Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2024, 10:08:54 PMWhy? Wouldn't that be "Ian has gone to the store," the present perfect? "Ian went to the store" is a simple past statement.Because the two forms of the past tense, "tir + [past participle]" and "[stem] + -eva", are derived from the perfect and imperfect aspects in natural Romance languages, and "John went to the store" would be translated with the perfect aspect in (most of) those languages. Most of them don't distinguish between the simple past and the present perfect.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 22, 2024, 04:15:10 AMEnglish is different from a lot of other languages with how it uses those labels. So I don't even know, really! But it does seem like the literal translation here is the one I gave, unless there's a pretty unusual rule that I didn't know about.Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2024, 10:08:54 PMWhy? Wouldn't that be "Ian has gone to the store," the present perfect? "Ian went to the store" is a simple past statement.
Talossan doesn't strictly separate the two, but personally I think using veneva was perfect fine here.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2024, 10:08:54 PMWhy? Wouldn't that be "Ian has gone to the store," the present perfect? "Ian went to the store" is a simple past statement.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2024, 06:03:43 PMReally? That's weird, I didn't notice that. Okay, cool. Anything else?I apologize for being late to this, but, while "Ian veneva àl marcă" isn't technically wrong, I still feel that a better translation would be "Ian tent venescu àl marcă."
EDIT: I'm actually going to assume that one laconic comment comprises the whole of the errors, and remove the warning. If there's anything else, let me know.