<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:49 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<div class="m_-3474986326818565683moz-cite-prefix">On 5/15/2018 4:28 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">On
Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:01 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><span>
<div class="m_-3474986326818565683m_8297060816530971397m_3280909460551248682moz-cite-prefix">On
5/15/2018 3:57 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><b>mughlaHghach</b> seems to me to
be ambiguously synonymous with both <b>mughmeH laH</b>
and <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>. Without context, I'd expect
these two phrases to mean respectively "ability to
translate" and "ability to be translated."</blockquote>
</span>
<p><b>mughlu'meH laH</b> means <i>ability in order for
someone indefinite to translate,</i> not <i>ability to be
translated.</i><span class="m_-3474986326818565683m_8297060816530971397HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>My point was not whether passive voice was suitable for
translating this term, which I'd say it is in this case, but how
the term would be applied. <b>mughlu'meH laH</b> clearly does
not apply to the translator. Therefore, I would expect it to be
used in talking about a text.</div>
</blockquote>
</span><p><b>mughlu'meH laH </b>clearly DOES apply to the translator. The
only difference between <b>mughmeH laH</b> and <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>
is that in the latter the subject doing the translating is
explicitly indefinite. In the former there is NO subject. Purpose
clauses are the only verbal clauses that allow you to ignore verb
conjugation.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div>If you are talking about a particular translator's ability, would it make sense to talk about his <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>? It seems to me that <b>-lu'</b> would be out of place if the speaker and listener have a particular translator in mind.<br><br>But if you were talking whether a particular text were translatable (i.e., whether there was anyone who could translate it), wouldn't that be a logical context for talking about <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>? For instance, <b>ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH chavlu'pu'be'</b> as a way of saying "No one has figured out how to translate this manuscript."<br><br></div><div>So would you agree that
<b>mughmeH laH</b> and <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>
are not synonymous, and that <b>mughlaHghach</b>
is ambiguously synonymous with both of them?</div><div><br></div><div>~mIp'av<br></div></div></div></div>