# happen much at all



## Kiky

"Whether things like this happen frequently, or *happen much at all*, the emphasis on competition encourages sloppy procedures."

Non capisco se manca una negazione...


----------



## Paulfromitaly

E' fondamentale che tu scriva:
- la *frase originale intera*
- * la tua  traduzione *
e ci dia qualche informazione a proposito del *contesto*,  grazie 

Cosa significa "*aggiungere il contesto*"?
*Come e in che forum creare - modificare - impostare correttamente una discussione*


----------



## Kiky

Paulfromitaly said:


> E' fondamentale che tu scriva:
> - la *frase originale intera*
> - * la tua  traduzione *
> e ci dia qualche informazione a proposito del *contesto*,  grazie
> 
> Cosa significa "*aggiungere il contesto*"?
> *Come e in che forum creare - modificare - impostare correttamente una discussione*



Il contesto: la competizione in particolari ambiti porta a commettere delle scorrettezze, come per es. saltare le procedure corrette per ottenere i risultati più rapidamente. Prima di questa frase c'è un esempio di questo genere: qualcuno commette una frode saltando un passo della procedura e cerca di fare in modo che gli altri non se ne accorgano. 

Mia traduzione:

A prescindere dal fatto che vicende come questa accadano spesso, o non accadano così di frequente, l'enfasi sulla competizione favorisce procedure sciatte

Insomma, io dò per scontato che manchi una negazione...


----------



## GavinW

Kiky said:


> Insomma, io dò per scontato che manchi una negazione...



In Italian, "do" (voce del verbo dare) does not have an accent. ;-)

Your translation looks OK. I particularly like "a prescindere". And no, I don't see a missing negation. I might just change "sciatto", which normally refers to people, not things. I'd prefer to see an adjective like "frettolose", "disordinate" or some such.
HTH


----------



## chipulukusu

GavinW said:


> In Italian, "do" (voce del verbo dare) does not have an accent. ;-)
> 
> Your translation looks OK. I particularly like "a prescindere". And no, I don't see a missing negation. I might just change "sciatto", which normally refers to people, not things. I'd prefer to see an adjective like "frettolose", "disordinate" or some such.
> HTH



Ciao Gavin, sono molto incuriosito da questo uso di _at all_, mi daresti qualche spiegazione in più? E' _at all_ che ha di per sè una valenza negativa?

Se dico ad un amico _But, do you love her at all? _voglio significare _ma la ami almeno in minima parte? _Dando per scontato che se pure c'è amore deve essere molto poco. Ma se l'amico vuole dirmi di no dovrebbe dire _No, I don't love her at all. _Quindi in questo caso la negazione ci vuole, non basta _at all. _Ma qui siamo in un caso diverso, c'è una negazione completa...

E' l'effetto limitativo di _at all_ che mi risulta sfuggente... Posso dire che questo utilizzo di _at all_ è legittimo solo nelle frasi dubitative? Certo, se dico _I wonder if things like this happen much at all_ il significato mi è chiaro, voglio dire che ho l'impressione che queste cose non accadano per niente di frequente.Ma già passando da _I wonder if things like this happen much at all_ a _Whether things like this happen frequently, or happen much at all_ il senso si perde un poco per un italiano e capisco perfettamente le perplessità di Kiky.

E' vero che comunque non funzionerebbe in una frase affermativa? Per esempio _these things happen much at all_ non ha senso, si deve dire _these things don't happen much at all_, caso mai...

Mi ricorda il tormentone dei tempi di Tangentopoli: "Assolutamente!" "Ma assolutamente si o assolutamente no?"

Grazie se riesci a chiarirmi le idee

P.S.: ci saranno probabilmente altri threads su _at all_, ma questo mi sembra particolarmente significativo, perché Kiky ha chiesto "ma non manca una negazione?"


----------



## Kiky

Gavin, grazie per la risposta. Devo dire che chipulukusu ha espresso in modo chiarissimo quelli che sono anche i miei dubbi. A un italiano sembra strano che quella frase abbia un significato negativo senza la presenza di una negazione. Diciamo che io ho tradotto a senso, secondo logica...
Sicuramente "frettolose" è meglio di "sciatte" 

p.s. in italiano sono ammesse entrambe le forme dò/do (fonte: Devoto Oli)


----------



## GavinW

Ciao chipu,
Your question is a good one. I think the "problem" that you correctly identify (a real problem or only a potential problem? I can't quite decide...) derives from the fact that this clause, introduced by "whether", seems to imply a negative, especially in the second part (after "or"). This implied negative seems to justify the absence of an explicit negative in this second part. That said, I would also be quite happy to read the word "don't" here (ie: "..., or don't happpen much at all"). Right now, I can't quite decide if I would actually prefer to see the addition of "don't" here (perhaps some other native speaker, who is more lucid than me, could shed more light on this).

In short, and in sum, it's the apparently justifiable absence of "don't", but the implied presence of the negative, which justifies and explains the subsequent "at all", which, as you have stated, logically continues and completes the negative idea (ie "not... at all").

But, I say again, I am momentarily unsure as to how far the English ear, in this instance, tolerates the omission of the negative "(do) not".
HTH, as far as it goes...

EDIT: @kiky: I stand corrected (on "dò"/"do")! A thousand apologies for my presumption in correcting you... Thanks for the gentle "reminder". ;-)


----------



## rrose17

To make it a little simpler perhaps makes it easier to understand.
_
Whether I go a lot or whether I go at all/I never go makes no difference. _

A. Did you visit your grandmother when you were in town? 
B. Not really...
A. _Did you go at all_??! Did you even go once?

edit: to add to Gavin's thread, I think saying "did you go at all?" and "Did you not go at all?" mean the same. I don't know why you can drop the negative here, though...


----------



## Kiky

@ rrose17: Thank you for your reply. The meaning is clear now (thanks to Gavin and you). Anyway, it's a tricky construction without the negative form, at least for someone who isn't a native speaker :-(


----------



## chipulukusu

Thank you Gavin and rrose for your feedback. I'm releaved to see that my doubts were not completely out of place.... As an external observer I would say that, if, in the interrogative and dubitative sentences, wheter a negation is present or not conveys the same meaning to native ears, then dropping the negation results in a much more elegant sentence, so I can easily understand the preference for the latter.


----------



## bearded

A mio avviso, e senza entrare nella questione del negativo, la traduzione dovrebbe essere '' e sempreché accadano tanto di frequente''.


----------



## GavinW

bearded man said:


> A mio avviso, e senza entrare nella questione del negativo, la traduzione dovrebbe essere '' e sempreché accadano tanto di frequente''.



Very nice, very neat. The Italian conjunction retains the logic of the original English "argument" very closely, I feel.


----------



## bearded

GavinW said:


> Very nice, very neat. The Italian conjunction retains the logic of the original English "argument" very closely, I feel.


Many thanks for your appreciation.


----------



## chipulukusu

Ciao bearded, dopo la tua acuta osservazione, adesso capisco meglio il senso della frase come:

_Sia che queste cose succedano di frequente_ _sia che accadano (in qulache modo) non raramente...
_
e cosi' in effetti si spiega benissimo l'assenza di una negazione.

In ogni caso mi sembra... _English at its finest_!


----------



## Kiky

bearded man said:


> A mio avviso, e senza entrare nella questione del negativo, la traduzione dovrebbe essere '' e sempreché accadano tanto di frequente''.



La traduzione che tu proponi ha un significato del tutto diverso rispetto a quella considerata in precedenza. Vediamo se riesco a riassumere:

1) Nel caso della prima traduzione con introduzione della negativa:

A prescindere dal fatto che vicende come questa accadano spesso, _o non  accadano poi così di frequente_, l'enfasi sulla competizione favorisce  procedure frettolose.

all'autore non interessa molto se queste vicende accadano o meno, non lo ritiene così importante, e  l'accento ricade sulla seconda parte della frase.

2) Nel caso della tua traduzione:

A prescindere dal fatto che vicende come questa accadano spesso, _e sempreché accadano tanto di frequente_, l'enfasi sulla competizione favorisce  procedure frettolose.

la differenza sostanziale sta nel fatto che l'autore mette in dubbio che queste vicende accadano poi così spesso.

Direi che si tratta di due traduzioni non intercambiabili e che veicolano significati diversi. Quale delle due è quella più corretta?


----------



## bearded

Proporrei questa traduzione dell'intera frase:
A prescindere dal fatto se vicende come questa accadano spesso - sempreché accadano tanto di frequente - l'enfasi posta sulla competizione incoraggia l'adozione di procedure poco accurate
(''tirate via'', negligenti).
P.S. Il mio messaggio si è 'accavallato' a quello di Kiky.  Ovviamente io ritengo giusta la soluzione 2).


----------



## Kiky

Grazie per la risposta bearded man


----------



## london calling

I personally see no problem whatsoever with the original sentence.

And I like bearded man's suggestion.


----------



## Bookmom

Kiky said:


> La traduzione che tu proponi ha un significato del tutto diverso rispetto a quella considerata in precedenza.



I agree, Kiky.  The original: Whether things like this happen frequently, or *happen much at all, the emphasis on competition encourages sloppy procedures...
*makes the point that regardless of how often "things like this happen" frequently or hardly ever, it is the emphasis on competition which encourages sloppy procedures. 

I would agree with your translation: A prescindere dal fatto che vicende come questa accadano spesso, _o non accadano poi così di frequente, l'enfasi sulla competizione favorisce procedure frettolose.
_


----------



## Kiky

Thank you for your feedback Bookmom. In my opinion, it's really important to understand the actual meaning of this sentence in order to use or recognize this kind of construction in other contexts. Many thanks again


----------



## Bookmom

Another helpful strategy for understanding a compound sentence like this one is to turn the sentence around and take a second look: The emphasis on competition encourages sloppy procedures, whether things like this happen frequently or happen much at all.


----------



## chipulukusu

I think it is the _much _part that is confusing for us non natives.

If I read _whether things like this happen frequently, or happen at all_ the meaning is clear and no negation is required to my ears. Adding _much_ evidently serves to reduce the dichotomy between the two parts of the _whether.. or _construction. It is like saying _whether these things happen frequently or not_, instead of saying whether this things happen frequently _or don't happen at all, _that could have been a bit too much in the context.

Adding _much _is what confuses me as a non-native, but at last I can well understand the meaning if I start from the version without _much._


----------



## dôghen

Kiky said:


> La traduzione che tu proponi ha un significato del tutto diverso rispetto a quella considerata in precedenza. Vediamo se riesco a riassumere:
> 
> 1) Nel caso della prima traduzione con introduzione della negativa:
> 
> A prescindere dal fatto che vicende come questa accadano spesso, _o non  accadano poi così di frequente_, l'enfasi sulla competizione favorisce  procedure frettolose.
> 
> all'autore non interessa molto se queste vicende accadano o meno, non lo ritiene così importante, e  l'accento ricade sulla seconda parte della frase.
> 
> 2) Nel caso della tua traduzione:
> 
> A prescindere dal fatto che vicende come questa accadano spesso, _e sempreché accadano tanto di frequente_, l'enfasi sulla competizione favorisce  procedure frettolose.
> 
> la differenza sostanziale sta nel fatto che l'autore mette in dubbio che queste vicende accadano poi così spesso.
> 
> Direi che si tratta di due traduzioni non intercambiabili e che veicolano significati diversi. Quale delle due è quella più corretta?



Ciao

quite interesting thread where both the Italian and the English "ears" appear to be puzzled by the sentence. 
I add my feeling about it, saying that the distinguishing mark of the sentence could be the "or" that separates the two clauses. 
In Italian (and in English as well I presume) this is an _opposing _conjunction so that translating _e sempreché accadano tanto di frequente _doesn't seem to have the same contrasting value, that _o non accadano poi così di frequente_ in fact has. 
If I may accept the lack of a negation in the second clause without being put astray by my "Italian" logic, I can't see the two clauses logically connected without a "strong" opposition signaled by the conjunction "or".


----------



## Kiky

chipulukusu said:


> I think it is the _much _part that is confusing for us non natives.
> 
> If I read _whether things like this happen frequently, or happen at all_ the meaning is clear and no negation is required to my ears. Adding _much_ evidently serves to reduce the dichotomy between the two parts of the _whether.. or _construction. It is like saying _whether these things happen frequently or not_, instead of saying whether this things happen frequently _or don't happen at all, _that could have been a bit too much in the context.
> 
> Adding _much _is what confuses me as a non-native, but at last I can well understand the meaning if I start from the version without _much._



I totally agree with you. Without the word "much" the sentence is crystal clear.


----------



## london calling

Kiky said:


> I totally agree with you. Without the word "much" the sentence is cristal clear.


Ah, but you aren't natives, that's the point. The sentence is crystal clear to me as it stands. 

PS.  Doghen, I am not at all puzzled by it.


----------



## Bookmom

london calling said:


> Ah, but you aren't natives, that's the point. The sentence is crystal clear to me as it stands.
> 
> PS.  Doghen, I am not at all puzzled by it.


  Nor am I, good point.


----------



## dôghen

> Ah, but you aren't natives, that's the point. The sentence is crystal clear to me as it stands.
> 
> PS. Doghen, I am not at all puzzled by it. Nor am I, good point.




Ciao london calling, good, your confidence will help ours....
Gavin and rrose appeared more inclined to rise some doubt about the effective presence of a negation, if I have understood their posts.
 That's why I got the idea of some hesitation even for natives to consider the sentence "cristal clear" but probably the doubts were mostly shed by my fellow Italians instead... 
Anyway my point is to_ reject _the interpretation given (originally from bearded man, if I remember) that "happen much at all" should be considered as a concessive clause instead of a true negation. I understand that is also yours, (and Bookmon's). Am I right or I'm missing something? Can I too consider the sentence crystal clear from now on?


----------



## Bookmom

Whether doubts arise frequently over this construction, or arise much at all, the emphasis on collaboration and dialogue encourages well thought out translations.


----------



## Crix

Ciao everybody,
Actually I do pretty much agree with dôghen. I can't possibly see "_happen much at all_" in this context as a concessive or a conditional clause. Mind that beardedman version, "sempreché accadano tanto di frequente", is a conditional clause, and "sempreché" (otherwise spelt "sempre che") is synonim with "ammesso che" - "purché" - "a patto che", all of them used to introduce a conditional clause. Thus beardedman phrase in English would be something along the line of "_given that/provided that (these facts) happen quite often_", which doesn't seem to me to be the actual meaning of the original. 
Also for me it was crystal clear that the first translation given by Kiky "A prescindere dal fatto che vicende come questa accadano spesso, _o non  accadano poi così di frequente_, l'enfasi sulla competizione favorisce  procedure frettolose" was spot on. But perhaps I'm missing something too?

Seen after posting: 



Bookmom said:


> Whether doubts arise frequently over this  construction, or arise much at all, the emphasis on collaboration and  dialogue encourages well thought out translations.


----------



## Kiky

What I'd like to know is the difference in meaning introduced by the word "much" compared to the plain sentence without "much" ("they don't happen at all") that we non natives find less problematic. I'm aware that probably it's just a nuance.


----------



## Bookmom

Whether you listen to classical music every day, or listen to it at all vs or listen to it much at all.... without much in the phrase, I take it to mean that you *never* listen to classical music. With much in the phrase, the possibility is left open that, *at some time*, as rare as the occasion may be, you do listen to classical music.

Whether you eat apples every day, or eat them at all/eat them much at all...never eat apples, you don't eat apples often but you can't say you never eat them.

That's how I hear it.


----------



## Phil9

Kiky said:


> What I'd like to know is the difference in meaning introduced by the word "much" compared to the plain sentence without "much" ("they don't happen at all") that we non natives find less problematic. I'm aware that probably it's just a nuance.



The answer that there isn't much difference. Consider this conversation:
1:   My mother lives 1000 miles away.
2:   Oh! Do you see her at all? or Do you see her much at all?
1:   It's difficult, but I try and see her once a year.

OK, there can be perhaps a subtle difference depending on the context, if you analyse it very closely.

The original phrase was:
"Whether things like this happen frequently, or *happen much at all*, the emphasis on competition encourages sloppy procedures."

To me, this means 'whether things like that happen frequently or not very frequently' - but the use of the word 'much' indicates that the writer believes that they do happen at least to some small extent.

"Whether things like this happen frequently, or *happen at all. . " *is essentially the same,  but the writer believes that they almost never happen.

In either case, there is no missing negative.

However, the important part of the sentence is the second part which could stand alone. 

"The emphasis on competition encourages sloppy procedures." is a statement which needs no further explanation. The first part is really just saying "Regardless to what extent things like this happen, . . "

Phil.


----------



## Kiky

Thank you Bookmom and Phil9, now I'm quite sure that my tentative translation conveys the same meaning as the original sentence.  The only difference in Italian is that we have to introduce the negative "non".


----------



## Willower

One of the difficulties here is that a phrase that would usually be used in spoken language with appropriate intonation and other non verbal cues is being used in writing, where we expect the language to be more precise.  In fact, there's no difference in meaning in English if you include the negation (Whether things like this happen frequently or _don't_ happen much at all) or not, as in the OP. It's clear to a native speaker because it's a construction that's widely used and understood, but I can't imagine that it would appear in any English grammar...


----------

