Stephen Hughes wrote:Yes. You've got my meaning.
The three verses that I put up for discussion about possibly meaning "re-"s would be what I'm calling big context. That is to say that the meaning of "again" could perhaps come from the big (general) context.
But I do have one question.
This is from a review of a movie called "Starman."
During their journey, when the two stop at a restaurant, Starman sees a dead deer strapped to a hunter's car...Later, Jenny glances out of the window of the resteraurant and sees Starman bringing the deer to life...
It's obvious from the context that the deer was alive before it was dead, and Starman is bringing it back to life.
But if I were translating this into Spanish, would that observation entittle me to translate "bringing the deer to life" "con lo que el ciervo de vuelta a la vida" (i.e. "back to life") instead of "con lo que el ciervo a la vida" ("to life")?
Would the former not be more of a paraphrase than a translation (even if it's a good and useful paraphrase)?
And if the context makes it perfectly clear that the deer was alive before it was dead, and the Starman is actually bringing it "back" to life, why would I (as a translator) need to add the word "back" to the text?
Even if suggested by the context, the verb "bring" (of and by itself) doesn't contain the idea of repetition, restoration, or reparation.
So if the author didn't feel that a more explicite word or phrase was needed to convey his meaning within the context of a dead deer strapped to a hunter's car (because it's obvious the deer was alive before it was dead), why am I entittled to add a word he didn't write?