# sono sì sempre pieni...ma



## doxter

Hi everyone!

I have to translate as much literally as possible this sentence: "Gli strati superiori della società assomigliano ad alberghi che sono sì sempre pieni di gente, ma di gente sempre diversa, che proviene dal basso in misura molto maggiore di quanto molti di noi vogliono ammettere".

This is my try :  "The higher social stratums look like hotels, which are truly always full of people, but of people always different, who come from the lower stratums more frequently than many of us want to admit”.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of my try. Can someone help me with some suggestions?

Thank you in advance


----------



## tsoapm

Hi,

Assuming I haven’t misunderstood, I’d have it as something like:

which are – it’s true – always full of people, but...

P.S.

'Stratum' takes an irregular (Latin) plural.
"People always different" should probably be "people who are always different".
"Care to admit" would be more idiomatic.


----------



## Necsus

Ciao, doxter.
Ma l'originale italiano da dove proviene? Non mi pare scritto benissimo...


----------



## Necsus

Grazie, Tim. L'autore del libro è questo (CLIC), ma il brano è tratto da una citazione, il cui autore è Schumpeter (vedi QUI), quindi si tratta di una traduzione (dal tedesco, suppongo), e lo scritto risale a circa un secolo fa.


----------



## MR1492

doxter said:


> "Gli strati superiori della società assomigliano ad alberghi che sono sì sempre pieni di gente, ma di gente sempre diversa, che proviene dal basso in misura molto maggiore di quanto molti di noi vogliono ammettere".
> 
> "The higher social stratums look like hotels, which are truly always full of people, but of people always different, who come from the lower stratums more frequently than many of us want to admit”.



OK, let's see what we can do with this one.  I believe this is one of those sentences where punctuation in English is much more important than in the original Italian!  I think I see this as:

"The higher social stratums (strata) look like hotels which are always full of people.  The people are always different and often come from the lower stratums (strata) much more frequently than we like to admit."

While run-on sentences appear to be almost required in Italian, they create confusion (to my mind at least) in English.  I would recommend separating the major thoughts in the original into two separate sentences in English.  If you must keep one sentence, you could join the two but use a semi-colon to show the distinct nature of the clauses.

Phil


----------



## sorry66

"Gli strati superiori della società assomigliano ad alberghi che sono sì sempre pieni di gente, ma di gente sempre diversa, che proviene dal basso in misura molto maggiore di quanto molti di noi vogliono ammettere"
A variation:
The higher social strata can be likened to a hotel that is always full; the clientèle is not homogeneous, however; a significant number come from the lower social strata, more than we would care to admit.


----------



## tsoapm

doxter said:


> che sono sì sempre pieni





MR1492 said:


> which are always full





sorry66 said:


> that is always full


So are we saying that the “sì” in the original is actually superfluous as far as an English translation is concerned?


----------



## sorry66

I wonderd about that too! How would you incorporate it?


----------



## tsoapm

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago (#2 ). But I’m not sure I actually have the meaning right.


----------



## Necsus

With something like "in effect" perhaps?


----------



## chipulukusu

tsoapm said:


> So are we saying that the “sì” in the original is actually superfluous as far as an English translation is concerned?


This non native would leave out the "si" in English. Expecially in speaking, an [enphasis] emphasis (thank you @tsoapm ) on _are_ or _is_ could be enough to my ears.


----------



## tsoapm

Oh, _emphasis_ is it? Then how about “certainly”?

_hotels that are certainly always full of people, but people who are always different_


----------



## doxter

I couldn't connect my PC on the web yesterday and I didn't expect all these answers!! Thank you guys!! 

So...the citation is from Schumpeter and this is right...in particular it is a citation from the Italian version of his book "The theory of economic development".

Sorry66: I'm sorry, your translation is surely right, but I must be as literal as possibile in this work!

I think that MR1492's suggestion is a great one, but I would to keep in the sentence the "sì".

tsoapm: you gave me a great suggestion saying that "people who are always different" is more correct than "people always different".

Anyway, thank you so much guys!!


----------



## sorry66

_Social strata are like_ + 





tsoapm said:


> _hotels that are certainly always full of people_


_"Social strata are like hotels that are certainly always full of people"_
Sounds odd to me!
Something that emphasises 'always'? Always, always??!!
Maybe another adverb is called for: unfailingly, invariably, constantly

The higher social strata are like hotels that are constantly full; the people are always diverse, however, and a significant number, more than we would care to admit, come from the lower social strata.


----------



## doxter

tsoapm said:


> Oh, _emphasis_ is it? Then how about “certainly”?
> 
> _hotels that are certainly always full of people, but people who are always different_


The meaning or emphasis of the "sì" in this context is: "it _*is true *_that these hotels (higher social strata) are always full of people,* but it is also true *that these people change from time to time".


----------



## sorry66

doxter said:


> "it _*is true *_that these hotels (higher social strata) are always full of people,* but it is also true *that these people change from time to time"


I don't see how you get that from one 'si'!

By the way, my translation is literal - certainly, the second one is.

Taking into account what you say, I would change my translation again:

The higher social strata are in fluctuation like hotels that are constantly full; the people are always diverse and a significant number, more than we would care to admit, come from the lower social strata.


----------



## ohbice

sorry66 said:


> _Social strata are like_
> Sounds odd to me!
> Something that emphasises 'always'? Always, always??!!
> Maybe another adverb is called for: unfailingly, invariably, constantly
> 
> The higher social strata are like hotels that are constantly full; the people are always diverse, however, and a significant number come from the lower social strata, more than we would care to admit.



The higher social strata are like hotels that actually are constantly full; the people are always diverse, however, and a significant number come from the lower social strata, more than we would care to admit


----------



## tsoapm

‘Actually’ is more like ‘in realtà’. I’m pretty satisfied with my ‘certainly’, to be honest; it’s a more idiomatic version of the proposed ‘truly’ in #1.


----------



## sorry66

Sorry, my computer keeps freezing so it's difficult to keep up. 
I can't disagree with you more, tsoapm! How is it idiomatic? It would make sense if you were saying something like : 'Good hotels are certainly always full' but not here.



ohbice said:


> actually are constantly full


'actually' is like 'in fact'.
And, in fact, I changed the post you quoted!


----------



## tsoapm

I mean that ‘truly’ and ‘certainly’ are superficially interchangeable, but ‘certainly’ is the one proper to the context in the English language (idiomatic in this sense). From the explanations and translation attempts of the poster, I feel fairly (by no means 100%, however) confident of my interpretation.


doxter said:


> truly always full





doxter said:


> The meaning or emphasis of the "sì" in this context is: "it _*is true*_


OED:





> *certainly -*
> Used to emphasize the speaker’s belief that what is said is true:
> _the prestigious address certainly adds to the firm’s appeal_


----------



## sorry66

Sorry, (as I said previously in post # 14) I can't see how the following specific sentence makes sense:
Social strata are like _"hotels that are certainly? always full of people, but people who are always different" (_your post)_._
It would make more sense to say: 'Social strata certainly  are like hotels that are always full of......

When you use 'certainly' it's to affirm what has been said before, as you say!
I don't think the text that precedes the OP sentence is about hotels always being full; it's more likely to be some comment on social strata being like hotels and it is that you are affirming with 'certainly'.


----------



## tsoapm

Actually, I didn’t say the “before” part; I think it can be used equally in the act of saying “what is said”, not only what was said, and I think that’s the case here.


----------



## sorry66

Ok, so what would your complete sentence be with
_


tsoapm said:



			hotels that are certainly always full of people, but people who are always different
		
Click to expand...

??_
I added a simple 'before part' because it doesn't stand on its own and, for me, it still didn't make sense. Sorry!


----------



## MR1492

If you feel it necessary to keep the sì, you might consider something like:

"The higher social stratums (strata) look like hotels which, yes, are always full of people. The people are always different and often come from the lower stratums (strata) much more frequently than we like to admit."

I think in English we would tend to use it as more of an interjection but this seems to have the emphasis you were seeking.

Phil


----------



## sorry66

MR1492 said:


> "The higher social stratums (strata) look like hotels which, yes, are always full of people.


But hotels in general are not always full of people! There are empty hotels and half-full hotels in the world!
Maybe grand hotels, for example, are _always_ full of people and you may wish to affirm that as a general rule by adding 'yes' as you have done, MR.

I'm sure all of this is far from 'si sempre', however!

Isn't the OP more like:

Higher social strata are like (those) hotels which are always full of people..   ?


----------



## MR1492

sorry66,

I think this is meant to be metaphorical rather than literal and is using the concept of a hotel to represent the upper levels of society.  The point is that in current society, those occupying the upper strata (that is, the metaphorical hotel) change more frequently than the upper crust would like to admit.  I think it is referring to the social mobility which is wealth driven versus driven by heredity.

Phil


----------



## sorry66

Phil,
I understand the metaphor! It's the logic of your sentence I'm questioning!


----------



## Pietruzzo

"Sì pieni...ma...," should be something like "admittedly full...but..."


----------



## tsoapm

sorry66 said:


> But hotels in general are not always full of people! There are empty hotels and half-full hotels in the world!


But @MR1492 's sentence (mine too) uses a defining relative clause (otherwise there'd be a comma before the 'which') which defines the hotels in question, not hotels in general.


----------



## MR1492

Sorry66,

I apologize but I really am confused. You are asking me to interpret the entire treatise based on a snippet written in a language not natively mine. All I was attempting to do was provide my best interpretation of what the OP asked which was how to best translate the Italian.

I will return to this thread with an answer once I complete my post-doctoral work in economics and philosophy! 

Phil

I am on my iPhone and editing is tricky!


----------



## sorry66

It's 'si sempre pieni', Pietruzzo.


tsoapm said:


> @MR1492's sentence (mine too) uses a defining relative clause (otherwise there'd be a comma before the 'which'), which defines the hotels in question


But in that case the 'yes' doesn't work and so it reads as a sentence on 'hotels in general', which it didn't before he added 'yes'.
Your sentence, tsoapm, is a fragment so I can't comment.


----------



## MR1492

I'm not sure but the font on my phone shows "sì sempre" not "si sempre ". Did I misread it?

Phil


----------



## sorry66

MR1492 said:


> You are asking me to interpret the entire treatise based on a snippet written in a language not natively mine.


No, I'm questioning your rewrite which lacks sense to me in English.
Phil, I'll give you the thumbs-up for your original translation:


MR1492 said:


> "The higher social stratums (strata) look like hotels which are always full of people.


but not for your second because for me if the sentence is a defining relative clause (as tsoapm says ) then the 'yes' has no part in it.


----------



## MR1492

sorry66,

Thank you for your complement about my original effort.  I appreciate it.  I don't understand the problem with the adjusted sentence.  I merely put the word "yes" into it for emphasis.  It is set apart with commas to show it as an interjection.  Perhaps my view is clouded as I wrote it.  I just don't see the issue.

I am concerned as many of your posts go into a great deal of detail about hotel occupancy rates in the real world.  I really, really don't see that as an issue here.  If you understand the metaphor (which you say you do and I will take you at your word), then I don't understand why the issue of real world hotels is even surfacing.

To my limited understanding, it just appears to be saying that the upper levels of the social strata change more than the denizens of that "hotel" would care to acknowledge.

Perhaps I'm just dense but I think too much is being made of this and the moderators may wish to close the thread before we waste too many precious electrons.

Phil


----------



## TimLA

MR1492 said:


> "The higher social stratums (strata) look like hotels which are always full of people.  The people are always different and often come from the lower stratums (strata) much more frequently than we like to admit."
> If you feel it necessary to keep the sì, you might consider something like:
> 
> "The higher social stratums (strata) look like hotels which, yes, are always full of people. The people are always different and often come from the lower stratums (strata) much more frequently than we like to admit."



Phil, with regard to both of your sentences, yes, I like them very much and understand them.
Good job!



sorry66 said:


> Phil,
> I understand the metaphor! It's the logic of your sentence I'm questioning!
> No, I'm questioning your rewrite which lacks sense to me in English.



How nice.


----------



## tsoapm

MR1492 said:


> I don't understand the problem with the adjusted sentence. I merely put the word "yes" into it for emphasis. It is set apart with commas to show it as an interjection. Perhaps my view is clouded as I wrote it. I just don't see the issue.


I agree 100%. @sorry66 , you keep on saying that various things don’t make sense, or don’t work or are odd, but I continue to fail to understand why; I don’t think MR’s view was clouded – looks fine to me too.


----------



## Pietruzzo

doxter said:


> The meaning or emphasis of the "sì" in this context is: "it _*is true *_that these hotels (higher social strata) are always full of people,


This is possibly true in this case but the usual meaning of this structure "sì X but Y" is different; actually it's quite the opposite. You apparently confirm that X is true but you actually dismiss it with your specification Y.
Eg."Questo thread è sì interessante, ma troppo confuso".
The OP case is just a bit more complicated because "sì..ma" makes sense only if we think of the actual oject of the metaphor(higher social strata) since it's quite normal for a hotel to host different people from day to day.


Pietruzzo said:


> "Sì pieni...ma...," should be something like "admittedly full...but..."





sorry66 said:


> It's 'si *sì* sempre pieni', Pietruzzo.


What do you mean? Is it impossible to use"admittedly" and "always" at the same time?
That said my attempt could be "The higher social strata look like hotels which, admittedly, are always full of people, but people who are always different and come from the lower strata much more frequently than we like to admit."


----------



## Fooler

Non vorrei dire una castroneria, ma si potrebbe enfatizzare il "si" con *indeed* ??

Se si, non riuscirei però a inserirlo per farlo suonar bene nella frase....."The higher social strata look like hotels which, _*indeed*_, are always full of people, but people who are always different and come from the lower strata much more frequently than we like to admit."

Just my personal thought


----------



## sorry66

To some of the contributors here:
I’m sorry if I have rubbed some of you up the wrong way. I’m merely stating that the later interpretations that have attempted to incorporate the ‘sì’ seem illogical to me. I’ve tried to explain why but, obviously, in my haste, not well enough, so my apologies!
I’ll try one last time, but, really, I don’t have that much time to spend on the forum, unfortunately.

To Pietruzzo: Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear. The OP is 'sì sempre pieni...ma..' and you said 'sì pieni...ma..'. 

That was the only thing I was pointing out. Are you suggesting they are the same? My Italian is not very good so I don't get it.
I never said anything about 'admittedly' and 'always'.



Pietruzzo said:


> you apparently confirm that X is true but you actually dismiss it with your specification Y.


I agree!


Pietruzzo said:


> The OP case is just a bit more complicated because "sì..ma" makes sense only if we think of the actual object of the metaphor(higher social strata) since it's quite normal for a hotel to host different people from day to day.


I agree again!
Yes, it is normal for every hotel to host different people so the 'ma' seems to be asserting something which we already know to be normal. However, we don't know in which way they are different until we read the whole sentence. So perhaps the 'ma' is directly for 'il gente dal basso'?

Anyway, there are different ways of understanding the OP sentence:
-Social strata are not being compared to all hotels but just full ones..... full hotels have people from all classes, including the lower classes. (this is what I've, so far, understood the sentence to be saying.)
Taking into account what you say about 'the actual object of the metaphor':
-Higher social strata are always full of people but they are diverse and can be compared to a full hotel which has people from all classes too. (this interpretation is only slightly different)

To tsoapm -


> "Social strata are like _hotels that are certainly always full of people"_


No, that doesn't make much sense to me in this context, I'm afraid. It makes me want to say 'Which hotels are you so certain about?' or rephrase it as an affirmative ‘certainly’ differently- ‘Social strata are certainly like hotels that are always full’ (but I’ve said that already)

To MR1492


MR1492 said:


> "The higher social stratums (strata) look like hotels which, yes, are always full of people. The people are always different and often come from the lower stratums (strata) much more frequently than we like to admit."


‘Si’ as affirmation - As we don't know what's been said before the OP sentence I don't see what you are affirming with the 'yes' (or why). This is why I suggested that your altered sentence reads more like you are making a general statement about hotels always being full (yes, absurd! and that's why I questioned it) rather than a sentence that compares social strata to full hotels.

‘Si’ as interjection - I don't see the logic of using 'yes' as an interjection here either but I admit I don't understand 'sì sempre pieni' very well because it doesn't mean 'always so full' and doesn’t seem to be an interjection, so what is it?



TimLA said:


> How nice.


How rude. (and uncalled for but it's not the first time)


----------



## tsoapm

@Fooler Seems pretty reasonable to me! I'm not sure I'd set that one off with commas, but I'm not saying it's wrong. I'd have thought 'which are indeed'.


----------

