Talk:krnj

Translation of the quote

Sorry, but the translation of the quote here makes no sense to me... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• štab - staff as in military staff, members of military headquarters
• sresti (srela) - met as in convened in one place
• pun sastav (u punom sastavu) - full composition as in all of the member were present, full membership

If there are other unclearnesses please let me know. Maybe you could suggest a better wording. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That helps, but a main problem is that the second sentence is not complete by the rules of English grammar. Does Serbo-Croatian imply the copula? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what is meant by "to imply the copula"? Is such form of ellipsis grammatically correct in English:

In the house two wiktionarians met. You and me.

Maybe if I get rid of some commas, it would make more sense:

In his house two rival staffs met. Enemy in full composition, and ours(,) incomplete though.

--biblbroks_{дискашн} 22:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Those sentences are borderline in English; one would say normally:

"Two Wiktionarians met in the house: you and me."

Yes, getting rid of the comma does help. Some languages will get rid of inflected forms of "to be" where it is obvious, but English rarely allows that. An example (this would sound somewhat archaic to a native speaker): I thought him a fool. where [to be] is implied between him and a. If this is true in Serbo-Croatian, it may be necessary to add it in when translating to English? Does that help any? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it helps, but what confused me from the start is what did copula had to do with this example. In it [met] is implied, not [are]. БТЊ, in Serbo-Croatian the copula is implied in some cases - maybe less than in English. Anyway, I did think about merging the two sentences into one with a separating colon, but it striked me that it would differ much from the original. What do you think? Anyway, I'll try and find a better quote. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The word "mada" is more of a conjunction and the meaning of "i naš, mada krnj" is something on the line with "ours was there too, but it was incomplete". So the first version "and ours, incomplete though" didn't convey this, right?

I don't find "rather" a good choice because I understand it as a degree of "incomplete" - the fifth sense on [[rather#Adverb]]: "somewhat, fairly". Do I interpret it correctly?

Could "and ours, but incomplete" be comprehensible enough but also grammatically correct? --biblbroks_{дискашн} 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)