# Translations of special English passive sentences



## kimko_379

I was wondering if you would possibly translate into Russian these pairs including the passive sentences with the special meanings? :
1. 
a) Two languages are spoken by everyone here.
b) Everyone speaks two languages here.
2.
a) Few books are read by John.
b) John reads few books.
Thank you so much in advance for your kind help!


----------



## Vovan

_"To speak (a language)"_ is _"говорить (на языке)"_ in Russian. _"Говорить"_ in this construction is intransitive, so the passive voice is impossible.

1а. <doesn't exist>
1б._  Здесь все говорят на двух языках. _
​2a. _ Мало книг прочитывается Джоном._
2б. _ Джон читает мало книг._


----------



## Awwal12

1. The verbs which will be used to express the idea of "speaking" are basically intransitive (they allow attachment of prepositional phrases or specific adverbs only: lit. "speak on a language", "speak English-ly"), so passivization is naturally impossible. I suppose that the difference between the sentences will be normally expressed through intonation only.
2. "Few books are read by John" may have a counterpart, though the *real* passive is practically impossible; an equivalent mediopassive construction with a reflexive verb will be utilized instead - lit. "few books read-themselves by John". However, it isn't a normal way to convey the idea either. The difference between the two sentences will be mostly in the word order, the intonation and the choice of the word for "few" (with some syntactical consequences).
Немногие кни́ги читает Джон. (~~"Not-numerous books reads John.")
Джон читает мало книг. (~~"John reads few (little, not much) of-books").


----------



## Okkervil

Варианты 1а и 2а будут легко переведены на русский с использованием известных переводческих приёмов.

Например, 1а -- путём замены глагола на синонимичный с возможным переходом на неопределенно-личное предложение.
_Two languages are spoken by everyone here = Здесь используют/используются/в ходу два языка._

С 2а без проблем всё было бы то же самое, будь он в нормальном виде. Но в его настоящем виде встает извечный переводческий вопрос: а надо ли переводить корявую английскую фразу на русский язык столь же коряво?


----------



## Awwal12

Okkervil said:


> Two languages are spoken by everyone here = Здесь используют/используются/в ходу два языка.


You forgot "by everyone", which naturally makes the sentence personal.


----------



## Okkervil

Awwal12 said:


> You forgot "by everyone", which naturally makes the sentence personal.


 Кто вне контекста не убоится впасть в грех имя которому буквализм, может добавить "все". Но этот грех далеко не безобидный.


----------



## Awwal12

Okkervil said:


> Кто вне контекста не убоится впасть в грех имя которому буквализм, может добавить "все". Но этот грех далеко не безобидный.


Так иначе смысл меняется радикально.   "Здесь говорят на двух языках" - кто-то на одном, кто-то на другом, кто-то, возможно, на обоих. "Здесь все говорят на двух языках" - здесь каждый говорит на двух языках.


----------



## nizzebro

Okkervil said:


> корявую английскую фразу на русский язык столь же коряво


К слову, мне кажется, что, вне зависимости от языка, любая пассивная имперфективная конструкция, особенно выражающая текущий процесс (т.е. пункт 2 автора этой темы), а не хабитуальность (пункт 1),  и особенно при явно выраженной персональности, неестественна - вследствие конфликта "кто здесь главный" между субъектом и объектом (точнее, агенсом и пациенсом).


----------



## Okkervil

Awwal12 said:


> Так иначе смысл меняется радикально.   "Здесь говорят на двух языках" - кто-то на одном, кто-то на другом, кто-то, возможно, на обоих. "Здесь все говорят на двух языках" - здесь каждый говорит на двух языках.


 Так не меняйте его, тем более радикально, когда он вам известен. А он вам известен?


----------



## Okkervil

nizzebro said:


> К слову, мне кажется, что, вне зависимости от языка, любая пассивная имперфективная конструкция, особенно выражающая текущий процесс (т.е. пункт 2 автора этой темы), а не хабитуальность (пункт 1),  и особенно при явно выраженной персональности, неестественна - вследствие конфликта "кто здесь главный" между субъектом и объектом.


 Ну, это просто. Переводчик же регулярно сталкивается с куда более сложной задачей: что делать с белибердой или двусмысленностями. Вот вопрос! Начать улучшать речь/текст клиента, додумывая за него(неизбежно ошибаясь), или переводить белиберду белибердой, выставив его (и себя тоже) полным дураком.


----------



## kimko_379

Awwal12 said:


> Так иначе смысл меняется радикально.   "Здесь говорят на двух языках" - кто-то на одном, кто-то на другом, кто-то, возможно, на обоих. "Здесь все говорят на двух языках" - здесь каждый говорит на двух языках.


Excuse me:  I wonder if you both could possibly choose the English language as the tool for the replies on this problem for me; I'm just a beginner of Russian, no proficient in it.  Would you mind at least summing up your recent posts in only Russian into English, please?


----------



## Awwal12

I was just pointing out that "two languages are spoken here" and "two languages are spoken here  by everyone", as  well as their Russian counterparts, have quite different semantics (in the first case many individuals may speak only one language; in the second case, everyone is speaking two languages).


Okkervil said:


> Так не меняйте его, тем более радикально, когда он вам известен. А он вам известен?


The *semantics* of the phrases is definitely known. The *pragmatics* may be known only in the context (in the best case), which we're missing, so there's little point in arbitrary distortions of the semantics.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> К слову, мне кажется, что, вне зависимости от языка, любая пассивная имперфективная конструкция, особенно выражающая текущий процесс (т.е. пункт 2 автора этой темы), а не хабитуальность (пункт 1),  и особенно при явно выраженной персональности, неестественна - вследствие конфликта "кто здесь главный" между субъектом и объектом (точнее, агенсом и пациенсом).


I believe the source of the weirdness of such sentences is not in the aspectual characteristics (nothings actually tells us that the activity in the second sentences isn't habitual; after all, in the English source the books are read, not are being read), but in the characteristics of the arguments. Really, "few books" must be non-referential, but it's strange to front a non-referential object during passivization while backgrounding a referential one.
"Everyday several people get offended by him" also sounds weird, doesn't it?


----------



## kimko_379

Thank you so much for your big trouble of translating your arguments into English.
>"Everyday several people get offended by him" also sounds weird, doesn't it?
I do not know if it sounds weird; coudn't it mean:  "Somebody offends several people (here) EVERYDAY ( ! :  emphasized) and the offender/culprit is HE !" ?  But when we have begun to discuss the English grammar, Mx. ( = Mr. or Ms.) Moderator(s) will surely delete our posts, so, I stop here.
(I hear that in the English passive sentences with "by + agent(s)," the "by + agent(s)" parts bear the focuses as opposed to the other constituents as the presuppositions.)


----------



## Vovan

kimko_379 said:


> (I hear that in the English passive sentences with "by + agent(s)," the "by + agent(s)" parts bear the focuses as opposed to the other constituents as the presuppositions.)


I don't think that it's always the case in English, but since that's what you initially meant by "the special meaning", I have to change the word order in my translation (which still remains a rather odd way of expressing the idea in Russian):
2а.   _Джоном прочитывается мало книг. _(Here, "Джоном" is - or can be - focused.)​


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> after all, in the English source the books are read, not are being read


That was my mistake, sorry. Anyway, I wrote "especially expressing an ongoing process", assuming that any passive imperfective construction seems to be unnatural.


Awwal12 said:


> Really, "few books" must be non-referential, but it's strange to front a non-referential object during passivization while backgrounding a referential one.


Yes, your explanation really makes sense. That could probably only be avoided by "there are ...., that are ..." However, now I notice one more thing: if we consider a passive clause that denotes a habitual action, as a notion being actually a quality (in a broad sense) that modifies the subject, then that quality appears to be not permanent as it should be but broken into pieces by the process - the same as if, in the clause "she looks beautiful everyday" to replace  "looks" with "is" -  but she is either beautiful or not.


----------



## kimko_379

nizzebro said:


> That was my mistake, sorry. Anyway, I wrote "especially expressing an ongoing process", assuming that any passive imperfective construction seems to be unnatural.
> 
> Yes, your explanation really makes sense. That could probably only be avoided by "there are ...., that are ..." However, now I notice one more thing: if we consider a passive clause that denotes a habitual action, as a notion being actually a quality (in a broad sense) that modifies the subject, then that quality appears to be not permanent as it should be but broken into pieces by the process - the same as if, in the clause "she looks beautiful everyday" to replace  "looks" with "is" -  but she is either beautiful or not.


Excuse me this maybe-off-the-mark comment.  Perhaps could this info-piece help you a bit?:

"She looks beautiful everyday." =(?) "Ella esta guapa todos los dias." = She is putting a lot of cosmetics on her to make her appear beautiful everyday.  (Her natural/born facial features may not be beautiful, though.)
is opposed to:
"She is beautiful everyday." =(?) "Ella es guapa todos los dias."
(My Spanish spelling must be wrong in many parts.  I'm a novice in Spanish, too.)

In any case, I'm afraid that I totally fail to follow those above/past arguments of you all.  Would anybody wrap them up as a definitive conclusion, please?
I presume/surmise that you all were saying that the Russian language handles the differences between the two sentences in the original English sentence pairs as the differences in pragmatics (intonations etc.); is that correct?  Since Mr. Awwal12 has brought up/mentioned the pragmatics, I could not make head or tails of all your talks; excuse me.


----------



## Vovan

*kimko*, another set of example - just in case:

_*Few books were written by Mr X.* Мало книг было написано господином X._​_*Mr X. wrote few books.*  Господин X написал мало книг._​_*Books were written by everyone here.* Книги здесь пиcались всеми. (  Книги здесь писали все. _A better version: the active voice + fronting._)_​_*Everyone wrote books here.* Все здесь писали книги._​​As you see, when an English sentence has a noun in the plural with the zero article as the subject and a verb in the passive as the predicate, it's better to use the active voice and to front the object in your translation of the sentence into Russian.

Also, remember that there may be cases when some forms are only theoretically possible in a language and wouldn't be used in real life.


----------

