For whatever it's worth, I'll throw in my comments regarding the interpretation of the
phrase in Swedish at the Pentax Scandinavia website: "tålig konstruktion likt LX"
("durable construction like/as/similar to the LX").
Pål wrote:
>Jørgen wrote:
>> Sorry to say, but *I* am swedish, so my swedish is at least
>> *as* good as yours ;->
>
>> > should litterally mean as durable as the LX.
>> >
>> No, that is not my feeling, "likt" is more like "similar"
>> than "same", but then, it could be a translation error,
>> or that I am reading in to much in a single word...
> Hmmm. Since Norwegian and Swedish are basically the same language, although there
> might be some subtle differences,
It's true what you say about Swedish and Norwegian (and you can add Danish and
Icelandic too), but you do at times get fooled by what on the surface looks similar.
> I'm certain(?) that "likt" in this context means same or
> identical.
No, it doesn't. Jörgen is right.
Had they wanted to say that the construction of the MZ-S is of identical durability as
the one of the LX, they would have gone something like "[MZ-S har/är av] lika tålig
konstruktion som LX [har/är]." ("The MZ-S is of the same durable construction as the
LX [is].")
> If "similar" (but not the same) was intended, shouldn't they rephrased it and
> used the word "liknande"?
Well, the construction of this phrase is (as often is the case) not entirely simple.
There is a contracted sentence ("satsförkortning") involved here (an implied but
missing clause) or the phrase wouldn't be considered correct.
Since it is "en konstruktion" (not "ett konstruktion"), an adjective comparing the
"konstruktion" to something else would have demanded the form "lik" and not "likt" as
is written. This may indicate that "likt" is used here as an conjunction(?), in fact
not referring to the "konstruktion" but to a verb phrase in a missing clause. If it
is, according to established rules, correctly written, it can only be understood (and
a Swede does this interpretation subconsciously) and explained by this absent clause.
If I'd venture a reconstruction of this "lost" phrase, we'd have something like this:
(in Swedish) "[Man har givit MZ-S] en tålig konstruktion likt/såsom [man gjorde med]
LX."
Or in English: "[They gave the MZ-S] a durable construction like/in the same way [they
once did] the LX."
Now, it happens that people make mistakes, or make unorthodox use of a language. Maybe
the writer actually meant to use the a d j e c t i v e "lik" (or actually equalizes
"likt" to "lik"), as in "[MZ-S har en] tålig konstruktion [som/och är] lik LX", it
would still only say that it is "similar to the LX", but not identical. The Swedish
"lik" means only "similar [in appearance] to", also as in "reminding of".
The word "liknande" also means "similar to", but maybe slightly lesser so and usually
in another context.
(Then there is of course the (intransitive) verb "att likna" = "to appear/look like";
or "to be similar to". (And also a transitive variant: "att likna någonting vid
något"...) )
> At least in Norwegian if you use the word likt (or lik) it
> means for all practical purposes identical.
Well, I'd say that ninety-nine out of a hundred Swedish persons would suggest the same
interpretation as Jörgen and I do.
However, Norwegian purposes in this regard may be a lot more practical than those of
the Swedes...:)
[snip]
> Anyway, we are talking really subtle differences here.
Yes, but our everyday lives a r e in essence very subtle, aren't they? It's just
that we (our senses) deal with this subtlety so smoothly that we tend to forget about
it, until we suddenly get a reason to think about it. (And whenever I do, I get
slightly elated :) )
Lasse, realizing the need for a brush-up on linguistics. It's slipping...
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
