If every other method else fails, do the translation by logic and context.

1ST SENSE — “GATE” AS A SPECIES OR VARIETY OF DOOR

Pintuan (door) is generic, or in logic it falls under a “genus” (plural genera or genuses). Genus, in logic, means a class of objects divided into several subordinate species.

 

Gate (tarangkahan) is a “species”. Species in logic means a logical division of a genus; a kind or sort; ranking immediately below the genus (genus, being a more comprehensive class).

 

Being species, gate/tarangkahan can likewise be pintuan/door which is the generic term, precisely because gate/tarangkahan is a type or variety of the generic door. Gate (tarangkahan) is a wooden or metal barrier on hinges or pivots, capable of being opened and shut, and filling the opening in a wall or fence (Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary). In most common usage, it is referred to that structure built upon an entrance outside the main wall or building, such as a fence. However, it can also be used to that in the main wall/building especially if the wall/building is a larger one. Another Filipino term pinto is applied usually to that smaller variety located in or within the main structure. In all cases, all of them are pintuan, the generic term. 

 

Logically, it is all right to apply the genus to mean the species because genus covers the species anyway. On the other hand, it is not okay to use the species as the meaning of the genus because the species does not necessarily include or cover the genus or all those varieties of the genus.

 

But here, I am not in the process of defining rather of translating. Supposed I am in the process of defining and I define pintuan in English as gate, then I am wrong; wrong because not all pintuan(s) are gates. Supposed again I am in the process of defining and I define gate in Filipino as pintuan, then I am correct; correct because all gates are pintuan(s).

 

But, again, I am not in the process of defining; rather, I am in the process of translating. In translation, the communicator may have a slanting at the time he was speaking and translating. It could be that when he was saying “Mangyaring huwag kang tumayo sa harap ng pintuan dahil kapag binuksan ko ito mahaharangan mo ito”, he was referring to a gate which was a pintuan in its generic form.

 

Hence, if the communicator would use pintuan for gate, it is absolutely alright because the species gate is a pintuan or a type/variety of the generic pintuan.

 

Such a slight not-so-exact equation between pintuan and gate in that translation template of mine in my first edition is understandable. It is not awkward, after all. Perhaps, one wrong way of species-genus (vice versa) translating is if it would look so awkward like this:

 

(Supposed the communicator is referring to a bicycle) “Sumakay ka sa bagay na iyan.” — “Ride on that bicycle.”

 

(As you know all “bicycles” [species] are “bagay” [genus].) The translation template just above is very awkward because though it may be argued that anyway the species bicycle is a kind of the genus bagay, yet such subdividing reference by the communicator of his subject genus into his intended species is VERY REMOTE. Unlike in gate/pintuan, the subdividing reference is very near, hence not awkward. (Genus can be subdivided into different species or subspecies from the nearest to the farthest.)

 

Now the opposer of my explanation may argue to say, “Hey Mr. Author, the premise starts from your Filipino specimen that came first ahead of your English translation. In that part of your translation template, you started from the genus pintuan. So it should not be translated into English in its species form.”

 

Okay, perhaps my little negligence is the fact that I did not fully provide a hint that the imaginary communicator in that particular Filipino to English template is slanting or referring to a gate. Forgive me for too much editing with the intention to narrow down my book. You see, I hate bulky books of which I am the writer. But then again, my idea was that the imaginary communicator in that template is slanting on the gate. Let’s suppose he was thinking about a gate and then all the while he said, “Mangyaring huwag kang tumayo sa harap ng pintuan dahil kapag binuksan ko ito mahaharangan mo ito. — Please don’t stand at the gate because if I open it you would block it.”

 

That’s it. It’s just an issue of slanting of which I failed to provide plentiful introductory illustrations to indicate that the communicator has in mind the gate firstly. Sa slanting lang nagkatalo. Okay, PEACE!

 

After all, the focus of my translating paradigm is NOT on the noun-to-noun single-word-to-single-word patterns BUT on the phrasal collocation patterns. I am interested in the patterns, not on the genus/species thing.

 

I ask a consideration from the readers to understand this book for the slight variance on those species/genus concerns of the one-word noun forms as that one put in issue. And understand that, again, I am not inclined to the treatment of one-word noun to one-word noun translations, such for example as karahasan to violence, gusali to building, baboy to pig etc. They are dictionary formats. Bahala na ang dictionary sa kanila! Rather, my book is inclined to the phrasal patterns or those that involve combinations of words for the purpose of finding a translation.

 

Moreover, I was in the state of doing Couplets Translation of both Functional Equivalence Translation and Descriptive Self-explanatory Translation!

 

For your added knowledge, please purchase a copy of the second edition as soon as it comes out on the market. Therein you will learn the different methods of translation.

 

The method I employed in translating the template “Mangyaring huwag kang tumayo sa harap ng pintuan dahil kapag binuksan ko ito mahaharangan mo ito. — Please don’t stand at the gate because if I open it you would block it.” is Couplet. I joined Descriptive Method and Functional Equivalence Method. As explained, Descriptive Method uses a generic term to convey the message. Since I am following the functional equivalence, I was concerned with the thought (slanting) of the imaginary communicator of that template. Being tagged along the functional equivalence method which is a “thought translation,” it allowed me as the translator to determine what I thought the imaginary communicator of the source language should say. The only problem that my reader may consider is because, in that template, the Filipino is placed ahead followed by the English equivalent. I ask the reader to please not be strictly concerned on the sequential format of the Filipino first then English next; because after all, that is a translation template. Once a translation template, we can therefore anytime logically take it the other way around (ang baligtad). That would be this way, “Please don’t stand at the gate because if I open it you would block it. —Mangyaring huwag kang tumayo sa harap ng pintuan dahil kapag binuksan ko ito mahaharangan mo ito.” Being tagged along a context-oriented translation, my thought was not perfectly concerned on the word-for-word translation of pintuan/gate because my primary paradigm of concentration is not on the one-word noun to one-word- noun translation rather on the phrasal pattern. And that phrasal pattern I am concerned is, in the case of that template in question, none other than the phrase sa harap ng pintuan which I perfectly translated NOT at the gate BUT against the gate. So again, contextually speaking, my focus is the translation for sa harap ng which is against and not on the problem of the translation for the  gate which is pintuan, or vice versa.

 

 houldn’t it be “door” instead of “gate”?

2ND SENSE — “GATE” HAVING AN EXTENDED DEFINITION OF A DOOR, BEING APPLIED TO BOTH THAT OF “FENCE” OR SIMPLY OF “WALL”

A gate is precisely a door. Only, it has an extended definition or application, being emphatically referred to that of a fence. But gate can be used either to that in a fence or that not in a fence which is obviously a wall. Since not all walls are made of fences, hence, again, gate can be applied to that of a wall which is not a fence.

 

The user will decide to use gate instead of door if he would like the listener to have a clear reference to what he specifically means, that is, the structure of entrance in a fence or in a wall. Nevertheless, if he would not emphasize and simply use the regular word door, it is okay anyway.

There are terms especially phrasal ones that do not or hardly have direct, verbatim or ready language to language equivalents or conversions available in dictionaries. To be able to obtain equivalents, one just has to search out or make out logical translations taking into consideration the context of the language specimens in question.

 

But the readers may not have to trouble themselves. Already I did the job of making out or researching for them the, at least, nearest equivalents. The translations I furnished are so far the only ones available in the actual usage. And, generally, there are no other nearest ways the translations are to be expressed in any given setting as equivalents of particular specimens in question treated in this book series.

 

So, for I had a hard time, there is, so far, no any other nearest logical Filipino equivalent except nahirapan ako, and vice versa, in actual usage. (I found it hard and I had a struggle—other nearer specimens.)

 

ON RHETORICAL THOUGHT—

 

“All the time” doesn’t mean we study or teach English without or almost no rest (obviously, the one who reacted is self-misled because of the word “all”). “All the time” simply means that our opportunity to do a certain act is not limited or restricted by and large. Just unlike: a) celebrating New Year which is limitedly done on January 1 or in February by the Chinese b) having breakfast which is limitedly done during breakfast time in the morning c) attending church service which is limitedly done during Sundays or other congregational church service days. All the time is rhetorically used to emphasize opportunity to do a certain thing that is applicable to many and most applicable occasions (unless limited by some physical or ethical constraints). (Rhetoric is a use of language done with art in order to persuade.) By applicable opportunity, we mean that we study or teach English on breakfast time, on holidays, on all days of the week, before bedtime, in schools, in homes, at playtime, during conversations, etc., meaning, all the time (all kinds of opportunity and not generally limited). Unless doing so is unreasonable enough. Hence, all the time pertains to all the kinds of opportunity; time does not literally pertain to every tick of the seconds of the clock, but to the chance. Meaning, in all those chances, we are allowed or have the freedom to do such act, and in effect, we simply do make use or grab that freedom.

 

ON LEXICAL THOUGHT—

All the time, in unabridged dictionaries, means very often or frequently.

 

Language changes and evolves with time. Back when computers are not yet prevalently used in the neighborhood, all that we know is that corrupt is used only as a legal or ethical term, denoting formality in usage. But in today’s computer era, computer users found that the word is suited to mean damage for a computer file.

 

The one who made the reaction and politely questioned me as to its propriety of use in my book was the chief editor of How do you say it in English? (first edition)—Mr. Rafael Banzuela. He was a sharp 70+ years old retired DepEd Supervisor despite his age. But he has never used and never been exposed to a computer his entire life. So there was no wonder why he reacted. Having finally learned about and been explained on such use of corrupt in computer jargon, he then conformed and stood corrected.

 

This reaction came from a member of the panel of my publishers.

 

To answer, let it always be stressed that words/terms are usually used in different senses or slanting. Slanting, according to Genevieve B. Birk and Newman P. Birk (page 150 of the first edition) means the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas), words and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator.

 

Now, before we go on to makipag-away, please take note first of this related specimen that can be translated according to different senses (slanting):

Palusugin mo ang kaniyang isip.

 

The sentence can be translated in line with two different renderings. One is in the sense of the process; and the other is in the sense of the effect. Firstly, in the sense or slanting of the process to be done by the actor or doer, it would be—

 

Nourish his mind. (nourish is the process)

 

But, secondly, in the sense of the effect, it would be—

 

Make his mind healthy. (healthy is the effect)

 

Now back to the sentence “Huwag kang makipag-away kaninuman”: makipag-away is abstracted into two slants or emphases being the general thoughts where the word falls into:

1. the causing of a relationship (enemy)
2. the causing of an incident (trouble) 

 

Both are the gist or senses into which the word makipag-away falls. We simply have to abstract or mentally detach every sense involved in this Filipino specimen in question.

 

If you are the communicator and your slanting or emphasis is the relationship or the causing of the relationship, then the appropriate translation should be don’t make an enemy with anyone.

 

But if your slanting or emphasis is the incident or the causing of the incident, then the appropriate translation should be don’t make trouble with anyone.

 

Both translations are correct, only, made out according to different senses or slants.

 

If makikipag-away ka with someone, naturally you will make him your enemy or that your intention is to make him an enemy. (Pero sa aktwal na buhay, ‘wag kang makikipag-away!) Therefore, the translation don’t make an enemy is definitely appropriate in reference to ONE PARTICULAR slanting, sense, gist or emphasis. And that slanting is in the sense of a relationship caused. Just like the sentence makipagkaibigan ka sa akin is popularly translated as make friend with me, in the same way, the term make him your enemy may be equated with gawin mo siyang kaaway or makipag-away ka sa kaniya. Conversely then, makipag-away means make an enemy (just one format of translation, among other variations).

 

Relatedly, we have these expressions make peace and make war (wage war).