мывзрослыемы

[avva]

Чарли Стросс пишет о том, как каждое поколение представляет себе "взрослость" на примере своих родителей, и потом чувствует себя неадекватными "взрослыми".

I turn 52 next week, and I have a confession to make: I feel like a complete failure at "adulting".

Читая эту запись и комментарии, немедленно вспоминаешь известную фразу Линор Горалик "Страшно не то, что мы взрослые, страшно, что взрослые - это мы" (кстати, если хотите наглядно увидеть, как афоризм, войдя в народ, обкатывается и теряет лишние слова, сравните с оригиналом).

Как ее перевести на английский? Думаю, что правильный перевод как раз демонстрирует важную функцию определенного артикля. Как-то так:

"It isn't that we're adults now that's terrifying. It's that we're the adults."

Comments

[pigmeich.livejournal.com]

OH! Sorry, the objective case, not possessive. You are right.

What relates to your link, the sentence extension, of course can change the usage. Because, in English, you frequently don't leave commas as in Russian, and you may end in a clause that autonomous and completely different (in usage) from a normal sentence.

And I do not agree on the roots of this mistake (even M. Swan notes this as informal one.) Though, of course it can be expanded to make it less errous.

In the "It's we" clause, "it" is subject, "we" is object, indeed. What's the wonder? In non-question sentence, the word or phrase before verb or verb phrase is subject, those after is object. It is usual rule of English, I don't see why it needs to be explained.

[michaellogin.livejournal.com]

In the "It's we" clause "we" is NOT an object. It's a complement. In order to be an object a pronoun requires a lexical verb or a preposition before itself.

[pigmeich.livejournal.com]

Oh, well, I start simple: Why cannot a complement be an object?

Preposition makes it only indirect object, or passive subject, nothing more.

Why it cannot be an object without some bizarre "by?"

[michaellogin.livejournal.com]

You're either trolling me or completely ignorant of grammar. Neither is especially appealing :) Good luck :)

[pigmeich.livejournal.com]

Goodbye, my strange-ways friend.

Actually, your inability to see the other side of the cactus is wondrous! I checked this theory, yeah it's in the explanation for learners of the English, especially from Slavic countries. Very beautiful, I think, except it doesn't relate to English grammar theory. Such as multi-valency.

Bye-bye!