Answers
Dec 27, 2014 - 07:39 PM
I'm not sure if there are hard and fast rules for the placement of these adverbs, but I do know that seulement's placement can be altered to affect the meaning. See this link. http://french.about.com/od/vocabulary...
Speaking of subtlety in meaning, the word subtlety is still incorrectly spelled as subtelty on the Fluenz website. The names of languages should also be capitalized in English (also not fixed on their website). Who's the pedant now?
Speaking of subtlety in meaning, the word subtlety is still incorrectly spelled as subtelty on the Fluenz website. The names of languages should also be capitalized in English (also not fixed on their website). Who's the pedant now?
Dec 27, 2014 - 11:13 PM
Greetings fellow pedant! Love Laura K. Lawless, and the explanations in French helped clarify the *subtleties* of correct placement. While her French examples were useful, unfortunately, her English examples spoke to the misunderstandings I mentioned earlier. For example:
French: Il voit seulement les films étrangers.
English: He only sees foreign films.
Aw, poor guy, he misses out on all the sound. If she wanted to convey that the man watched French films to the exclusion of all other films, then she would need to write, "He sees only foreign films" or "He sees foreign films only."
French: Il veut seulement travailler à la banque.
English: He only wants to work at the bank.
If all he wants to do is work at the bank, and not invest there or hold it up, then she should write, "He wants only to work at the bank." But, the way it's written on About, it's the fella's simple fancy to work there. Apparently, it's not a need, a hunger, or even a deep yearning.
I find it interesting that if the French were translated word-for-word, the English would be correct. Instead, the "only" was switched around and it muddled the meaning, at least for me. I appreciate Maurice Druon's take on it: "Italian is the language of song. German is good for philosophy and English for poetry. French is best at precision; it has a rigour to it."
French: Il voit seulement les films étrangers.
English: He only sees foreign films.
Aw, poor guy, he misses out on all the sound. If she wanted to convey that the man watched French films to the exclusion of all other films, then she would need to write, "He sees only foreign films" or "He sees foreign films only."
French: Il veut seulement travailler à la banque.
English: He only wants to work at the bank.
If all he wants to do is work at the bank, and not invest there or hold it up, then she should write, "He wants only to work at the bank." But, the way it's written on About, it's the fella's simple fancy to work there. Apparently, it's not a need, a hunger, or even a deep yearning.
I find it interesting that if the French were translated word-for-word, the English would be correct. Instead, the "only" was switched around and it muddled the meaning, at least for me. I appreciate Maurice Druon's take on it: "Italian is the language of song. German is good for philosophy and English for poetry. French is best at precision; it has a rigour to it."
Dec 28, 2014 - 12:33 AM
Ha. If he wants only to work at the bank, he's missing out on life. It's times such as this when a rephrasing might better convey the intended meaning. Such as, "He wants to work at the bank, and no place else". However, we could move only to here: "He wants to work only at the bank", to get the correct meaning. English can be precise, but I believe Maurice Druon has a point. Such precision is more suited to literature than the spoken word. In everyday conversations, such nuances are generally understood. If I tell someone, "I'm only going to lunch for thirty minutes" as opposed to, "I'm going to lunch for only 30 minutes", I doubt there will be a misinterpretation of my meaning.