Stairs. Entry group. Materials. Doors. Locks. Design

English tenses are considered the most difficult topic, because in Russian we have only 3 tenses, and in English there are 12.

When studying them, everyone has many questions.

• What time should I use?
• Would it be considered a mistake to use one tense instead of another?
• Why is it necessary to use this time and not another?

This confusion occurs because we learn the rules of grammar but do not fully understand them.

However, English tenses are not as complicated as they seem.

Their use depends on what idea you want to convey to your interlocutor. To do this correctly, you need to understand the logic and usage of English tenses.

I warn you right away that in this article I will not explain to you the grammatical formation of sentences. In it I will give precisely an understanding of the times.

In the article we will look at the cases of using 12 tenses and compare them with each other, as a result of which you will understand how they differ and when to use which tense.

Let's start.

What tenses are there in English?

In English, as well as in Russian, there are 3 blocks of tenses familiar to us.

1. Present (present) - denotes an action that occurs in the present tense.

2. Past - denotes an action that occurs in the past tense (once upon a time).

3. Future - denotes an action that will occur in the future tense.

However, the English times do not end there. Each of these groups of times is divided into:

1. Simple- simple.

2. Continuous- long-term.

3. Perfect- completed.

4. Perfect Continuous- long-term completed.

The result is 12 times.

It is the use of these 4 groups that baffles English language learners. After all, in the Russian language there is no such division.

How do you know what time to use?

To use English tenses correctly, you need 3 things.

• Understand the logic of English tenses
  That is, to know what time is intended for what and when it is used.
• Be able to construct sentences according to the rules
  That is, not only to know, but to be able to speak these sentences.
• Understand exactly what idea you want to convey to your interlocutor
  That is, be able to choose the right time depending on the meaning you put into your words.

To understand English tenses, let's look at each group in detail.

Once again, I will not explain the grammatical formation of sentences. And I’ll explain to you the logic by which we determine which group’s time should be used.

We'll start with the easiest group - Simple.

Bonus! Do you want to easily learn English tenses and use them in your speech? in Moscow and find out how easy it is to master tenses and start speaking English in 1 month using the ESL method!

Simple group tenses in English

Simple is translated as “simple”.

We use this tense when we talk about facts that:

• happen in the present tense
• happened in the past
• will happen in the future.

For example

I drive a car.
I drive a car.

We say that a person knows how to drive a car and this is a fact.

Let's look at another example.

She bought a dress.
She bought a dress.

We are talking about the fact that sometime in the past (yesterday, last week or last year) she bought herself a dress.

Remember: when you talk about some action as a fact, then use the Simple group.

You can study all the times of this group in detail here:

Now let's compare Simple with another group of tenses - Continuous.

Continuous tenses in English

Continuous is translated as “long, continuous.”

When we use this tense, we talk about action as a process that:

• happening at the moment
• happened in the past at a certain moment,
• will happen in the future at a certain moment.

For example

I am driving a car.
I'm driving.

Unlike the Simple group, here we do not mean a fact, but talk about a process.

Let's see the difference between fact and process.

Fact:“I can drive a car, I have a license.”

Process:“I got behind the wheel some time ago and now I’m driving the car, that is, I’m in the process of driving.”

Let's look at another example.

I will be flying to Moscow tomorrow.
Tomorrow I will fly to Moscow.

We are talking about the fact that tomorrow you will board a plane and for some time you will be in the process of flying.

That is, for example, you need to get in touch with a client. You tell him that you will not be able to talk to him at this time, since you will be in the middle of a flight.

Remember: when you want to emphasize the duration of an action, that is, that the action is a process, use the Continuous tenses.

You can read in detail about each time of this group here:

Now let's move on to the Perfect group.

Perfect tenses in English

Perfect is translated as “completed/perfect.”

We use this tense when we focus on the result of an action, which:

• we have received by now,
• we got to a certain point in the past,
• we will receive by a certain point in the future.

Note that even in the present tense this tense is translated into Russian as the past. However, despite this, you say that the result of this action is important in the present moment.

For example

I have fixed my car.
I fixed the car.

We focus on the result that we currently have - a working machine. For example, you say that you fixed your car, now it works, and you can go to your friends’ country house.

Let's compare this group with others.

Let's talk about a fact (Simple):

I cooked dinner.
I was cooking dinner.

For example, you tell your friend about the fact that you prepared a delicious dinner yesterday.

I was cooking dinner.
I was cooking dinner.

You say you were in the process of cooking. For example, they didn’t answer the phone because they were cooking (we were in the process) and didn’t hear the call.

Let's talk about the result (Perfect):

I have cooked dinner.
I cooked dinner.

You currently have the result of this action - a ready-made dinner. For example, you call the whole family for lunch because dinner is ready.

Remember: when you want to focus on the result of an action, use the Perfect group.

Read more about all the times of the Perfect group in these articles:

Now let's move on to the last group, Perfect Continuous.

Perfect Continuous tenses in English

Perfect Continuous is translated as “complete continuous”. As you noticed from the name, this group of tenses includes characteristics of 2 groups at once.

We use it when we talk about a long-term action (process) and obtaining a result.

That is, we emphasize that the action began some time ago, lasted (was in process) for a certain time and at the moment:

1. We received the result of this action

For example: “He repaired the car for 2 hours” (the action lasted 2 hours, and at the moment he has a result - a working car).

2. The action is still going on

For example: “He has been fixing the car for 2 hours” (he started fixing the car 2 hours ago, was in the process and is still fixing it now).

We can say that the action began some time ago, lasted and:

• ended/continues in the present,
• ended/continued until a certain point in the past,
• will end/will continue until a certain point in the future.

For example

I have been cooking this dinner for 2 hours.
I cooked dinner for 2 hours.

That is, you started cooking 2 hours ago and by now you have the result of your action - a ready-made dinner.

Let's compare this time with others similar to it.

Let's talk about the process (Continuous):

I am painting a picture.
I am drawing a picture.

We say that we are currently in the process of drawing. It doesn’t matter to us how much time it has already taken, it is important to us that you are currently involved in this process.

We talk about the result (Perfect)

I have painted a picture.
I painted a picture.

We say that at the moment we have a result - a completed picture.

We talk about the result and the process (Perfect Continuous)

1. I have been painting a picture for an hour.
I painted the picture for an hour.

We say that at the moment we have a result - a completed picture. You also point out that you were in the drawing process for one hour to get this result.

2. I have been painting a picture for an hour.
I paint a picture for one hour.

We say that we are now in the process of drawing, while we focus on the fact that we have been busy with this process for an hour. Unlike Continuous times, where we care only about what is happening at a certain (given) moment, and not how long we have been doing this.

Remember: if you want to emphasize not only the result obtained, but also its duration (how long it took you to get it), then use the Perfect Continuous.

General table comparing tenses of the groups Simple, Continuous, Perfect and Perfect Continuous

Let's look again at what each group of tenses is responsible for. Look at the table.

Bottom line

Use English tenses depending on the meaning you want to convey to your interlocutor. The most important thing is to understand what the emphasis is on in each tense.

1. We talk about action as a fact - Simple.

2. We talk about action as a process - Continuous.

3. We talk about action, focusing on the result - Perfect.

4. We talk about the action, emphasizing that it took a certain time before obtaining the result - Perfect Continuous.

I hope that now you understand the logic of English times, and you will be able to convey the correct meaning to your interlocutor.

Just below is a calculator that converts a Gregorian calendar date to a Muslim calendar date.
Attention! Before using the calculator, you need to be aware that the result may differ from the traditional value by a day or two. Why this happens and why it cannot be corrected is written in the article under the calculator.

Update...

Update...

Update...

Hijri date

Number of days in a year

Well, now, according to tradition, educational program (by the way, I only learned about everything that will be discussed below).

A few definitions:
Solar calendar- a calendar based on the tropical year.
Tropical year- the period of time between two successive passages of the Sun through the vernal equinox.
Length of tropical year - 365.242196 days
During the tropical year there is a complete change of seasons.

Moon calendar- a calendar based on the synodic month.
Synodic month- the period of the Moon's revolution around the Earth between two new moons.
The duration of the synodic month is 29.53059 days
During the synodic month, a complete change of phases of the moon occurs.

The well-known Gregorian calendar is solar, but the Muslim calendar is lunar.

Since the calendar is based on the moon, and the lunar year is shorter than the solar year, the months are not tied to the seasons, and each year they shift by about 11 days relative to the solar calendar.
Generally speaking, earlier, in pre-Islamic times, the Arabs used a solar-lunar calendar, and there was a 13th month that introduced an adjustment to the solar year, so that the months remained tied to the seasons. However, in 631 AD, the Prophet Muhammad forbade adding these days and the Muslim year became purely lunar. Therefore, for example, the month of Ramadan, the name of which means “burning” in Arabic, can happen in winter.

The beginning of the chronology, or era (see Old Russian (Byzantine) chronology system) in the Muslim calendar is considered the date of Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina, or Hijras (Hegiræ).
Days in the Muslim calendar are counted from sunset, so the sunset of the previous day began 1 day 1 month 1 year from exile (Anno Hegiræ, A.H.)
In the Julian calendar (there was no Gregorian calendar yet) it was July 16, 622 from the birth of Christ.

It is traditionally believed that the new month begins from the moment when, after sunset, the crescent of the new moon first becomes visible and this can be attested by Islamic clerics. Thus, the beginning of the month may depend on the location of the observer, weather, visibility, etc. Taking into account the fact that the period of the Moon’s revolution around the Earth is approximately 29 and a half days, a month can contain either 29 or 30 days. At the same time, there is no consistent sequence of shifts between 29 and 30; everything depends on the observation of the Moon. If on the evening of the 29th day it was not possible to see the new crescent moon, the next day is considered the 30th day of the month, if successful, then the 1st day of the new month. Observing the Moon is a sacred duty for a Muslim, which is why many Islamic countries still use this method of keeping a calendar. Thus, the calendar currently in use is the correct one in a given country for a given month. The beginning of the next month is not determined in advance (either after the 29th day of the current month, or after the 30th).

There are some problems associated with this, which you can read about on Wikipedia and which each country is trying to solve in its own way. For example, in Saudi Arabia, with AH 1419 (1998/1999), special lunar observation committees were introduced. Some countries, for example, Turkey, and the same Saudi Arabia, for civil (secular) purposes, rather than religious ones, calculate the calendar several years in advance, using astronomical rules. In Turkey, the current rule sets the start of a new month if the crescent moon is above the local horizon at sunset at Ankara coordinates. In Egypt, the beginning of a new month is counted from the day when the Moon sets at least five minutes later than the Sun.

It is worth noting that, given that the time of moonset shifts as you move east to west, Islamic countries located further west may observe the new moon after sunset a day earlier than Islamic countries located to the east.

Until now, there have been no successful efforts to unify calendars between different countries. Anyone who wants to understand more about the problems of determining the beginning of the month can also check this link

It is clear that this situation is not very good for planning, therefore, already starting from the 8th century, so-called tabular calendars were developed (see link), which, using astronomical calculations, gave approximate dates for the beginning of months and years. Astronomical calculations underlie many of the civil calendars in use, and algorithms for converting dates from one calendar to another. Standing somewhat apart is the Kuwaiti algorithm, developed by Microsoft for date conversion purposes. Microsoft says the algorithm is based on statistical analysis of calendar data.

The calendar used by the calculator is the most common secular (civil) calendar in the Islamic world; the beginning of the month is determined astronomically. A year in such a calendar consists of 12 months, the length of which alternates between 30 and 29. The last twenty-nine-day month is extended to 30 days in leap years. Without the introduction of leap years, the average length of a month in a year would be strictly 29.5 days, which would give a large error. Leap years follow a 30-year cycle and occur on years 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, and 29 of the cycle. Thus, each 30th anniversary contains 19 normal years of 354 days and 11 leap years of 355 days. The average length of a year will thus be approximately 354.366(6), and a month 29.5305(5), which is already much closer to the duration of a real synodic month.

As follows from the above, the date is calculated algorithmically, so the resulting value may differ from the traditional value by one or two days. See table. For example, according to tabular calculation methods, the beginning of 1437 could have occurred on October 13, 14, or 15, 2015, depending on the calculation. For Russia, the beginning of 1437 was on October 14, this particular calculator gives October 15.

Often tenses in English present difficulties for English learners. This is explained by the fact that the system of tenses in the English language is unlike the one used in the Russian language, although some parallels can still be drawn. However, the system of English tenses has an undeniable advantage - it has strict orderliness, logic, and obeys the laws of grammar.

English Times. a brief description of

There are a total of 12 tenses in the English language, which are divided into four groups:

- simple or indefinite(group of simple tenses);

- continuous or progressive(group of long or continuous tenses);

- perfect(group of perfect tenses);

- perfect continuous or perfect progressive(group of perfect continuous tenses).

In English, just like in Russian, an action expressed by a verb can occur in the past, present, or future. Accordingly, each of the above groups of tenses can be expressed in the past tense ( past tense), present tense ( present tense), or future tense ( future tense).

Each group of tenses in English expresses different situations.

Simpler times describe the fact of the origin of an action, regardless of the extent of this action. They are also used to describe actions that occur with some regularity.

Long times, as the name suggests, describe what happens over a period of time, usually specified by the moment in question. Also, verbs of this group of tenses are always constructed using the verb be, and the ending is always added to them "-ing".

Perfect tenses describe actions that have already been completed at some point in time. Verbs in this tense group are always used with an auxiliary verb have, and they are always in the past participle form.

Perfect Long Times, as the name implies, define the signs of times of a perfect and long group; they describe actions that lasted over a certain period of time. Verbs of this group use two auxiliary verbs - have And been, and have the ending " -ing".

Having remembered the simple rules given above, choosing between these groups of tenses will be much easier.

Table of English tenses with examples

To further simplify the understanding of the English tense system, below is a table showing the main cases of using certain tenses.

Signs of tenses in English

To a certain extent, each group of English tenses may have some signs that suggest and help to understand which tense to use in a particular case. And although such signs do not allow us to determine with absolute certainty which time will be the most correct in a given case, they still simplify the task of choice.

Such signs express the period or time in which the action takes place.

For example:
yesterday (yesterday) indicates simple past
every day (every day) indicates simple present
tomorrow (tomorrow) indicates simple future
while (while) indicates past continuous
now (now) indicates present continuous

There are many such marker words in English that express a moment or period in time, and many of them indicate whether an action happened in the past or will happen in the future, and they can suggest which tense group should be used. If you learn to recognize such sign words, it will greatly help when choosing tenses. However, it should be taken into account that some such feature words can be used in more than one tense group. Below is a table containing the main such words-signs and showing what time they indicate.

Is it possible to translate from one language to another? How does translation differ from interpreting meaning in another language? How is translation interpreted? various theories? Is it only the content that interests us in translation, or who are Jabberwocky and Bandersnatch? Is the English "gad" different from the Russian one?

Let's start with examples.

The first example is a translation of the English text performed by machine translation system 1: Group I surfactants were identified as being the most promising for tertiary oil recovery since their tension ranges coincide most closely with the measured equivalent alkane carbon numbers of crude oils.

Group 1 surfactants were identified as the most promising for tertiary oil (petroleum) recovery because their tension series (ranges) matched most closely to the carbon alan numbers of the measured equivalent crude oils (petroles).

The second example is taken from the book of the brilliant satirist Yu. Polyakov:

"...by interlinear translation you can even translate from the ancient Azotian language, which, as you know, is completely lost. This is done in an elementary way. The interlinear translation reads: My beloved has a cheek like a pomegranate, A face like the full moon, A body like scrolls of silk , Words are like scattered pearls.

The task of the poet-translator is to follow, of course, not the letter, but the spirit of the original:

Moon-faced Zukhra and me
The night will be covered with dodder..."

This is how we translate, maneuvering between the Scylla of clumsy literalness and the Charybdis of free interpretation. How should it be translated?

It is believed that translation should be done in such a way as to convey in the translation the entire content of the original, including its subtlest nuances. This requirement reminds me of N. Ostrovsky’s well-known call “...to live... must be lived in such a way that it is not excruciatingly painful, etc.” The requirement to convey the entire content in translation is as categorical as this call, and just as rarely fulfilled.

In this chapter we will return to the question of how possible a complete translation is, and now we will try to figure out how the process of translation from one language to another generally proceeds.

In principle, for the practical purposes that we pursue in this book, all the variety of translation theories can be reduced to two main approaches, transformational and denotative. This will at least make our task easier.

The transformational approach considers translation as the transformation of objects and structures of one language into objects and structures of another according to certain rules.

During the transformation, objects and structures of different language levels are transformed - morphological, lexical, syntactic.

Thus, at the lexical level, we transform words and phrases of the source language into words and phrases of the target language. That is, simply put, we replace one with another according to certain rules or, more precisely, lists of correspondences, a smaller part of which is stored in our memory, and a large part is contained in bilingual dictionaries and grammars.

However, we must not forget that words in phrases can be transformed differently than individual words. A phrase is already a small context, and the context, as you remember, changes the meaning of words and influences the choice of equivalent in another language.

Thus, we carry out transformations (and not only at the lexical level), as they say, under the control of the context.

For example, if you transform a single English word “book”, then you can justifiably replace it with the main dictionary equivalents - the noun “book” and a number of verbs “order”, “book”, “reserve”. The same equivalents of the word “book” will remain during translation transformations of most phrases with this word: “interesting book” - “interesting book”, “book tickets” - “to order tickets”, etc.

However, if we transform, say, the phrase “book value”, we will get a completely different Russian equivalent “book value”, in which there are no Russian equivalents of the individual word “book”.

One of the problems of the transformation method, as you can see, is to separate related phrases from individual words that are only grammatically united when translating using transformations, and to carry out a transformation in accordance with the results of such separation.

There is no reliable formal method for identifying related phrases, i.e., for example, for machine translation systems, which are mostly based on a transformational approach, a closer connection between the words “book” and “value” in the phrase “book value” is not noticeable - for them, such a phrase is no different, for example, from the combination of the words “book store” (bookstore). A person identifies phrases of this kind on the basis of a complex analysis of meaning, and stores the corresponding equivalent in memory or finds it in a dictionary.

At the syntactic level, during the translation process, transformations of syntactic constructions of the source language into corresponding constructions of the target language are carried out.

An example is the correspondence of future tense constructions in Russian and English languages: personal forms of the service verb "to be" + indefinite form of the main verb are converted into personal forms of the service verb "to be" + indefinite form of the main verb. Many other examples of syntactic transformations during translation can be found in any grammar textbook foreign language, for example English.

Transformations are also carried out at the morphological level. The most obvious example is the transformation of word-formation models. Let's say, the English model of the formation of verbal nouns “verb stem + suffix -tion (-sion)” is transformed into the Russian model “verb stem + suffix -ation (-ion)” (for example, rota-tion - rotation).

Transformations during translation are not necessarily carried out within the same language level. So, for example, the English syntactic structure have (has)+ Participle II can be transformed into a Russian structure of the morphological level with verbal prefixes s-, na-, pro- (for example, has done - done, have drawn - drawn, has read - read)

The transformational method of translation can be compared to deciphering encrypted text using a “book of codes”, the role of which is played by a bilingual dictionary, and a “set of deciphering rules” set out in a grammar reference book.

Let's conduct an experiment - translate an excerpt from Graham Greene's novel "Brighton Lollipop", using a transformational approach, i.e. using only dictionaries and your knowledge of the rules of lexico-grammatical compatibility of English and Russian languages.

We will proceed as when decrypting, i.e. Let's start with the first word, then move on to the second, etc.:

"The Boy stood with his back to Spicer staring out across the dark wash of sea. They had the end of the pier to themselves; everyone else at that hour and in that weather was in the concert hall1."

Let us carry out sequential lexical and syntactic transformations, using the rules of Russian lexicogrammatical compatibility to select equivalents and agree:

• Wow - boy, guy, schoolboy, young man (in the text this word is written with a capital letter, i.e. it is a proper name, maybe a nickname or nickname);
• stood - stood (syntactic transformation English form simple past tense in its Russian counterpart);
• with - with, from, y, at, instrumental case of the controlled word (we choose the instrumental case, taking into account the meaning of the controlled noun);
• his - his, his own, is not translated (according to the rules of Russian stylistics, the possessive pronoun is not used in such a combination, we do not translate);
• back - back, back, support (we choose the equivalent of “back” because of the possessive pronoun);
• to -k, to (choose “k” according to the compatibility rule);
• Spicer - Spicer (proper name);
• staring out - looking intently (related phrase);
• across - through, through (taking into account the compatibility with the words “sea surf”, we will choose the equivalent “on”);
• the - definite article, not translated or translated as “this”;
• dark - dark;
• wash - washing, washing, surf (for obvious reasons, we choose surf);
• sea ​​- sea (here "seas");
• wash of sea - translated as a stable Russian phrase “sea surf”;
• they had... to themselves - was at their complete disposal (related phrase);
• end - end (edge);
• of - genitive case of the controlled word, not translated;
• the - definitions article, not translated or translated as “this”;
• pier - pier, pier (here "pier", "pier"); everyone - everything;
• else - except;
• at - at, at (select “at”);
• that - that;
• hour - hour;
• and - and;
• in - in;
• that - that;
• weather - weather (here "weather");
• was - was (here “were” in agreement with the Russian subject “all”);
• in - in;
• the - definitions article, not translated or translated as “this”;
• concert hall - concert hall (attributive phrase).

As a result, having coordinated the words and made some rearrangements according to the rules of coordination and management of the Russian language, we get the following translation:

"(This) Boy (boy, schoolboy, young man) stood with his back to Spicer, looking intently at the dark sea surf. (This) edge of the pier (pier) was at their complete disposal; everyone except (them) at that hour and at that the weather was in the concert hall."

Well, as you can see, using the transformation method, you can make a pretty decent translation. However, several unresolved questions remain:

• Who was standing, a boy, a schoolboy or a young man?
• This boy, schoolboy, etc. or just a boy, schoolboy, etc.?
• Is this the edge of the pier or just the edge of the pier?
• Pier or pier?
• Why is the surf dark if it is known that at night the surf is lighter than the sea?

Does this mean that the transformation method does not allow for a complete translation? What is missing in it that does not allow us to clarify these unclear places?

Before we try to answer these questions, let's look at how other translators have translated this text. Here is the translation of this excerpt from the collection: Graham Greene “England Made Me” and “Brighton Lollipop” (translated “Brighton Lollipop” by E. Petrova and ATeterevnikov):

"Baby stood with his back to Spicer, looking into the distance to dark strip surf. At the end pier there was no one but them; at such an hour and in such weather everyone was in the concert hall."

As you can see, these translators brought complete clarity to our translation and solved almost all the problems. But they succeeded not because they took some other approach, but because they knew the broader context (they knew that the nickname of one of the heroes of this novel, Greene, had previously been translated as Baby and that the action takes place on the pier , not on the pier).

However, a comparison of translations based on other characteristics shows that the translators did indeed use more than just a transformational approach. This is evidenced by the words “far” and “strip” that appeared “out of thin air”, which cannot be obtained by transforming words and phrases of the source text.

The approach that the translators of this passage used in conjunction with the transformational one is called denotative. This is the second most common approach to the theoretical interpretation of the translation process.

According to this approach, translation is carried out as a three-stage process consisting of the following stages:

• The stage of perceiving a message in the source language.
• The stage of forming a mental image (concept) of this message.
• The stage of interpretation of this image by means of the target language.

Unlike the transformational approach, the denotative approach does not establish a direct connection between words and phrases of two languages ​​- translation using the denotative mechanism presupposes a free choice of means of the target language to convey the meaning of the message in the source language.

Schemes of the translation process along the transformational and denotative paths are shown in Fig. 3.

Rice. 3

The name of this method comes from the word denotation, i.e. fragment objective reality, with which both the original message and its translation are correlated.

This approach is most clearly illustrated by the translation of idioms. In the examples below, there is no direct connection between original text and by its translation it is obvious that they are connected only by a common meaning:

"A stitch in time saves nine" - "A good spoon for dinner."

"There is many a slip between the cup and the lip" - "Don't say "Hop!" without jumping over."

"Out of sight, out of mind" - "Out of sight, out of mind."

There is no direct connection between the source text and the translation in those speech cliches that we talked about in the previous chapter, for example:

"Mind your step!" - "Careful, don't trip!" "Enjoy your meal!" - "Bon appetit!" Translation performed using the denotative method is sometimes called interpretation, in contrast to translation itself, which is performed by transforming the forms of one language into the forms of another.

Often we resort to the denotative mechanism of translation due to the need to explain to those for whom the translation is intended the meaning of the statement addressed to them:

“You must show your commitment” - “You must show your willingness to participate” (for example, in a project).

If we translated through transformations, then among the Russian equivalents of the word “commitment” we would not find a suitable one (commitment - delivery, transfer, detention, obligation, commission, for example, of a crime).

Differences in the way of life and thinking of speakers of different languages ​​quite often lead to the fact that the translator is forced to interpret and explain this or that concept, resorting to a denotative approach.

Many such concepts are appearing now, in the post-Soviet period. These are not only terms and quasi-terms that are most often transliterated and do not cause difficulties in translation (for example, “remake”, “fan”, “boutique”); These are also new concepts of qualitative assessment of actions (such as “integrated” or “counterproductive”), which almost always require interpretation from the translator depending on the context and speech situation.

We will return to this later, but now, I think, the reader has a completely logical question: “How do we actually translate? Which of these theories corresponds to the truth?”

The answer is fairly clearly suggested to us by the practice of translation - to a certain extent, both theories correspond to the truth, and when translating we use both one and the other method.

The transition from transformations to interpretation of meaning by means of the target language is most accurately described by V.N. Komissarov 2 .

He identifies five so-called translation equivalence levels, of which the first two (the level of words and phrases and the sentence level) correlate with direct interlingual transformations, and the rest assume a fairly free interpretation of the meaning of the translated text based on a broader context, situation and background information.

It should be noted, however, that in practice such a clear separation of levels is quite rare. As a rule, when translating, we use some kind of combination of these two approaches and one or the other approach prevails depending on the translation situation, the type of translation, the type of text being translated and, of course, is directly related to the professional level of the translator.

First of all, it should be said about the role of the “human factor” in choosing one of these mechanisms.

No matter how much the singers of “labor feat” claim the opposite, we are all quite lazy and tend to follow the path of least resistance, and it is this path that the transformation method offers.

Transformational translation requires less “mental effort” and, as a rule, translators prefer it in their routine work, translating word by word until they come across a word or grammatical construction that forces them to change the word order, paraphrase the translation or abandon transformations altogether and take the path of interpreting the content of the original (i.e., apply a denotative approach).

Let me give you an example from the same “Brighton Lollipop”:

"The banister shook under his hand, and when he opened the door and found the mob there, sitting on his brass bedstead smoking, he saidfuriously..."

"The railing shook under his hand, and when he opened the door and I saw that all the guys were here and smoking, sitting on his copper bed, he shouted angrily.."

One can, apparently, with sufficient grounds to assert that before the words marked in italics, the translators translated this text “word by word,” i.e. transformational way, and only when they came across the construction “found the mob... sitting... smoking”, they resorted to the denotative mechanism (why the translation of this construction cannot be considered a complex syntactic transformation, I will say a little later).

But the translators fiction It would seem that there is more than enough time for reflection and interpretation, but, firstly, it is easier to transform the text, and secondly, transformations often give a completely acceptable result, therefore, as they say, “one does not seek goodness from goodness.”

During simultaneous translation, there is simply no time for interpretation, so simultaneous interpreters, as a rule, interpret using a transformation mechanism, often sacrificing stylistic “smoothness.”

In oral consecutive translation, when you need to remember and translate several sentences at once, the denotative approach naturally prevails, i.e. interpretation, and translation is rarely a structural copy of the original

The choice of approach is, of course, influenced by the genre of the original text - in general, when translating fiction, especially poetry, the denotative approach predominates, since the task of such translation is not only and not so much to convey the content, but to create an adequate image, to evoke appropriate emotions in the reader and associations, and the means for this are different in different languages ​​(we’ll talk about this later).

When translating scientific and technical literature, on the contrary, the most important thing is to accurately convey the content, and here transformations naturally predominate.

Now let's think about whether these two approaches, transformational and denotative, are really so different?

After all, denotative translation, i.e. a free interpretation of a given segment of the original text can also be considered a transformation, i.e. structural analogue of this piece of text in another language. Yes, this is certainly true, but there are still two significant differences.

The first difference is quantitative:

• Transformations are used repeatedly or, as they say, are regular.
• Translation correspondences based on denotations (interpretations) are used only for a given case or, as they say, are occasional.

  What'er I be, old England is my dam!
  So there's my answer to the judges, clear.
  I"m nothing of a fox, nor of a lamb;
  I don't know how to bleat nor how to leer:
  I"m for the nation!
  That's why you see me by the wayside here,
  Returning home from transportation 0 .

  I will answer the judges clearly: my native land,
  Wherever I am, my soul is a stronghold.
  The bleat of a sheep and the wag of a fox
  I won't. My people are dear to me.
  For this reason alone
  I was expelled from England, but
  I'm returning home now.

In this example of poetic translation, the correspondence between the original and the translation is occasional, i.e. is appropriate only for this case, while, say, the correspondences “Good morning”, “come in”, “open the window” and the like are regular, i.e. are used in all or almost all cases.

True, translations of idioms and speech cliches are used many times, but they still relate to correspondences based on denotations, since they have a second difference - they express a single and indivisible mental image (concept).

Transformational correspondences of a text segment can be divided into components (for example, “good morning” = “good” + “morning” - “morning”; “open the window” = “open” - “open” + “window” - "window"), while correspondences based on denotation cannot be divided into individual components.

To verify this, it is enough to take some individual correspondence, say, from the above poem or from the speech stamp “Staff only” - “No outsiders” and see if it is correct.

It is easy to see that the word “transportation”, taken separately, hardly means “expulsion”, and the word “staff” can hardly anywhere else mean “outsider”, or “entry”, or “forbidden”.

The correspondence from the translation of “Brighton Lollipop”, which we talked about above (“found the mob... sitting... smoking” - “... saw that all the guys were here and smoking, sitting ...”), is also impossible be considered a transformation due to its indivisibility and occasional nature (“all the guys” cannot, obviously, be considered a regular equivalent of the word “mob”).

Of course, in large fragments of even poetic translations one can find individual correct regular correspondences, but this will not mean that, in general, the mental images of the original and the translation-interpretation do not form a single whole and are not created only for a given case.

Rice. 4

In Fig. Figure 4 clearly shows another difference between the transformation method - it is procedurally (algorithmically) transparent, and a translation made through transformations can be easily converted into a reverse one, in contrast to a translation made using a denotative mechanism - for example, a reverse translation of "The Arabian Nights" will give us " Arabian" or "Arabian nights", but not "a thousand and one nights".

It seems to me that the transformational and denotative mechanisms show quite convincingly how the translation process occurs. However, in order to answer the question of whether we translate everything and to show the influence of translation knowledge on the translation process, it is convenient to present it as a special type of communication.

Translation using transformations

The book describes the experimental methods that are most feasible for studying the properties of these products.

The book describes the experimental techniques that are best suited to study the properties of these products.

Translation as a special communicative act is considered by the “communicative theory of translation” proposed by OKade 4.

According to this theory, the sender of a message in the original language “means” this message, using his knowledge systems about the subject and the language in which he formulates his message. These knowledge systems are usually called “thesaurus”, i.e. the sender of the message uses his subject and language thesaurus.

The translator receives the message, “deciphers” it and formulates it in the target language, using his own subject and language thesaurus (and the translator’s language thesaurus consists of two parts - the source language and the target language).

Then the message goes from the translator to the recipient, i.e. to the person to whom it is intended, and he interprets it again with the help of his own subject and linguistic thesaurus (see Fig. 5).

Rice. 5

To understand the translation process, it is important to keep in mind that the thesauri of the sender of the message, the translator and the recipient of the message never completely coincide.

The greatest information losses occur at the link in the communication chain where the message is translated (recoded). This is partly the fault of the translator (no translator can know both languages ​​equally well), and partly semantic losses and discrepancies are the result of a different formatting of the message in the target language and a different perception by the recipient.

I have already given an example with English word“commitment”, which in most contexts is not clear to a Russian-speaking reader or listener in a direct translation and needs additional clarification (i.e. in Russian this concept should be formulated differently).

Let me give you another example. The Americans, who “teach us how to live” at various seminars, like to use the so-called SWAT analysis (SWAT - Strengths, Weaknesses, Achievements, Threats) to evaluate the activities of companies, projects, etc. This abbreviation is usually translated as follows: “strengths, weaknesses, achievements and factors that threaten activity.”

Once, during simultaneous translation, the translator translated “threats” literally: “threats.” A seminar participant from Georgia came up to me and asked: “Tell me, dear, these are ‘threats’, they mean racketeering, right?”

Why, in the same context, “achievements” can be translated as “achievement”, but “threat” cannot be translated as “threat”?! Because in this context, in Russian, this concept is framed differently (softer, not so “head-on”) and in an unusual speech format is incorrectly perceived not only by the Georgian participants.

The inconsistency of thesauruses explains many translation errors, as well as the sad fact that it is almost impossible to obtain a translation that fully conveys all the nuances of the meaning of the original.

Let's first talk about the nature of errors. Translation errors have two sources: insufficient knowledge of the language and insufficient understanding of the subject to which the translated text is devoted (i.e., incompleteness of the language, subject, or both thesauri).

There is no point in talking a lot about trivial things, about the mistakes of novice translators (incorrect use of tenses, ignoring articles, ignorance of idioms, etc.). Gradually, with the acquisition of experience, they disappear. I will give only two cases.

Somehow in one exotic country our “military adviser,” expressing displeasure to the local general about the delay in delivering equipment to point X, said: “A good spoon for dinner!” The translator, without hesitation, translated: “A spoon is good for diner.”

The well-mannered general, following the laws of Eastern hospitality, immediately began inviting people to dinner. In the end, everyone was happy and the translator got away with it.

Often we observe the incompleteness of two thesauri - the language thesaurus of the translator, who did not know the idiom, and the subject thesaurus of the recipient of the translation - the general, who, instead of asking for clarification of the translation, probably thought like this: “The mysterious country of Russia. They must have This form hints that it would be nice to have lunch.”

The second case is related to the translation of the “Delivery Schedule” from Russian into English, which stated that the company was obliged to deliver a crane by a certain date. The translator used the indefinite article (a crane) and the cunning “imperialists” installed such a tiny winch, although the crane was required for the installation of a very large installation, where the smallest part weighed several tons.

Of course, in the end the company supplied the crane that was required, but... partly at the expense of the Russian side. The delivery schedule formed an integral part of the contract, and the contract was agreed upon and signed by both parties and, moreover, both its texts, English and Russian, had equal legal force.

Where did the translator go wrong? Which thesaurus was incomplete? I think it's substantive. He had to remember that this schedule was part of the contract, and this ill-fated crane had already been mentioned more than once. The translator in this case was inexperienced; an experienced translator would certainly have inserted the definite article, if only to be on the safe side. In the worst case, they would ask him: “What kind of specific faucet do you have in translation, any one will suit us?” He would apologize and be done with it. In any case, no one would pay extra thousands of dollars for an article.

In general, our profession is difficult, isn’t it?! And there are inconsistencies in translation that I would venture to call inevitable. Let's talk about them in more detail. Let's start with English articles.

With the exception of textbook cases (objects that are one of a kind, and repeated use of the same noun), everything else that concerns definite article, for me, for example, “a thing in itself”. However, many very good translators admitted the same thing to me.

The most incomprehensible thing for me is what the English definite article corresponds to in Russian. I asked linguists, tried to find an answer in the literature - all in vain: apart from the shamanic muttering about the categories of definiteness/indeterminacy, I didn’t hear or read anything definite, but I’m interested in this: if we use the English definite article incorrectly, then why (what grammatical or stylistic violation) does this correspond to Russian?

If, for example, German or French articles are used incorrectly, then in Russian this will approximately correspond to mismatched generic and case endings, and we will speak as “one great friend of the Russian people.” What if you use English incorrectly?

In one textbook on translation theory 5, the English article is associated with inversion: “A man came in” - “A man came in”, and “The man came in” - “The man came in”. However, the author himself believes that this case is far from universal.

And John Le Carré writes, for example, about “the proletarian way of speaking, without articles.” The proletarian style of conversation is the speech of poorly educated people, i.e. In the speech of educated people, the definite article plays an important role, which, I’m afraid, is not entirely clear to us, translators.

I think that for this reason there is an inevitable inaccuracy when translating from Russian into English, and even from English into Russian. (It’s unlikely that in most cases, simply by omitting the article in the Russian translation, we fully convey its role and meaning!)

Although it is customary to say that all languages ​​are equally capable of conveying any content by their means, it still seems to me that such “endemic” linguistic means as articles cannot be fully conveyed in those languages ​​in which they are absent.

The situation is similar with the translation of English “you” as “you” and as “you”. And although it is known that “the English even call a dog “you”,” they still say “you,” but in what cases?

As a rule, the need to “switch to “you” in translation is suggested to us by the situation (child, friend, comrade, etc.), but for example, I have a friend whom I have known for twenty years, and we are still It’s time to say “you”, but I’m far from English...

In other words, in the case of the definite article and the pronoun "you", our subject and language thesaurus seems to be incomplete, and in these cases the translation does not convey the entire content of the original or conveys it incorrectly.

But this, as they say, is not so bad. The complexity of translation, at least literary translation, is further aggravated by the fact that words, phrases and even individual sounds or letters are associated in the minds of native speakers not only with certain meanings, but also with certain associations and it is apparently impossible to convey them in translation at all impossible.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did
gyre and gimble in the wabe; All
mimsy were the borogoves And the
mome raths outgrabe.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws
that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the
Jubjub bird and shun The frumious
Bundersnatch!

It was boiling. Squishy blinkers
We poked around on the nave, and
the zelyuks grunted, How
mumziki in mov.

O fear the Jabberwocky, son! He
so fierce and wild, And in the wilderness
roars the giant - vicious
Bandersnatch!"

Here I have given a very talented translation, and yet can we say with complete confidence that “slithy toves” evoke the same associations in Russian readers and awaken the same emotions as “slithy toves” in English, or that “Jabberwocky and malicious Do Bandersnatch" frighten or make our children laugh as much as "Jabberwock" and "frumious Bundersnateh" do the English ones?!

I think that due to differences in upbringing, lifestyle and, as they now say, “mentality,” associations and emotions between us and the British and Americans are often caused by very different verbal stimuli, and therefore even a very good, talented translation of this passage cannot be considered complete .

Let's do this experiment. Most of the words in this rhyme mean nothing, so let’s take those close in sound - it seems to me that on the basis of these “phonetic neighbors” associations arise among Russian and English readers. Of course, the result we get can only serve as indirect evidence. Let's create the following table:

Table 1

Now judge for yourself. It seems to me that the emotions (laughter or fear) evoked by this rhyme, for example, in English and Russian children, may be the same, but the associations on the basis of which they arise are clearly different, i.e. at the level of associations, the translation does not and cannot correspond to the original.

You can rightly object to me that the example taken is special, that poetry in general is a specific thing. Okay, let's give a completely prosaic example.

Let's assume that we have translated the Russian exclamation "Oh, you bastard!" like "You, bastard!"

It can be noted that, despite the general expressiveness, the associations evoked by the Russian word “gad” (slippery, creeping, poisonous) and the English “bastard” (illegitimate child, bastard) are different. Such a translation, which occurs quite often, strictly speaking, cannot be considered a complete transfer of meaning.

Before concluding this rather superficial examination of general theories of translation (in the future we will return more than once to individual aspects of different theories), I want to talk a little about one extreme point of view on translation, which, in my opinion, has a considerable amount of truth.

Linguist and philosopher W. Quine 6 argues that meaning is determined solely by the impact of speech forms on the recipient of the message and does not exist outside of speech behavior in the form of a correspondence between a linguistic form and its mental content, which, as you remember, is determined by convention.

Objectively, only “stimulus meaning” exists, i.e. meaning as a stimulus to a verbal or physical reaction or, conversely, stimulated by this reaction. All other values ​​are subjective. For example, "Go!" can objectively mean only “to encourage walking,” since it evokes this reaction in all speakers of the Russian language.

Accordingly, objective translation (i.e., establishing correspondences between speech forms of different languages) is possible only from the unknown language of some tribe lost in the jungle to famous language by observing and recording the speech reactions of the natives. Let's say a rabbit ran by, and the natives said something, then what was said could mean “rabbit” or “here is a rabbit running,” etc.

Any other type of translation is fundamentally uncertain, and there is no point in talking about the greater adequacy of any translation, since this is not provable.

There is, as you can see, such an extreme point of view on translation. It is fair in many ways, but don’t let this scare you - translation still exists, and our activities are proof of this. Moreover, the theories we talked about are fair and fairly objectively describe the translation process; as for ambiguity in language and in translation, let’s not forget about such powerful means of eliminating it as context and situation.

Summarizing some preliminary results of our short excursion in the theory of translation, we can say that for the analysis of errors, translation is convenient and useful to consider as a communicative act in which the translator acts as an intermediary and the completeness of which depends on the coincidence of two thesauruses for all its participants - subject and linguistic, and in the latter a significant role is played associations.

Of course, in literary translation associations play a more significant role than in, say, technical translation; The role of the linguistic and subject thesaurus is also different. But we'll talk about this in the next chapter.

1 The translation was carried out by the machine translation system "SIMPAR" (see Artificial Intelligence: Handbook - Book 1 - M., 1990).

2 Komissarov V.N. A word about translation, - M., 1973.

3 Meredith G. The Old Chartist (Meredith D. Old Chartist / Translated by V.E. Vasilyeva // English poetry in Russian translations. - M., 1981.

4 See, for example, Kade O. Problems of translation in the light of communication theory / Transl. with him. // Questions of the theory of translation in foreign linguistics, M., 1978.

5 Fedorov A.V. Fundamentals of the general theory of translation, - M., 1968.

6 See: Quine W. From a Logical Point of View. - Harvard Univ. Press. 1953; Quine W. On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation // J. ot

On November 15, 2012, the first day of the holy month of Muharram, the new year 1434 begins according to the Muslim Hijri calendar.

Since the middle of the 7th century, the Hijra has been the starting point for the Muslim calendar. The Islamic Hijra calendar (Hijra, Arabic migration) dates back to the time when, as a result of persecution by pagans, the Prophet Muhammad and his followers migrated from Mecca to Yathrib (later called Medina). The resettlement took place gradually and the last to move was the prophet Muhammad, who left Mecca on the day corresponding to July 16, 622 AD according to the Julian calendar and arrived in Medina on September 24 of the same year.

However, they began to calculate chronology from the Hegira only in 637, during the reign of Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab. Moreover, at the behest of the caliph, the starting point of the new era was not the very day of the prophet’s arrival in Medina, but 1 Muharram (the first day of the first month) of the same year. This day corresponded to July 16, 622 according to the Julian calendar.

The arrival of the Hijri New Year marks the holy month of Muharram, which is the first month of the Muslim calendar. This is one of the four months (Rajab, Dhul Qaada, Dhul Hijjah, Muharram) during which Allah specifically forbade conflicts, blood feuds, wars, etc. Every Muslim should try to spend this month in the service of Allah Almighty.

The first 10 days of the month are considered blessed.

1 Muharram is not included in the number of holidays in Islam and, accordingly, in most Muslim countries New Year is not celebrated as a holiday in the secular sense. On this day, a sermon is read in mosques dedicated to the move of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. Every follower of Islam is recommended to spend this evening in prayer and ask Allah for grace for the next year. It is believed that a great reward from the Almighty is given to the one who fasted the day before.

On New Year's Day, the clergy wish all Muslims "peace, goodness and prosperity, goodness and abundant mercies of the One Supreme Creator."

The history of the creation of the Muslim calendar

In pre-Islamic times and in the first years after the proclamation of Islam, the Arabs lived according to the lunar calendar from primordially Arabic names months.

They adjusted the length of the year in accordance with the solar calendar in order to coincide with the annual seasons and perform religious rituals at the same time of year. In the Arabic calendar that was in use at that time, the months remained in their places throughout the solar year, thanks to the fact that as “extra days” accumulated, the 13th month “Nasi” was added to the lunar year. However, Muhammad forbade Muslims from adding these days (the prohibition is reflected in the Koran, which says that the Moon is a measure of time). The Prophet spoke out against adjustments to the calendar adopted in pre-Islamic times and called them “an increase in unbelief.”

After the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the Meccan Hijri calendar was created. Its creation is attributed to Caliph (successor) Omar ibn al-Khattab, who ruled the first Islamic state after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. According to legend, the righteous caliph Omar turned to his fellow believers with a request to choose some significant event in the life of the young Muslim community as the starting point of Islamic history. The nephew and adopted son of the Prophet, the husband of one of his daughters, Imam Ali proposed to take the day of migration (hijra) of the Prophet with his first companions from Mecca to Medina as the starting point of the Islamic era.

During the reign of Caliph Omar I (634-644), the year of the Hijri was declared the beginning of the Muslim calendar.

The Hijri calendar is based on the Koran, and its strict observance is the sacred duty of every Muslim.

The Hijri is based on the lunar annual cycle. That is, it is 12 lunar months, 12 revolutions of the Moon around the Earth (the length of the year is 354-355 days). The month begins with the birth of the new moon and lasts 29-30 days. Therefore, compared to the solar calendar, the Hijri calendar shifts back by 10-12 days every year. The names of the months of the Islamic calendar are the same as in the ancient solar-lunar Arabic calendar.

Odd-numbered months have 30 days, and all even-numbered months have 29. The exception is the 12th month, which also has 30 days in leap years.

Another difference between the Muslim calendar and the Christian calendar is the beginning of the calculation of new days. If in the Christian calendar the conventional time of midnight is taken as the beginning of a new day, then for Muslims a new day begins at sunset.

The Muslim year is not tied to seasons, the months migrate across all seasons, with the result that the beginning of the year, for example, may fall in the Gregorian summer months, and after some time - in the winter. As a result of date migration, there are 33 Gregorian years in 34 lunar hijri years. Therefore, to transition from the lunar hijri to the Gregorian style, as a rule, pre-calculated tables are used.

Since the Muslim lunar calendar was created by the Arabs, it became most widespread in the countries of the Arab East.

In Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and a number of other countries, in addition to the lunar hijra, the solar hijra is widespread. Solar Hijri is the only calendar based on the length of the tropical year in its pure form. The beginning of the year in the solar Hijri occurs at the moment the Sun crosses the celestial equator during the transition from the southern hemisphere to the northern, that is, on the vernal equinox or the astronomical beginning of spring, which leads to migration of dates in relation to the Gregorian style within 3-4 days due to that the tropical year is not equal to a whole number of days. The first six months in solar Hijri have a duration of 31 days, five - 30 days and the last month in ordinary years - 29, and in leap year — 30.

The beginning of the new year according to the solar Hijri is called Navruz, which means “new day”, and is celebrated by the majority of Muslim peoples.

Since the Meccan lunar year is shorter than the Christian solar year, the time of its occurrence shifts every year. It is gradually moving closer to the Christian calendar.

Today, all Muslim countries live according to the generally accepted Christian calendar, and according to the Hijri chronology, only the main events in the life of Muslims of the world are determined - the dates of Muslim holidays and memorable events for each year.

In addition to the Hijri calendars (lunar and solar), some other calendars, which are their varieties, are simultaneously found in a number of countries.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources