Feb 21, 2017 17:00
7 yrs ago
English term
Poland
PL EN translator & interpreter
Native in: Polish
Works in: Polish to English, English to Polish
because who said that...
English
Marketing
Advertising / Public Relations
IT / marketing text
Because who said that luxury, style and quality cannot go along with fun?
Sounds like Polish sentence translated word by word... Can anyone can help rephrase this question so that it sounds naturally?
Many thanks in advance!
Sounds like Polish sentence translated word by word... Can anyone can help rephrase this question so that it sounds naturally?
Many thanks in advance!
Responses
+6
3 mins
Selected
Because whoever said that...
...luxury, style and quality can't be fun?
And yes, you're right, it does sound like a literal translation!
And yes, you're right, it does sound like a literal translation!
Note from asker:
| Thank you JaneD! |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Tony M
: No real need to change 'who' into 'whoever'; and something stronger than "can't be" might be better, though depends on context. I'd almost add 'too' on the end, for example. / Agree, but 'whoever' kind of invites 'whoever said that was wrong'
7 mins
|
|
Thanks Tony. I just like the rhythm of "whoever" better than the plain "who"! But of course there are no real right answers to this kind of thing (only wrong ones, as the OP has illustrated!)
|
|
| agree |
Graeme Jones
: I'd also challenge whether the 'Because' is really needed - check context beforehand. Tony's 'too' rounds it off better (too).
13 mins
|
|
Thanks Graeme.
|
|
| agree |
Mark Nathan
: Graeme may have a point about "Because". It sounds like one of those adverts, probably involving George Clooney, where he uses the luxurious, stylish, high quality product AND has fun at the same time!!!
4 hrs
|
|
Thanks Mark.
|
|
| agree |
Yasutomo Kanazawa
11 hrs
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
| agree |
acetran
12 hrs
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
| agree |
Lingua 5B
16 hrs
|
|
Thanks!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you!"
+2
34 mins
Jacek Kloskowski
United States
United States
Native in English
&
English
Works in field
United States
Law Economy Computing Defense Medical
Native in: Polish 
, English
Works in: English to Polish, Polish to English, Polish, and 1 more.
Because who says that / why can’t....go together with...
This seems a better option. E.g. why ca
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Morad Seif
4 hrs
|
|
Thnak you :)
|
|
| neutral |
Tony M
: reducing it to 'why...?' would rather dilute the strength of the marketing message, IMHO.
6 hrs
|
|
I wasn't proposing a better wording, just fixing/claryfying the sentence in question
|
|
| agree |
acetran
11 hrs
|
+1
16 mins
Becasue sho said that... can't go hand-in-hand with fun?
First of all, the presence of 'because' is fine, as long as it follows on from the previous sentence. If it doesn't, then you could just start the sentence with "Who said...?"
Jane's suggestion is fin, I only add this because I think 'go hand-in-hand with' might be the expression the writer was actually thinking of. Of course its longer and clumsier and might nor might not fit the context terribly well; but only you can see if that might work for your particular document.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 36 minutes (2017-02-21 17:36:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oh, and sorry, drop the 'that' for sure, to make it slicker; a mistake often made by non-native EN speakers from certain countries, who seem to feel obliged to render a word in their own language meaning 'that', as they're not quite sure under what circumstances it can legitimately be omitted in EN!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 heures (2017-02-22 00:32:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, apologies for the typos above! Please read 'because' and 'who', of course!
Jane's suggestion is fin, I only add this because I think 'go hand-in-hand with' might be the expression the writer was actually thinking of. Of course its longer and clumsier and might nor might not fit the context terribly well; but only you can see if that might work for your particular document.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 36 minutes (2017-02-21 17:36:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oh, and sorry, drop the 'that' for sure, to make it slicker; a mistake often made by non-native EN speakers from certain countries, who seem to feel obliged to render a word in their own language meaning 'that', as they're not quite sure under what circumstances it can legitimately be omitted in EN!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 heures (2017-02-22 00:32:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, apologies for the typos above! Please read 'because' and 'who', of course!
+2
7 hrs
[because] who says that you can't combine luxury, style and quality with [having] fun
Just having fun with options here.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2017-02-22 00:40:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
What Tony said: ''that'' should also be optional thus written as [that]
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2017-02-22 00:40:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
What Tony said: ''that'' should also be optional thus written as [that]
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Tony M
: If you leave off 'because', then it really reads better if you also drop 'that'.
6 mins
|
|
It does indeed - [that] should also be in square brackets in my answer!
|
|
| agree |
Yasutomo Kanazawa
4 hrs
|
Discussion
'go along' — as with so many phrasal verbs — can have different meanings according to context; here a few examples of different uses:
"Jenny's friend was going swimming, so I asked her if my daughter could go along with her" (= accompany)
"I remained unconvinced, but agreed to go along with her plan" (= abide by)
I can't actually think of an example with an object, though of course one can imagine it in "...go, along with...", which is a different collocation altogether.
Otherwise, we have plenty of examples of the expression 'to go with' (which can indeed be used with objects) but without 'along': "Red wine goes with beef" "Pink goes with grey" etc. etc.
Like I said, I half suspect the writer had in mind 'to go hand-in-hand with', which does indeed have the sense of 'accompany', and can be used with objects.
However, what is not at all "fine" is "go along with fun", which is imply very unnatural / unidiomatic in EN. Also, the expression 'go along with' had another sense which would be quite wrong here, but might be what springs to a reader's mind: 'to go along with something' also means 'to tolerate more or less reluctantly', as in: "I decided to go along with his hare-brained scheme and see what happened".
I suspect the writer was trying to render something like "...can't go hand-in-hand with fun?" but didn't get the idiom quite right.