[Grammar] The rule "would" be left as is for the time being.

[kadioguy]

(In an English-Chinese dictionary)

as (it) is
按现状

We bought the table as is.
那张桌子我们买来就是那个样子。

The rule would be left as is for the time being.
那条规则暂时将保持原状。
---------------
I don't know why it is "would" rather than "will". Is this because the time was in the past?

 

[emsr2d2]

Well, since I can't translate because I can't read the non-English text, I can only assume it's because it refers to the past.

John: At last week's meeting, we talked about changing the rule on people taking photos at work.
Sam: What's the current rule?
John: At the moment, they're not allowed to.
Sam: What did you decide?
John: We decided the rule would be left as it is for the time being.

The actual words spoken at the meeting where this decision was taken were probably "OK, the rule will be left as it is for the time being". The "would" version is the reported/indirect speech version.

 

[GoesStation]

Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" made Google use the future. It proposes "That rule will remain as it is." I know that Chinese doesn't have verb tenses. Is there a lexical clue that places the effective time of the action in the future?

 

[kadioguy]

Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" made Google use the future. It proposes "That rule will remain as it is." I know that Chinese doesn't have verb tenses. Is there a lexical clue that places the effective time of the action in the future?

Do you mean a lexical clue in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状"? If so, it is "将", but "将" can mean "will" (in the future) or "would" (in the past future). As you have known, Chinese doesn't have verb tenses, so we cannot decide which, when this Chinese text stands alone.

 

[kadioguy]

Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" made Google use the future.

Could you please tell me why you used "made" rather than "makes"? I would use "makes", because I think Google will always use the future tense when it translates this text.

 

[Raymott]

The translator made the word 'made', but if the algorithm is changed, it might make a different word. GS has commented on the word that this particular translator made at the time it was consulted (or perhaps "makes at the moment"). It could be either.

 

[GoesStation]

Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" made Google use the future.

Could you please tell me why you used "made" rather than "makes"? I would use "makes", because I think Google will always use the future tense when it translates this text.

The translator made the word 'made', but if the algorithm is changed, it might make a different word. GS has commented on the word that this particular translator made at the time it was consulted (or perhaps "makes at the moment"). It could be either.

Actually I wrote the word "made".

If I'd written "makes", I would be assuming that Google Translate would always translate "那条规则暂时将保持原状" the same way. I know from experience that that's not the case; Google Translate learns from user feedback and from building its database, so its translations sometimes change. I only knew for sure that Translate had chosen "will" once; I had no way to know what it might do in the future. We use the present simple for repeated actions, and I didn't know whether this particular action would repeat. I only knew what had happened once, in the past, so the past simple was appropriate.

 

[kadioguy]

It could be either.

Do you mean "made" and "makes" could be both OK?

 

[GoesStation]

Do you mean "made" and "makes" could be both OK?

I would have written Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" makes Google use the future if I was confident the translation would remain the same. I'm not, and I wasn't, so made was the natural choice.

This is a pretty minor point though. I might feel differently the next time, and write made. Either tense is possible here.

 

[kadioguy]

Thanks for your reply.

If you don't mind, I would like to ask about the conditionals.

If I'd written "makes", I would be assuming that Google Translate would always translate "那条规则暂时将保持原状" the same way.

I would have written Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" makes Google use the future if I was confident the translation would remain the same.

Are these two mixed tenses? But I would use the third conditional, because I think these two are about unreal past situations.

If I'd written "makes", I would have been assuming that Google Translate ....
I would have written ... if I had been confident the translation would ....

Could you please tell me your opinion?

 

[bubbha]

I'm surprised you're using simplified Chinese characters when you're from Taiwan, kadioguy.

 

[GoesStation]

If I'd written "makes", I would be assuming that Google Translate would always translate "那条规则暂时将保持原状" the same way.

I would have written [...] if I was confident the translation would remain the same.

Are these two mixed tenses? But I would use the third conditional, because I think these two are about unreal past situations.

If I'd written "makes", I would have been assuming that Google Translate ....
I would have written ... if I had been confident the translation would ....

Could you please tell me your opinion?

Your versions are possible. I've never learned the rules that ESL students learn for the use of conditionals; indeed, I'd never heard of them til I joined usingenglish.com. Native speakers don't need them. From what I've seen here, following those rules will produce proper English. Native speakers don't always follow them, but they usually produce proper English anyway—even if it doesn't follow those rules.

A similar dynamic occurs in music. Music students learn to harmonize in the style Johann Sebastian Bach used when writing chorales. We learn an exhaustive set of rules, and following them can produce chorales Bach might have approved of. Bach himself didn't know all of the rules later analysts found in his chorales, and often violated them. That doesn't mean his chorales are incorrect; it means the analysts discovered more rules than he actually followed, or that some of the rules should really be called "tendencies".

Sorry for that digression. My opinion is that my sentences were correct, and yours are also correct. I actually hesitated between what I wrote in the second quote and I would have written [...] if I were confident. I decided against the subjunctive were because I didn't feel that I was making an assertion contrary to fact—but the subjunctive would have been fine.

 

[tzfujimino]

Sorry for that digression.

I like it very much.

 

[kadioguy]

Native speakers don't always follow them, but they usually produce proper English anyway—even if it doesn't follow those rules.

Thanks.

So you meant to talk about unreal past situations, rather than about unreal situations, in the text in blue. Have I understood it?

If I'd written "makes", I would be assuming that Google Translate would always translate "那条规则暂时将保持原状" the same way.

I would have written Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" makes Google use the future if I was confident the translation would remain the same.

 

[kadioguy]

I'm surprised you're using simplified Chinese characters when you're from Taiwan, kadioguy.

I always use traditional Chinese in my everyday life, but as for learning English, simplified Chinese material can be one of my choices. ;-)

 

[tedmc]

I always use traditional Chinese in my everyday life, but as for learning English, simplified Chinese material can be one of my choices. ;-)

How about: I can also read material(s) in simplified Chinese ?
I think there are more resources in simplified Chinese than traditional Chinese.

 

[Raymott]

Do you mean "made" and "makes" could be both OK?

Yes, but given that I misread or forget the context, what I meant was that you can say either of "The translator made/makes this translation: "...".

What I should have said was that GS could have said "Something in the text "那条规则暂时将保持原状" made/makes Google use the future."

 

[kadioguy]

Could someone please help me with post #14? Have I got it correctly?

 

[kadioguy]

I think there are more resources in simplified Chinese than traditional Chinese.

How about this?

I think there are more resources in simplified Chinese than in traditional Chinese.

 

[emsr2d2]

How about this?

I think there are more resources in simplified Chinese than in traditional Chinese.

That's fine but it's equally OK without the second "in".