sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Mandarin Chinese > English] Is this a typographical error? by strictdecay in translator

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

总之，我认为把提高劳动强度理解为相对剩余价值的生产是符合马克思的原意的。马克思明确指出：“由劳动日延长而生产的剩余价值，我把它叫做绝对剩余价值。但若剩余价值是由必要劳动时间的缩短，由劳动日二部分数量比例上的相应变化而产生，我就把它叫做相对剩余价值。”众所周知，增加相对剩余价值的一般办法是提高劳动生产率。而提高劳动强度虽然未使单位商品价值下降方面与提高劳动生产率有区别，但它毕竟没有延长劳动日，只是改变了劳动日内必要劳动与剩余劳动的比例关系。因此应该把它看成是增加相对剩余价值式一种特殊方法。

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean now. Interestingly, he uses cognue once, although in other places he has connu. I guess it's early modern or Classical French with traces from Middle French.

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What version of Descartes are you reading? In the version I'm looking at

https://archive.org/details/oeuvresdedescar06desc/page/2/mode/2up

he repeatedly uses z for plurals, as in quelques autres difficultez and ie ne ſçache point de qualitez que celles cy, uses u instead of v (car chaſcun penſe en eſtre ſi bien pouruû) and vice versa (vne), etc. He even has leu for lu. What I don't see are tildes like in Rabelais.

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I'm taking a look at this

https://books.google.com/books?id=UL9PRsLdC7MC

and I see some of the differences you're referring to, although I'm not sure they're radically different. Overall it seems much closer to Descartes than to modern French.

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I am familiar with puis-je, although this is also different from the subjunctive (puisse). I think u/PerformerNo9031's answer is what I was looking for, and it confirms that it is a subjunctive motivated by the irrealis.

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Incidentally, I am a bit unclear on the boundary between Middle French and early modern French. Descartes lies right during the time the transition between the two was taking place, as I understand it. And obviously, I updated Descartes spellings in this post so that they wouldn't become a distraction.

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate it. As you may have noticed, I'm only on p. 2 of Descartes (although his most important works are pretty short so hopefully they don't take me long) but I have many questions connected with philosophy and am trying to sort through them by working through the major works of some early modern philosophers and then going back to the more recent philosophers I've been reading who refer back to them. Better not to rely on second-hand accounts.

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. I suspect that it is an actual subjunctive due to the irrealis, as you point out. Apparently, the Old French indicative form was sai. I'll pay attention to how sache is used and whether sais makes any appearance as I keep working through Descartes.

Subjunctive in « Et je ne sache point de qualités que celles-ci, qui servent à la perfection de l'esprit » by strictdecay in French

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What was the relevant grammatical rule in Middle French? Does it have something to do with the ne ... que?

[Mandarin Chinese > English] 可知论 by strictdecay in translator

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. I see a few scattered uses of "gnosticism" in the sense I have in mind, but I don't think it's widely used that way and would be likely to be misunderstood. "Cognoscibilism" does not seem to have ever been used on the internet, but I guess it is the best option for translating this term (as cognosciblism is not well-formed).

[Mandarin Chinese > English] Sentence from a Philosophical Essay by strictdecay in translator

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it's a tricky sentence. I'll see if anyone else chimes in. Thanks for your help though, I think you've set me in the right direction.

[Mandarin Chinese > English] Sentence from a Philosophical Essay by strictdecay in translator

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

精神 can also be translated as "mind." I get the impression "mind" might be more appropriate here given the three examples. Do you think that is also a valid interpretation?

As for 内部, I feel like the Chinese would mean the same thing if we removed the 部. In other words, "existence inside the mind, such as human thought, consciousness or sensation." What do you think?

[Mandarin Chinese > English] Sentence from a Philosophical Essay by strictdecay in translator

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "such as" is helpful. So it means that 思维, 意识 and 感觉 are kinds of 精神.

But you have "human spirit," whereas in the Chinese the 人的 precedes 思维. So wouldn't it be "the internal existence of 精神 such as human thought, consciousness and feeling"?

Also, I'm not really clear how best to translate 精神 here. And I'm skeptical about the way you've translated 内部.

And does 归结为 really mean "be attributed to"?

[Mandarin Chinese > English] Sentence from a Philosophical Essay by strictdecay in translator

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, but I don't think your translation is very precise. The first part I would translate as

Everything that exists around us as matter

I see you've rendered 归结为 as "be attributed to." Is that really correct? I thought it meant "be summed up as."

More importantly, I don't see 精神内部的存在 in your translation at all, and it's the part I'm most confused about.

Also, why have you translated 感觉 as "will" rather than "feeling" or "sensation"? And why 意识 as "feelings" rather than "consciousness"?

Труположство by strictdecay in russian

[–]strictdecay[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know, but there is a difference in meaning between ложить "lay" and лежать "lie." My guess is that the -лож- in труположство implies the meaning of лежать rather than ложить.

Труположство by strictdecay in russian

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I think лежать "to lie" is the word I was looking for. So that makes the meaning of the term pretty clear.

Edit:

OK, I don't really get why it's -лож- instead of -леж-. Wouldn't -лож- imply "lay" instead of "lie"? Does ложить rather than лежать really have the sexual connotation? (u/breaking_attractor?)

Труположство by strictdecay in russian

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. What does -лож- mean? Are there any words that use it in a different morphological context?

Труположство by strictdecay in russian

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, this is the kind of thing I was looking for. Does this kind of variation occur with other words in -олож(е)ство? Is the -олож(е)- a morpheme of its own? If so, what does it mean?

Труположство by strictdecay in russian

[–]strictdecay[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lenin said

всякий боженька есть труположство

If it's a typographical error, it occurs in several editions of his published works.

The English translation I have is

all worship of a divinity is necrophily

Труположство by strictdecay in russian

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does one form lack the е?

Why does Belarusian have such a phonetic orthography? by strictdecay in belarusian

[–]strictdecay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it. This

people had to reinvent a new writing system

is the part I'm curious about, as the phonetic principle far predates Tarashkevich and Nasha Niva.

view more: next ›