses don't match. Like it should be, to be perfectly proper, either
>If he will come, it will be to kill you
or
>If he comes, it's to kill you
Also that book looks awful
>prescriptive languages
There's a reason French is no longer lingua franca. You may as well be arguing the grammar of Sanskrit.
> There's a reason French is no longer lingua franca
And the reason is not linguistic but political/economic.
i hope you dont think that a language gets popular for any other reason than political.