# They have killed our Colonel



## Kahless

I forgot. I had another set of phrases that I wanted to check. Here is the context. The phrases to translate are in blue.



> I left the radio on the Soviet frequency to keep my ears open. Maybe I could get something useful. The radio reports that they have my disabled Tank on their radar. I kept an eye on my radar, searching for what I thought was the first opportunity to call my base. I heard the Soviets saying they'd arrived at my Tank. There was some real agitated conversation.
> (They have killed our Colonel!)  (It is the American Colonel’s Tank, but where is he?)  (Where is Comrade Colonel's Tank?)  (The American has it)  (He is probably long-gone now in Comrade Colonel's Tank. Let’s open his).  (What is that paper in the window? It has Soviet writing on it!) (No, you fool) I wondered who would win the argument. I had now achieved a comfortable lead and heard a very loud explosion over the radio. I guess they all lost.



Thank You


----------



## Maroseika

- Они убили нашего полковника! 
- Это танк американского полковника, но где ж он сам? 
- А где танк нашего полковника? [comrade is not used in the 3rd person in such an unofficial situation]
- У американца. Он, наверно, смылся на танке нашего полковника. Давай его откроем. 
- Что это за бумажка на окне? Там что-то написано по-русски [Soviet writing is something weird, only Russian])
- Ты чо, дурак?
No, you fool can be translated in various ways depending on the sense. Why he says that? Because in fact writing in the paper is not Russian?


----------



## Kahless

No it is because it is a trap to get him to open the American Colonel's tank and set off a bomb. One of the Soviet pilots is trying to prevent the other from opening the hatch and setting off the explosive. (He suspects trickery)


----------



## Crescent

Kahless said:


> No it is because it is a trap to get him to open the American Colonel's tank and set off a bomb. One of the Soviet pilots is trying to prevent the other from opening the hatch and setting off the explosive. (He suspects trickery)


Hello! 

Maroseika's translations are extremely good! All very correct, and also in ''normal'' Russian, exactly just as it would be said it it hadn't been translated!
Maroseika; Вам - 5 за урок. 

As for ''No, you fool.'' - it can indeed be translated in various ways. In your particular context something like ''_Ну ты и дурень!''_ ''_Дурак ты!'_' or as Maroseika suggested '_'Ты что, дурак?_'' are all absolutely fine.


----------



## Kahless

This is a combination of an old translation which I got from Sergey from Russia (who immigrated to Israel) and Maroseika's

What is this sheet of paper next to the hatchway? There something is written in Russian.
(Что это за лист бумаги рядом с люком? Там что-то написано по-русски)

Is this a fair translation?

thanx


----------



## Maroseika

Kahless said:


> This is a combination of an old translation which I got from Sergey from Russia (who immigrated to Israel) and Maroseika's
> 
> What is this sheet of paper next to the hatchway? There something is written in Russian.
> (Что это за лист бумаги рядом с люком? Там что-то написано по-русски)
> 
> Is this a fair translation?
> 
> thanx


Translation is grammatically quite correct, but live people do not talk like that. It looks like an exercise from a grammar manual. I cannot assess the style of the English text, but live Russian dialogue in the described situation cannot look like that.


----------



## Ptak

Maroseika said:


> Translation is grammatically quite correct, but live people do not talk like that. It looks like an exercise from a grammar manual. I cannot assess the style of the English text, but live Russian dialogue in the described situation cannot look like that.


I agree with Maroseika.


----------



## Kahless

Ok, then give the fact that the peice of paper has to be inside of the hatch of the tank, as to read it needs to have pilot open hatch to trigger bomb.

The phrase to be translated would actually best be.

What is that paper inside of the hatch of his tank?

Sorry I didn't say it better before.

Thanx


----------



## Ptak

Что это там за бумажка?

That's all.


Or even: Что это? (What's that?)


----------



## Ptak

Maroseika said:


> - Они убили нашего полковника!
> 
> The word "нашего" is very unnatural here.
> 
> - Это танк американского полковника, но где ж он сам?
> 
> The sentence looks like an exercise from a grammar manual.
> 
> - А где танк нашего полковника?
> 
> The same
> 
> - У американца. Он, наверно, смылся на нашем танке.
> 
> Давай его откроем. (откроем what? американца или танк, на котором он смылся?)
> 
> Maybe he wants to say "Давай откроем его танк"? Anyway the sentence sounds very unnatural.


 
Еще вопрос: я извиняюсь, а разве полковники ездят на танках в одиночку?


----------



## Kahless

Ok Ptak, Что это? works fine. I forgot that I said in 1st person narrative before, 





> "I took a piece of paper and wrote some Russian writing on it and stuck it with some tape to the inside of the hatch. The hatch was transparent, and I was hoping their curiosity would get them to open the hatch."


 So it is understood, when they say, "What is this?", and the paper has russian writing on it, that they found the paper and are debating opening the tank. I will stick with this simple phrase.

Thanx everyone


----------



## Kahless

Also my original translation from Sergey for 





> "No, you fool" was Нет, Вы дурак!


 
I have suggestions of...
Ну ты и дурень!
Дурак ты!
что, дурак?

I need to have it in the context where one pilot is emphatically saying NO! to the pilot who is trying to open the tank hatch. Which is best phrase?

Thanx


----------



## sargio

Kahless said:


> Also my original translation from Sergey for
> 
> I have suggestions of...
> Ну ты и дурень!
> Дурак ты!
> что, дурак?
> 
> I need to have it in the context where one pilot is emphatically saying NO! to the pilot who is trying to open the tank hatch. Which is best phrase?
> 
> Thanx



Maroseika has already suggested
- Ты чо, дурак?

I think,. it's ok.


----------



## Ptak

> - Ты ч*ё*, дурак?


It's not *чо*, but *чё*.


----------



## sargio

Ptak said:


> Еще вопрос: я извиняюсь, а разве полковники ездят на танках в одиночку?



"Разве наши слоны уже летают?" - "Значит летают" 

Экпиаж танка, действительно, стостоит из более чем 1-го человека.  Хотя возможно, речь шла именно о полковнике, в том смысле, что в танке были еще люди?


----------



## Ptak

sargio said:


> Экипаж танка, действительно, стостоит из более чем 1-го человека. Хотя возможно, речь шла именно о полковнике, в том смысле, что в танке были еще люди?


Не похоже из разговора.
Такое впечатление, что каждый из полковников катался в одиночку на танке, они встретились, подрались, потом американский полковник поехал кататься дальше, но уже пересев в русский танк.
Сюжет для мультика, не больше.


----------



## Kahless

To Ptak


> Еще вопрос: я извиняюсь, а разве полковники ездят на танках в одиночку


 
Yes they are single pilot hover tanks


----------



## Ptak

Kahless, as I know, a Russian tank crew includes always more than one person. Anyway I can't immagine a man in the rank of COLONEL can go for a drive in tank on one's own, without any escort (at least in the Soviet/Russian army).


----------



## sargio

Ptak said:


> Не похоже из разговора.
> Такое впечатление, что каждый из полковников катался в одиночку на танке, они встретились, подрались, потом американский полковник поехал кататься дальше, но уже пересев в русский танк.
> Сюжет для мультика, не больше.



LOL.


----------



## Kahless

> Kahless, as I know, a Russian tank crew includes always more than one person. Anyway I can't immagine a man in the rank of COLONEL can go for a drive in tank on one's own, without any escort (at least in the Soviet/Russian army).


 
These are single pilot hover tanks, and yes they travel in units. No Colonel would be allowed to fly about unescorted. The American Colonel told his First Officer he was going to do so later in the story and was absolutely told NO!


----------



## Kahless

Ok, one last question to be clear. Is this what I take to be translated, The American has it! 



> У американца


----------



## Ptak

Kahless said:


> Is this what I take to be translated, The American has it!


Yes.

But "А где танк нашего полковника?" sounds unnatural.
"А где *наш танк*?" is much better.

Or "*А наш танк где?*" is even better.


----------



## Maroseika

Ptak said:


> It's not *чо*, but *чё*.


Really? But why?


----------



## Ptak

Maroseika said:


> Really? But why?


http://dic.gramota.ru/search.php?word=%F7%B8&lop=x&gorb=x&efr=x&ag=x&zar=x&ab=x&sin=x&lv=x&pe=x&az=x


----------



## Maroseika

Ptak said:


> http://dic.gramota.ru/search.php?word=%F7%B8&lop=x&gorb=x&efr=x&ag=x&zar=x&ab=x&sin=x&lv=x&pe=x&az=x


Кто б мог подумать! Спасибо.


----------



## Kahless

Thanx everyone, I have all the translations I think to make the book work. I was watching 'Hunt for Red Oktober' last night and I picked up a few things in our portrayal of the Soviets that appeared to be _westernized_ for the western viewers. Unfortunately, without making some things with a western feel, most westerners would not understand what is going on. Again, everyone, I thank you.


----------

