 |
|
link 11.08.2006 12:44 |
|
Subject: по приемлимым для туристов ценам Пожалуйста, помогите перевести.Выражение встречается в следующем контексте: мы не смогли достать билеты по приемлимым для туристов ценам Заранее спасибо |
| We failed to get the tickets that would not be too expensive for the/our tourists |
| They were not able/lucky to get/obtain tickets at prices that tourists could well afford/readily agree to - имхо |
|
We were unable to find any tickets for a price acceptable for the tourists |
|
link 11.08.2006 12:52 |
|
Если текст написан самими туристами - acceptable/favourable prices приемлЕмый |
|
or tickets cheap enough for the tourists Вобщем, выбирайте |
| "приемлЕмым"! |
|
link 11.08.2006 12:58 |
|
Аристарх We failed to get tickets which would not be too expensive for tourists kinsman Levitan |
|
Grammar, Thank you |
|
grammar 101 1. Не поясните ли разницу между which и that в данном случае? Потом, после which вроде бы ставится запятая. 2. А про артикли это вы зря. Какие билеты? Те, которые продаются по приемлемым для туристов ценам. tourists без артикля? Не думаю. Наверняка, речь идёт о конктерных туристах. Как можно тут говорить о туристах вообще (где употреблялось бы без артикля???). Сравните достатки американских туристов и российских. Где ж Вы видели такие билеты, чтоб даже им не были ды доступны??? |
|
link 11.08.2006 13:07 |
|
"1. Не поясните ли разницу между which и that в данном случае? Потом, после which вроде бы ставится запятая" запятая не нужна там разница - стиль. простите . А про артикли это вы зря. Какие билеты? Те, которые продаются по приемлемым для туристов ценам. tourists без артикля? Не думаю. Наверняка, речь идёт о конктерных туристах. ---- да - актикль пожалуй. я тормозил |
|
link 11.08.2006 13:09 |
|
но тогда лучше сказать the tourists in question хотя если это агентсво, я предпалагаю что надо сказать Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain tickets at a price which our clients (tourists) were willing to agree to. |
|
at an affordable for tourists price - that stretching it bit too thin, I was playing with that option but chucked it away as incorrect. I am in two minds now, Grammar. who's kidding who, u me or u grammar? |
|
Стиль? Может быть. Просто насчёт which и that уж сколько времени пытаюсь выяснить и до сих пор никто внятно разницу между ними так и не пояснил. Давно уже хочу выяснить, разобраться и уяснить наконец |
|
link 11.08.2006 13:20 |
|
Аристарх чтобы вы знали - в англии любят that и в америке which просто инфо вам kinsman действительно можно так сказать. просто реже и реже встречается сегодня (довольно сложный и устаревший вариант. зато очень красиво и грамотно) |
|
grammar101 Ок, благодарю Вас за разъяснения Только данное предложение может быть адресовано и англичанам, не обязательно американцам. Тогда that покатит :) |
|
link 11.08.2006 13:24 |
|
Аристарх согласен можно менять стиль как надо. я не против |
|
link 11.08.2006 13:26 |
|
That versus Which. According to the more quibbling self-styled grammar experts, that is restrictive, while which is not. Many grammarians insist on a distinction without any historical justification. Many of the best writers in the language couldn't tell you the difference between them, while many of the worst think they know. If the subtle difference between the two confuses you, use whatever sounds right. Other matters are more worthy of your attention. For the curious, however, the relative pronoun that is restrictive, which means it tells you a necessary piece of information about its antecedent: for example, "The word processor that is used most often is WordPerfect." Here the that phrase answers an important question: which of the many word processors are we talking about? And the answer is the one that is used most often. Which is non-restrictive: it does not limit the word it refers to. An example is "Penn's ID center, which is called CUPID, has been successful so far." Here that is unnecessary: the which does not tell us which of Penn's many ID centers we're considering; it simply provides an extra piece of information about the plan we're already discussing. "Penn's ID Center" tells us all we really need to know to identify it. It boils down to this: if you can tell which thing is being discussed without the which or that clause, use which; if you can't, use that. There are two rules of thumb you can keep in mind. First, if the phrase needs a comma, you probably mean which. Since "Penn's ID center" calls for a comma, we would not say "Penn's ID Center, that is called CUPID." Another way to keep them straight is to imagine by the way following every which: "Penn's ID center, which (by the way) is called CUPID. . . ." The which adds a useful, but not grammatically necessary, piece of information. On the other hand, we wouldn't say "The word processor which (by the way) is used most often is WordPerfect," because the word processor on its own isn't enough information — which word processor? A paradoxical mnemonic: use that to tell which, and which to tell that. |
|
IMHO, "They were unable to obtain/purchase tickets at an affordable for tourists price" sounds a bit heavy to me. I would change to something like: "They were unable to purchase tickets at a price which the tourists could afford." I realize we may be arguing about mere preferences here, but the only way I can get myself to say it is if we agreed on some price level, which we would officially term "affordable for tourists." Then we would always reference that "affordable for tourists" price level almost in a boolean manner (it's either "affordable for tourists" or not "affordable for tourists"). Then, arguably, one could say, "We couldn't get the tickets at THE "affordable for tourists" price. |
| You need to be logged in to post in the forum |