On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:49 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 5/15/2018 4:28 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:01 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 5/15/2018 3:57 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

mughlaHghach seems to me to be ambiguously synonymous with both mughmeH laH and mughlu'meH laH. Without context, I'd expect these two phrases to mean respectively "ability to translate" and "ability to be translated."

mughlu'meH laH means ability in order for someone indefinite to translate, not ability to be translated.

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. mughlu'meH laH clearly does not apply to the translator. Therefore, I would expect it to be used in talking about a text.

mughlu'meH laH clearly DOES apply to the translator. The only difference between mughmeH laH and mughlu'meH laH 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.

If you are talking about a particular translator's ability, would it make sense to talk about his mughlu'meH laH? It seems to me that -lu' would be out of place if the speaker and listener have a particular translator in mind.

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 mughlu'meH laH? For instance, ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH chavlu'pu'be' as a way of saying "No one has figured out how to translate this manuscript."

So would you agree that mughmeH laH and mughlu'meH laH are not synonymous, and that mughlaHghach is ambiguously synonymous with both of them?

~mIp'av