| | |
| |
19 svibanj 2007 17:21 |
| | I found this on my dictionary for riequilibrare:
to re-balance, to re-equilibrate, to redress (also econ.)
Ex: to re-balance (or to adjust) the scales; to redress the foreign debt; to redress the balance of payments.
And this for riequilibrarsi (riflessive or impersonal, it may be translated by the passive form)
Ex: to reach an equilibrium; to return to normality; the forces at play have reached equilibrium; Once the fear had passed, the situation returned to normality.
Is this verb the only problem or the whole sentence is?
I changed the construction of the last sentence, word to word it should be:
thanks to whom re-equilibrating the parties at play. |
| |
19 svibanj 2007 17:27 |
| | Actually, it's the whole phrase: Maybe "bring the ??? back into balance"? But what are "the parties at play"? I guess it means human beings and natural resources, but it's not clear to me. |
| |
19 svibanj 2007 17:36 |
| | That's the problem: it's not very clear in Italian either. Maybe it means industrial activity, market and consumerism versus natural resources.
Xiniiiiiii!!!!!!!!!! |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 07:53 |
| 
XiniBroj poruka: 1655 | Both interpretations are right.
But the translation of the title should be "Nothing burns down by itself" (try to google the two sentences). |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 13:43 |
| | What I saw on google is that what you propose is not an original title at all!!!(is it on purpose, I mean, are you playing that particular music or what?)
Anyway, I would like very much to understand the difference between "to burn up" and "to burn down".
As for the last phrase...???
|
| |
21 svibanj 2007 14:51 |
|
XiniBroj poruka: 1655 | Music? This is not a piece of music, it's an interactive installation.
The title was on purpose, it is a kind of motto.
I want to know the difference as well.
My MacOsX built-in Oxford Dictionary:
burn something down (or burn down) (of a building or structure) destroy or be destroyed completely by fire.
burn up 1 (of a fire) produce brighter and stronger flames. 2 (of an object entering the earth's atmosphere) be destroyed by heat. burn someone up informal make someone angry : his thoughtless remarks really burn me up. burn something up • use up the calories or energy provided by food, rather than converting these to fat:: in the typical Western diet, all the energy in protein is burned up daily. |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 15:27 |
| | Well, needless to say, I agree with Oxford. So the title should be "burns up" (def'n 2), not "burns down", because the thing that's burning here is not a building. I changed it back. |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 15:33 |
|
XiniBroj poruka: 1655 | Hmm, I'm not sure...
it's not an object entering the atmosphere
it's not anyone
it's not dealing with food
but is a "virtual" building (metaphor).
Moreover, the Italian title was chosen by translating the English motto. |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 15:43 |
| | No, no, no - maybe Oxford didn't explain it so well. You can only use "burn down" for a physical structure - it gives the idea of something tall burning until there is nothing physical left (so it goes down). "Burn up" on the other hand simply means "burn completely". |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 15:47 |
| | What English motto?
Oh - I see now - what did we use to do before google?
This anarchist slogan is about burning down buildings! |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 16:41 |
| | Down with consumerism! Down with corporations! |
| |
21 svibanj 2007 17:16 |
|
XiniBroj poruka: 1655 | Yes, maybe it was an anarchist slogan but now it seems to be used in many no-global campaigns.
Can't it be used in a metaphorical way?
Since the original motto is "Nothing ever burns down by itself - every fire needs a little help", I'd like to keep it. Does this sound weird for a native speaker, Lau  ? |
| |
22 svibanj 2007 04:06 |
| | I don't know, Xini - it loses its power as a play on words in English, because combustion is "burning up", not "burning down". I think it's better as "burns up" - if people know the slogan, they'll make the connection and think it's kind of cute. |
| |
22 svibanj 2007 05:11 |
| | I hope the discussion of "burns up" and "burns down" has not made us forget that we still have a problem with "by which the interplay of the roles might be redressed". I cannot accept this translation until this phrase is fixed. |
| |
22 svibanj 2007 13:55 |
| | OK, then, let's talk about "by which the interplay of the roles might be redressed". Xini was not very helpful on this point. You were suggesting "to bring (the parties at play) back to balance", but we stopped on...the parties at play. It sounds a little indefinite in Italian too, if that's your worry. I don't think the conflict is between human beings and natural resources, but between human beings and a human way of life (including protection of the natural environment and resources) and market and and a way of life ruled by market (consumerism). |
| |
22 svibanj 2007 14:01 |
|
XiniBroj poruka: 1655 | The interpretation is kind of open.
The parties at play may be any of all you said, but mainly is the conflict between consumerism and nature that the installation wants to point out.
|
| |
22 svibanj 2007 16:20 |
| | OK - how about "by which the roles may be brought back into balance"?
Actually, I like this - it sounds very good in English. |
| |
22 svibanj 2007 17:10 |
| | I like it too, Kafetzou. Thanks. |
| |
22 svibanj 2007 17:13 |
| | Thanks everybody - nice teamwork! |
| |
22 svibanj 2007 21:19 |
|
XiniBroj poruka: 1655 | Thank you very much App and Lau...  |
Omiljeni prijevodi
