3. Partial Equivalents caused by different usage

Partial equivalents are also caused by different syntactical usage. The priority of Syntax due to the analytical character of the English language is reflected in a number of features firmly established in it by usage. Chief among them are: the use of homogeneous members which are logically incompatible, a peculiar use of parentheses, the morphological expression of the subject in the principal and the subordinate clauses, etc.

Without pomp and circumstance, N.A.T.O. closed its Paris head-quarters on Friday evening. The building which has housed the Secretariat and the 15 delegations for some 10 years has been rapidly emptying of furniture and staff.

У п’ятницю в вечорі без всякої пишноти й церемоній закрилася штаб-квартира НАТО в Парижі. Будівля, в якій протягом 10 років розташовувались секретаріат і делегації 15 держав, швидко спустошилась – з неї вивезли меблі й виїхали всі співпрацівники.

The meaning of the verb “has been emptying of” is rendered in Ukrainian by three verbs in conformity with the norm and usage of Ukrainian language valency:

… будівля спустошилась, меблі вивезли, співпрацівники виїхали.

A parenthetical phrase or clause sometimes breaks up the logical flow of the sentence which is common English as the relations between the members of the sentence are clear due to the priority of syntax. But such use necessitates a recasting of the Ukrainian sentence; the parenthetical clause must be placed where it logically belongs to, sometimes even forming a separate sentence.

The Justice Party in Turkey has taken part in a coalition, and on another occasion its leader has been asked – but failed – to form a government.

Партія Справедливості в Терції одного разу приймала участь у коаліційному уряді, а другого разу лідеру партії було запропоновано сформувати уряд, але це йому не вдалося.

The subordinate clause is translated by an attributive participle group to avoid the use of a second subject.

4. Free and Bound Use of Grammar Forms

Grammatical forms are generally used freely according to their own meaning and their use is determined by purely linguistic factors, such as rules of agreement, syntactic construction, etc. in such cases their use is not free but bound. For example, in English the singular or the plural form of a noun preceded by a numeral depends upon the number of things counted: one table, twenty one tables; in Ukrainian the agreement depends on the last numeral: один стіл, двадцять п’ять столів. The rule of sequence of Tenses is another case in point: the use of the tense in the English subordinate clause is bound. If the past Tense is used in the principal clause, the Past or the Future-in-the-Past must be used in the subordinate clause instead of the Present or of the Future, e.g. He says that he speaks English – він каже, що знає английську; he said that he spoke English –віон сказав, что він говорить английською.

This purely formal rule of the sequence of tenses does not find its reflection in translation as no such rule exists in Ukrainian and the use of the tense form in the dependent clause is free and is determined by the situation.

It should be borne in mind that in reported speech – in newspaper articles, in minutes, in reports and records – this rule of the sequence of tenses is observed through the text: the sequences are governed by the Past Tense of the initial sentence – he said, it was reported, they declared, he stressed, etc.

To conclude, only free forms are rendered in translation and bound forms require special attention.