# restos mortales



## rich7

Los restos mortales del difunto X están en palacio.

Restos mortales en inglés, pls...


----------



## saza

I think 'the remains of the deceased Mr X...'


----------



## Tezzaluna

The mortal remains....

Tezza


----------



## Henrik Larsson

"ashes" would work too I guess


----------



## Tezzaluna

Henrik Larsson said:


> "ashes" would work too I guess


 
Henrik,

Don't you think that would be taking poetic license?  For all we know, it's only Mr. X's bones that are in the palace.

Tezza


----------



## saza

Henrik Larsson said:


> "ashes" would work too I guess


 
someone's remains may not have been cremated.


----------



## Henrik Larsson

I think that "ashes" could also mean mortal remains although they haven't been cremated...


----------



## Tezzaluna

Henrik Larsson said:


> I think that "ashes" could also mean mortal remains although they haven't been cremated...


 

Henrik,

You mean as in "ashes to ashes, dust to dust"?

I think it's a stretch, but I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion.

Hugs.

Tezza


----------



## parhuzam

I don't think ashes work here..... there is no reference that fire was involved... you need fire to make ashes.

*remains.*... is the best term when the condition is not clear or specified..... and mortal is not necessary because of the reference to the king/royalty (palace)....most likely a human.


----------



## carlingüismos

I'm with Tezz on this one ..... mortal remains.

The mortal remains of the deceased X are at the palace.

(Have to say that "deceased" seem a little redundant here, but it's none of my business anyway)


----------



## Tezzaluna

parhuzam said:


> I don't think ashes work here..... there is no reference that fire was involved... you need fire to make ashes.
> 
> *remains.*... is the best term when the condition is not clear or specified..... and mortal is not necessary because of the reference to the king/royalty (palace)....most likely a human.


¨

Parhuzam, 

I think that *mortal* is quite fitting here for many reasons.  

Kings at one time were viewed, not only as ruling by God´s authority, but god-like themselves.

Too, there is the belief of the mortal part being left behind (ashes, bones, etc.) while the immortal goes somewhere else after the death of the body.

This is my humble opinion.

Tezza


----------



## parhuzam

I like your humble opinion..... You would be a formidable opponent in any debate.. I am just working with what I am given.... without adding my personal slant to the original. You are right, in certain cultures kings were regarded as deities. But, without further information, I don't want to take liberties with the translation.

Saludos.


----------



## parhuzam

Re: restos mortales

Tezza.... *Congratulations on your first 1,000 posts....*


----------



## robetova

carlingüismos said:


> I'm with Tezz on this one ..... mortal remains.
> 
> The mortal remains of the deceased X are at the palace.
> 
> (Have to say that "deceased" seem a little redundant here, but it's none of my business anyway)


 
Stick to remains, it is implied that they are mortal.

Robe


----------



## Moritzchen

It would also be implied in Spanish. But the term "mortal remains" is used. Check with your local mortuary.


----------



## parhuzam

Also, when_* remains*_ is used.... it is implied that the person is no longer walking around.


----------



## carlingüismos

Robe,

I cannot but follow the original text here.

If it only said "los restos", then, sure enough, "remains". But it doesn't. Mortal remains, as you well know, is a perfectly standard english phrase. So, following the original text, the only translation is that one.
And nowhere do I see written "las cenizas", so I'm at a loss why ashes are mentioned.

This is a classic mistake within translation work. Let's just stick to what is written, ok?


----------



## robetova

Point taken,
However, computers can do word for word and literal translations, the work of a translator and interpreter is to accomodate the best meaning into the language that was requested.


----------



## Tezzaluna

parhuzam said:


> Re: restos mortales
> 
> Tezza.... *Congratulations on your first 1,000 posts....*


 

Parhu,

Thank you. How lovely of you to notice. Not the thread I would have wanted it celebrated on....

May my posts live on long after my mortal remains...

Tezza


----------



## parhuzam

It is used in Spanish... "restos mortales".... which marks a difference in style of expression.... In English it is sufficient enough when you mention_* remains *_, it is understood what you are talking about. English remains (no pun intended) more direct and to the point... and is not as florid as Spanish.... this quality is well documented. English  usage stresses to be simpler way before the Normans invaded Britain.

Saludos.


----------



## parhuzam

Tezzaluna said:


> Parhu,
> 
> Thank you. How lovely of you to notice. Not the thread I would have wanted it celebrated on....
> 
> May my posts live on long after my mortal remains...
> 
> Tezza




I wanted to say that but I didn't want to be morbid about it. How about "inmortal" posts and "inmortal" spirit...?


----------



## rich7

Let's just the issue rest in peace then.

thanks by the way...


----------



## dexterciyo

parhuzam said:


> I wanted to say that but,  I didn't want to be morbid about it. How about i*m*mortal posts and i*m*mortal spirit...?



I'm being a little fussy, I know. But I just didn't want the thread to rest in peace yet.


----------



## parhuzam

mm mm  ......I should have put """" on the Spanish words...." inmortal..."  this thread might just be that.

Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## SDLX Master

Ok... here I go, for the joy of some and the hatred of others. 
We say "restos *mortales*" in Spanish because we are refering to what is left of an organic being, that is obviously alive no more.
The closest equivalent in English, as far as my little knowledge is concerned is the word *"remains"*. There's no need in English to grant the noun a specific adjective, unless of course there are other kinds of remains within the same context.
Now then, if we *have to* be poetic, elegant or should we need to elaborate or extend the concept, I think we may as well say: _*the remains of the late Mr. X/Mrs. X.*_


----------



## parhuzam

No hatred .... here remains the continuation of the the *remains* of the immortal post about "restos mortales." We remain vigilant for the extension of this post.


----------



## Tezzaluna

Parhu,

I am sticking to my guns with this one.  

It is mortal remains.

Tezza


----------



## Moritzchen

I´m with Tezza and Carlingüismos in this one big time. And rebetova, we three know what the translator´s job is.


----------



## SDLX Master

Tezzaluna said:


> Parhu,
> 
> I am sticking to my guns with this one.
> 
> It is mortal remains.
> 
> Tezza


 
Since the remains in discussion have started some sort of a clash in here, I thought I'd web browse it a bit and I came up with interesting info:

There is a medical thriller by Peter Clement by the title "Mortal Remains"
http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/13836.html
There is a metal band called "Mortal Remains"
http://www.mortalremains.de/
And a reference to it in online news
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/co...-2006-in-brazzaville-october-3-2006_6783.html
and more...

All of the above takes me to the conclusion that saying remains, human remains, skeletal remains and expressions of the like, DO accept mortal remains as a synonym, both poetically and colloquially.

A Double  to you Tezzy.


----------



## parhuzam

;No one is denying that "mortal remains" is not accepted as a synonym. It is a literary term.... You can say " remains  of XX XX (person) and it would be understood as human, skeletal.(semiotic symbol) We are not talking about someone's dirty laundry left in the closet. It is used as reverence to the departed.  It is superfluous to say mortal... for we already know that we are, as is mostly everything around us.
Tezzi's suggestion is perfectly acceptable, but it is not necessary to say "mortal.." to communicate the concept. English usage vies to be simpler....it is one of the reasons it is widely accepted as a means of communication. As the existence of this forum illustrates.
As for the links.... statistics can be used to support any position. There is also a band known as "The Remains."
I still like Tezzi and look forward to her contributions.


----------



## SDLX Master

parhuzam said:


> No one is denying that "mortal remains" is not accepted as a synonym. It is a literary term.... You can say " remains of XX XX (person) and it would be understood as human, skeletal.(semiotic symbol) We are not talking about someone's dirty laundry left in the closet. It is used as reverence to the departed. It is superfluous to say mortal... for we already know that we are, as is mostly everything around us.
> *Tezzi's suggestion is perfectly acceptable, but it is not necessary to say "mortal.."* to communicate the concept. English usage vies to be simpler....it is one of the reasons it is widely accepted as a means of communication. As the existence of this forum illustrates.
> As for the links.... statistics can be used to support any position. There is also a band known as "The Remains."
> *I still like Tezzi and look forward to her contributions*.


 
I agree with you on both of the bold type sentences.


----------

