# our whole lives sau all (of) our lives



## adelalucia

Bună. 


Pentru propoziția "Vrem să fim liberi... și așteptăm momentul acela toată viața." care traducere este cea mai potrivită?


1. We want to be free... and we wait for that moment our whole lives.
2. We want to be free... and we wait for that moment all of our lives/all our lives.


În acest caz pot fi folosite interchangeably sau există diferență între ele?


Mulțumesc!


----------



## farscape

Scurte comentarii:

1. N-am întâlnit pluralul pentru life folosit în contextul dat.
2. I/We've been waiting all my/our life for this to happen.
3. He lived his whole life in the shadow of her personality; My whole life was wasted looking for the absolute truth.
4. We want to be free and we've been waiting for that moment all our life (sau our whole life, numai dacă insiști  )
5. Traducerile directe din română sunt de cele mai multe ori forțate și chiar greșite uneori.

Cele două exprimări sunt aproape echivalente/interschimbabile. 


Later,

.


----------



## irinet

Bună,
Care este sursa?
Pe mine mă derutează 'momentul acela' în loc de 'acesta'. E din literatură sursa ta?


----------



## farscape

Eu zic că aşteptăm momentula *acela*, nu ştim precis care (în timp), când, da' noi îl aşteptăm (textul e o compoziţie originală cu care trebuie să lucrăm _as is_). E o acţiune care continuă de mai demult (toată viaţa nu?) şi nu are o durată determinată (been going on for a while now).

f.


----------



## irinet

Mă gândesc la faptul că textul transmite o dorință irealizabilă într-un prezent/viitor imediat/apropiat. Traducerile tale sunt grozave, ca de obicei, dar ce-ar fi dacă am folosi un subjonctiv ca, de exemplu: 'We wish we be free, and for that, we shall be waiting all our life / '... and we shall be wasting our time for that moment (to come/to happen)".


----------



## adelalucia

Mulţumesc pentru răspunsuri!


----------



## ectuohy

The subjunctive in English sounds somewhat archaic (to this native speaker's ears, anyway) here; I think the present perfect progressive would be a better tense to use in this case, as it's something that's been going on for a while (waiting) and continuing up until now.

I would render it this way:

"We want to be free, and *we've been waiting for that moment *all our lives."


----------



## irinet

Welcome to our thread, ectuoy,

So, farscape's no. 4 translation is the right choice, you say. But I don't know why are you saying that the subjunctive in my sentence sounds archaic?! I have chosen it to designate an impossible wish to accomplish in near future. If you want to be free but you are not doing anything about it and if your only option is 'waiting', I can't see how things may take a positive turn. It's not that I am found of it, I am just curious if any subjunctive is archaic or only this one here?!
Thank you,


----------



## ectuohy

(Moderators: îmi cer scuze, în cazul în care asta ar fi mai bine situat la forumul English Only) 

I think it's a consensus view among linguists that the use of the subjunctive in English to indicate doubt has been dead for a century in spoken language. It might have persisted a bit later among the upper classes in Britain, but the "shall/will" distinction is utterly foreign to me, and I still have trouble remembering which one is indicative and which one is subjunctive (and I'm an English grammar nerd!)

FYI, the subjunctive in English still exists in two primary categories:
1) _irrealis _("if he* were *president, he would have signed the bill"; "if I *were* you, I'd wear a jacket", etc. (These are increasingly uncommon in colloquial speech, however.)

2) mandative ("The experts recommended that Romania *be* admitted to the Schengen zone"; "they insisted that he *wear* a jacket"). Today, this is dying out of British English (the above would be "Romania should be admitted" and "that he wears" even in literary British usage), but very common in American. 

(There is also some fixed expressions, like "Long live the king!")

Un echivalent în română poate să fie folosirea vocativul?

Hope this helps!


----------



## farscape

Thanks, ectuohy, it's a welcomed explanation since this subject, English subjunctive - Romanian conjunctiv, comes up often these days. Might be a good idea to have a topic just for that, if only I can find a clever way to put it all together 

Side note: #1 is still common in "proper" Canadian English

Best,


----------



## irinet

I am stunned. No comments!
I am just wondering why is the Subjunctive still taught in my country (at the University) and why we still find it in Oxford, Cambridge or any other reputable Br. Grammar if its use is so rare? I know, in scientific papers, Royal greetings and, as you said, the American Mandative which no grammar finds it useful to mention as, say, Br.- Am. variety).
To be honest, it has been 15 years since I have got this (the Subjunctive as archaic in Br. English) on my mind but no one here seemed to agree with me, so I dropped it. I thought then that I had a bad intuition. Now, I see I was not wrong to think that way. I am so glad to listen to your feedback as a native. However, most Americans do not feel that way. I have had and read interesting conversations on a Subjunctive related thread. How come? This is what I do not quite understand. 
To be honest with you, I am not fond of it either, but I am a Romanian native speaker and I would never start a debate on this. I just need understand what replaces Subjunctive? Is it the modality?
The questions I am asking do not expect any reply as I am well aware of the fact that research 'digging' need be done on my part. 
Thank you again,


----------

