Dance with me
| Thanks! ❤ |  |  |
| thanked 365 times | ||
robert.tucker.794 on 2013-01-31
TrampGuy | 1. | Songs About Sex ~ Season 1 |
| 1. | Federkleid |
| 2. | Tanz mit mir |
| 3. | Walpurgisnacht |
robert.tucker.794
Fri, 01/02/2013 - 15:45
Some of the phrasing I've used is intentionally archaic: "Oh come you beauty", "oh beauty", "thereon" which goes a little with the piece, I felt.
I can't see a complete grammatical error myself at the moment; if you can please let me know.
What I'm possibly least satisfied with is "come we'll pour for ourselves" for "komm wir schenken uns jetzt ein" since the English tends to imply – though does not necessarily mean – not letting someone else do it for them
TrampGuy
Fri, 01/02/2013 - 16:25
I actually thought "Oh come you beauty" is one of them. It just doesn't sound right to me. Personally, I've never seen it used in any archaic form, but then again, I'm no native, so I'm not sure here.
Other then that, the English used in your translation looks "over simplified", but maybe it was your intention?
robert.tucker.794
Fri, 01/02/2013 - 18:36
But you find nothing wrong with "Oh come all ye faithful"?
There are a few Google hits for someone using "Oh come you beauty" in a poem. On the other hand "komm du Schöne" with "Schöne" used as a noun substantive are almost non-existent except for a Volkslied "Komme doch komme doch, komm du Schöne, Komme doch Komme doch tanz mit mir".
I Googled faun+tanz+mit+mir+volkslied and didn't find anything about the Volkslied. I hope the group haven't left anything uncredited!
Certainly I like my English to be as clear as possible and I don't think the lyrics of this song are particularly "deep" – in a linguistic sense anyway.
TrampGuy
Fri, 01/02/2013 - 19:40
I didn't mean to sound picky or anything, ;) maybe it's just my wishful thinking for English to translate better into German :)
Funny you mentioned it, "Oh come all ye faithful" sounds perfectly fine :) Personally I wouldn't know a better way of translating "Ach komm du schöne" into English, I hoped maybe a native could come up with a nicer interpretation.
"I'll pour it you only if you dance with me" shouldn't it be "I'll pour it only if you dance with me" or better yet "I'll pour it only if you'll dance with me" even though less literal.
Anyway, I'm sure your English is much better than mine, so I'll trust you on that :)
robert.tucker.794
Fri, 01/02/2013 - 21:54
No, sorry, I'm not trying to get uppity either! :)
I don't know, perhaps the grammar books would agree more with "I'll pour it only if you'll dance with me" but maybe it sounds just a bit too formulaic here, to me anyway. The girl just wants her dance, she isn't trying to blackmail him!
Scant support Googling for "pour it you" or "serve it you" or "buy it you" but I think possibly some from the British Council, no less:
If the indirect object is a pronoun we normally use the N + V + N + N pattern:
I poured him another drink.
http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/verbs/double-o...
As for the difference between "I poured him it" and "I poured it him" ... ?
TrampGuy
Fri, 01/02/2013 - 22:27
lol, wait a sec... so you mean to tell me "pour it you" is actually proper English? I thought it was a typo xD
ok, so maybe I was completely off here and your English is "too proper" that I can't even conceive of it xD
but I'm no example here, I do wonder how would an "American" native understand this peculiar phrasing :)
Insomnia1
Wed, 17/08/2016 - 17:27
I have 4 examples on my mind and one of them definitely sounds unidiomatic.
When the direct object is a noun : (the book)
- I gave the book to him
- I gave him the book
Both are correct.
When the direct object is a pronoun : ('it' instead of 'the book')
- I gave it to him
- I gave him it(sounds weird)
The 4th example would be so much better if we didn't use a pronoun as the direct object.
"I gave him the book" sounds perfectly well whereas "I gave him it" sounds really weird.
I cannot explain the reason in terms of grammatical rules, and also I'm not a native speaker. Does "I gave him it" instead of "I gave him the book" make sense to you as a native speaker?
Apart from that, thanks for the translation. This beautiful song seems much more enjoyable right now
robert.tucker.794
Thu, 18/08/2016 - 07:42
Other discussion on this subject to be found on the Web:
http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/he-gave-me-it-would-you-use-it.49...
"Give me it is mainly from conversation; give it me can be from conversation, but many instances are from fictional texts."
http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/he-showed-me-it.2450433/
robert.tucker.794
Fri, 01/02/2013 - 23:55
Other English speaker's comments are always interesting, of course.
There are a substantial number of Google hits for both "buy him it" and "buy it him". I think possibly I used "pour it you" rather than "pour you it" feeling that the former – "pour it you" – puts the emphasis on the "it" with the "you" only there for completeness.
Obviously translating from German, if not other languages, I have no trouble using the grammatically correct "I" rather than "me"; so yes my use of English probably can be too proper for some tastes sometimes.
Azzalin
Fri, 14/04/2023 - 16:50
Since "dir" here is in the dative case it could (should?) be translated as "to / for you". So the phrase would be "I'll pour it for you...". That sounds better to my native English-speaking ears, at any rate.
(Native English speaker trying to remember my high school German lessons from 1984! And hopefully not causing any offense.)
robert.tucker.794
Fri, 14/04/2023 - 23:43
Mm, yes, the rule is generally the indirect object comes directly after the verb. Perhaps I shall have to look more closely at this. So far, I've found this:
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/i-gave-him-it-i-gave-it-him-i-ga...
My translation also seems to have got into Reverso and not been "filtered out":
https://context.reverso.net/translation/english-spanish/I%27ll+pour+it
robert.tucker.794
Sat, 15/04/2023 - 08:29
A reverse double object variant:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics...
The n-gram shows a rapid decline in the use of "poured it for you" starting from about the time I wrote this translation:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=poured+it+for+you&year_sta...
The n-gram for /gave it him/gave him it/gave it to him:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gave+it+him%2Cgave+him+it%...
"gave it him" seems more common before about 1850, with an early peak around Shakespeare's time (1554-1616).
Of course, writers of books, or if not them, their proofreaders and editors, tend to be more grammatical than people in everyday speech.
Azzalin
Fri, 14/04/2023 - 17:14
Thank you for the translation!!
In lines 5-7, you translated "wenn" as "if". In lines 27-29 you translated it as "when". I understand that "wenn" can mean either "if" or "when". I am curious why you translated it "when" in lines 27-29. To me it makes more sense to use "if" in both cases, so I was wondering if you had a specific reason to use one meaning over the other?
robert.tucker.794
Fri, 14/04/2023 - 23:51
Logistically, it would be difficult to dance and pour a drink at the same time, so "if" must have seemed right.
In the other case, possibly I thought "when" sounded more willing and positive.
hey robert, it says on your profile that you're a native English speaker, right?
how about adding a less literal translation then? - because, many lines here don't "quite" pass as proper English.
but thanks for the translation!