# lo + adj = the + adj ? (without a noun)



## Shivadas

Hola!

Como se puede traducir a ingles algo asi:

"Este proceso derrite *lo burdo* y solidifica *lo sutíl*". 

"This process melts *the coarse* and solidifies *the subtle*." 
Is this legal in English to use "the+adj" without any noun, as "lo+adj" in Spanish?

Si pueda alguien explicarme las reglas de este uso por favor, y/o ofrecer soluciones...

Gracias!


----------



## L'Inconnu

Shivadas said:


> "Este proceso derrite *lo burdo* y solidifica *lo sutíl*".
> Is this legal in English to use "the+adj" without any noun, as "lo+adj" in Spanish?
> Si pueda alguien explicarme las reglas de este uso por favor, y/o ofrecer soluciones...




Yes, you can use an adjective as noun in English: The strong, the weak, the wise, etc, but you wouldn't do it in your sentence.

"This process melts (the) coarse material and solidifies (the) finer substances." 

I don't know the exact grammatical rule for it. Just note that the few examples I gave apply to people, not things.


----------



## woodruff.jack

Shivadas said:


> Hola!
> 
> 
> Is this legal in English to use "the+adj" without any noun, as "lo+adj" in Spanish?
> 
> Gracias!



I couldn't explain the rules, but yes, that construction as you have it is correct, as are other constructions like it. 

May I ask what this mysterious process is?


----------



## Shivadas

Thank you, L'inconnu.

This process is meditation... So the example about substances and materials is not relevant in this case. 

FYI,
this is an answer I got elsewhere:


In most European languages, Article + Adjective constructions can have specific reference; the German nickname for Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, for instance, was _Der Alte_, which translated literally as 'The Old One'.While English speakers can and do often delete nouns and pronouns, in context:​
*Q:* _Do you want the red one or the blue one?_ *A:* _I'll take the red, thanks._
generally in English, constructions like that can only have Generic reference, not Specific:​
_My great-uncle is the fat *one* in the middle._ [Specific reference = 'the fat person']
*_My great-uncle is the fat in the middle._ [ungrammatical with no head N to modify]
_My great-uncle is unfortunately among the fat._ [Generic reference = 'fat people']
So, _the coarse, the subtle, the ridiculous, the sublime, the stupid, the uneducated,_ all are fine,*provided* that they don't refer to individual contextually specific things or people, but rather generically, to all such things, without individuation.What's interesting is whether they have to refer to classes of people, or of things. That's a matter of interpretation, and varies a lot with the adjective and the context.


​


----------



## mooj96

Shivadas said:


> Si pueda alguien explicarme las reglas de este uso por favor, y/*u *ofrecer soluciones...



Recuerda, se debe cambiar "o" a "u" cuando la letra siguiente es una "o" también, (además recuerda que se cambia "y" a "e" cuando la letra siguiente suena igual)

En inglés, se puede decir "This process melts the coarse *things* and solidifies the finer *things*. Lo que ha sugerido L'inconnu funcionaría también pero se suele decir "things" en inglés cuando se habla de lo desconocido. Y, a dar más ejemplos, en la frase que acabo de escribir, se puede traducir "cuando se habla de lo desconocido" como "when we talk about unknown things." No se pone siempre "the," pero no te puedo explicar las reglas porque el inglés no siempre tiene sentido!


----------



## L'Inconnu

It looks as if English is different than Spanish. In Spanish you can say "La Gordo y la Flaca", where in English you have to say "The fat one and the skinny one" if you are talking about two specific people. You use the "fat and the skinny" for groups of people within categories.

<the poor> = <los pobres>


----------



## woodruff.jack

I think a more natural translation given the context might be:

"This process melts *what is **coarse* and solidifies *what is **subtle*."


----------



## mooj96

woodruff.jack said:


> I think a more natural translation given the context might be:
> 
> "This process melts *what is **coarse* and solidifies *what is **subtle*."



Perhaps "anything coarse" and "anything subtle," as well. Actually, I think "delicate" would be a better word for this context.


----------



## Shivadas

Thank you all!

woodruff.jack: "This process melts *what is coarse and solidifies what is subtle." *​Can you explain why?


----------



## jletual

woodruf.jack

I would disagree with the statement that your translation sounds natural.
If you really want to stick the verb "to be" before the adjectives, you would have to say "...that which is coarse..." and "...that which is subtle...". 
And note that this would be a rather formal way of speaking.

Saludos!


----------



## Shivadas

jletual said:


> woodruf.jack
> 
> I would disagree with the statement that your translation sounds natural.
> If you really want to stick the verb "to be" before the adjectives, you would have to say "...that which is coarse..." and "...that which is subtle...".
> And note that this would be a rather formal way of speaking.



To me too it sounds very wordy, which is why I chose "the coarse" and "the subtle". But is there an English style problem with this kind of usage? 
I saw many people were a bit reluctant with this construction... what is really the problem with it? and if ther es one, what can be a good and concise alternative for translating "lo" + adj?
"what is" + adj: unnatural, "that which is" + adj: too formal, wordy and heavy, "anything" + adj: somewhat inexact...


----------



## jletual

Shivadas,
To answer your original question "Is this legal in English to use "the+adj" without any noun, as "lo+adj" in Spanish?" The answer strictly speaking is no, it doesn't work like Spanish, as was shown in examples above.

But that said, I think your sentence sounds fine, provided it has sufficient context. For instance, during a yoga session, the instructor may be showing a breathing exercise, and saying "Out with the bad and in with the good" The obvious antecedent to the adjectives bad and good is the noun air, because we are talking about breathing. 

So, yes in my opinion it is legal, provided the context provides a reference to the missing noun.


----------



## L'Inconnu

Shivadas said:


> I chose "the coarse" and "the subtle". But is there an English style problem with this kind of usage? I saw many people were a bit reluctant with this construction... what is really the problem with it?



The problem is we normally use the construction for *broader *generalizations. We normally use the adjective-noun in the singular form (the rich, the poor, the erudite, etc). Nevertheless, they apply to _*groups*_, not individuals. 

_"The wealthy have more political power than the poor."_

The adjective-noun can also apply to *individual *people, things, or ideas if you use the word <one>. The smart one (person), The red one (person/thing), the wrong one (person/thing), the big one (person/thing), etc. When talking about objects, we sometimes omit the word <one> when what we mean can be understood from context. 

"We have a green one, a pink one, and a blue one. Which one do you want? I'll take the pink."

If there were two or more pink items and you wanted all of them, you would say:

"I'll take the pink ones or the pinks."

Sometimes the adjective is a plural, e.g., the Cincinnati Red_s_.  This exception is probably due to the fact that we are talking about  one team, rather than making a broad, sweeping statement about  everyone or thing that is red. Really, <The Reds> is probably an  abbreviation of the <The Red Ones>. For that matter, Reds, being the name of a team is practically a noun, rather than an adjective. Whites and blacks, referring to people, are nouns and they are often used without the direct article.


----------



## Shivadas

"From the sublime to the ridiculous" - an idiom in English... It does not refer to groups of people, but to something very similar to what is described in the given sentence. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/from+the+sublime+to+the+ridiculous
So I am still not sure.


----------



## L'Inconnu

Shivadas said:


> "From the sublime to the ridiculous"



Notice that this is a generalization, where the sublime and ridiculous things fit into very *broad* categories. Your first example may be too _*narrow*_ in focus.


----------



## woodruff.jack

The phrase is rather esoteric and a number of constructions and expressions would certainly work. My basis for suggesting "This process *melts* *what is coarse and solidifies what is subtle*" is that we are talking about meditation, and this kind of construction is frequently found in literature on mental states and spirituality. So this construction has something of the flavor of an Eastern aphorism. But I am certainly not wedded to it, and you can choose among a number of other ways to express this idea.


----------



## jletual

L'Inconnu said:


> _"...the coarse, the subtle, the ridiculous, the sublime, the stupid, the uneducated _generally refer to *people* or *ideas*, not physical objects.



Since the original context is that of meditation, could we not say that we are in fact talking about ideas?


----------



## Shivadas

We are talking about ideas, concepts, thoughts, perceptions, identifications - mental content in general. The meaning of the sentence "La meditacion derrite lo burdo y solidifica lo sutil" is that all those things which were coarse, such as the body, the mind and the sensation of I, are melted and lose substantiality, and that which was intangible such as consciousness, love, God - become solid and substancial.

My question still stands...


----------



## L'Inconnu

"Sizes range from small to extra large." 
"Sizes range from _the_ small to _the_ extra large."
"From the minuscule to the colossal." 

So, a few dozen shirts in a department store isn't a broad enough category to qualify. The third sentence encompasses a wider variety of things (people, animals, physical objects, ideas, etc) in far greater numbers.


----------



## L'Inconnu

Shivadas said:


> "La meditacion derrite lo burdo y solidifica lo sutil"


Well, it would have been clearer if you had said you were talking about meditation in the first place. I thought you were describing an industrial process, one where you were melting some raw materials in a large crucible. I was wondering how you could melt and solidify things at the same time. 



Shivadas said:


> ...all those things which were coarse, such as the body, the mind, and the sensation of I oneself are melted and lose substantiality, and that which was intangible such as consciousness, love, God - become solid and substancial.



Now, that I understand what you're talking about, it looks ok.

"Meditation melts the coarse while solidifying the subtle. One's body, mind, and sense of individuality gives way to consciousness, love, and God." 

"La meditación derrite lo burdo y solidifica lo sutil. El cuerpo, la mente, y la sentido de la individualidad, todos ceden a el conocimiento, el amor y Dios. 


Ok, the use of a noun as an adjective is acceptable in this case, at least in English. The adjective may have to be plural in Spanish. However, there is still one problem. I have NO idea of what you Buddhists are talking about! How can someone lose their mind, but still be conscious?


----------



## Shivadas

Dear L'inconnu,

If you look up there in the thread, I already said the issue was meditation, and not any chemical process. 

"I have NO idea of what you Buddhists are talking about! How can someone lose their mind, but still be conscious?" - that, my friend, is a good question! but not for this particular forum. If you are really interested in that topic, I am sure you will find where to read about it in the internet.


----------



## L'Inconnu

Shivadas said:


> Dear L'inconnu,
> If you look up there in the thread, I already said the issue was meditation, and not any chemical process.



Well, you should have said that from the beginning. Remember next time that context helps. Anyhow, I think we now agree that you can use a noun as an adjective, but it is normally used for broad generalizations.


----------



## Shivadas

Yes. Thank you! I learned a lot...


----------



## VictorBsAs

Se suele usar el artículo 'lo' para convertir un adjetivo en un sustantivo abstracto, o sea:
lo blanco = la blancura = the whiteness
o para dar un sentido amplio:
lo esencial es invisible a los ojos = what is essential is invisible to the eye.
en cambio usando los artículos determinados (la, el, los, las), se entiende que el sustantivo está tácito o referido en otro lado.
el blanco = the white one


----------



## L'Inconnu

VictorBsAs said:


> lo blanco = la blancura = the whiteness
> lo esencial es invisible a los ojos = what is essential is invisible to the eye.
> el blanco = the white one
> en cambio usando los artículos determinados (la, el, los, las), se entiende que el sustantivo está tácito o referido en otro lado.



So are we saying <lo burdo> or are we saying <los burdos>?

"Meditation melts the coarse while solidifying the subtle. One's body, mind, and sense of individuality gives way to consciousness, love, and God." 

"La meditación derrite lo burdo y solidifica lo sutil. El cuerpo, la  mente, y la sentido de la individualidad, todos ceden a el conocimiento,  el amor y Dios.


----------



## Shivadas

L'Inconnu said:


> So are we saying <lo burdo> or are we saying <los burdos>?
> 
> "Meditation melts the coarse while solidifying the subtle*"*. (One's body, mind, and sense of *"I"* give way to consciousness, love, and God.)
> 
> "La meditación derrite lo burdo y solidifica lo sutil*"*. (El cuerpo, la  mente, y *el *sentido del *"yo"*, todos ceden a *la conciencia*,  el amor y Dios).



La frase original no contiene todo el resto: lo escribi solo para explicar, pero no forma parte del texto. Asi que no es necesario agregarlo.


1. No cabe duda que aqui, en el original, es "lo burdo" y "lo sutil", y de que asi debe ser. De ahi partimos.
2. La pregunta es acerca de la traduccion en ingles, como se traduce este sustantivo-abstracto-hecho-de-adjetivo al idioma ingles. Y me parece que hemos llegado a la conclusion que "Meditation melts the coarse while solidifying the subtle" esta bien... en conclusion: "the"+adjective en ingles tiene el mismo efecto como "lo"+adjetivo en español...


----------



## Shivadas

Pero ay de mi, miren este ejemplo:

"El fracaso no debe deprimirnos; lo triste es saber que no hicimos nuestro mayor esfuerzo".

Here, "the"+adj cannot replace its Spanish equivalent. We cannot say: "The sad is to know...".
We should say something like: "What's sad is to know we haven't made our best effort"...


----------



## L'Inconnu

Well, this is now beyond the scope of grammar, but I am not sure that <course> and <subtle> are the best choice of words. In my opinion, and this is just an opinion, you should choose two words that are opposite in meaning. 

Coarse (rough, rude, inferior, crude, harsh) <--> Fine (delicate, superior, elegant)
Obvious (easy to see) <--> Subtle (difficult to perceive) 

You might try your luck with the online Merriam-Webster, for example, which lists synonyms and antonyms. 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/


----------

