Repository path: workshop/translations/uj-pap/opportunity.md · rendered 2026-09-09
Page metadata (front matter)
| type | manifest |
|---|---|
| id | ujpap-r10-opportunity |
| status | frozen |
| created | 2026-07-31 |
| updated | 2026-07-31 |
| senses | naturalness |
| internal-judgment-only | true |
| links | workshop/regimes/R10-anchored-register.md, workshop/translations/uj-pap/source-u1.txt, workshop/translations/uj-pap/source-u2.txt, workshop/experiments/E-20260731f-catalogue-reach/claims.json, wiki/arms/ARM-carryover.md |
R10 §6 opportunity list — Mikszáth «Szent Péter esernyője» I.iii, units U1 and U2
What this is. R10 §6 requires the translator to record, before translating, which of each target catalogue's numbered propositions the source unit gives any occasion for at all — so that a proposition found absent from a rendering for want of material is not confused with one the translator failed to install.
This list is frozen before a word of any of the four renderings was written, and that is the point of it. R10's first execution (S074, workshop/translations/karen/opportunity.md) wrote its list after both drafts, declared the deviation, and left wiki/backlog.md a row saying that either the next R10 run freezes the list first and says so, or §6 is rewritten to what a translator can actually do. This is that run. The list was written from the two source files and the two catalogues alone; the commit that adds this file precedes the commit that adds any translation.
One deviation from the S074 procedure is recorded rather than smoothed. R10 §2 requires the target catalogue to be frozen before the source is read for translation. The catalogues here are E-20260731f-catalogue-reach/claims.json at 109b103, frozen at S074 — before this source existed as a candidate — so §2 is satisfied a fortiori. But the source has been read, once, in order to write this list; §6 cannot be complied with otherwise. That is a property of §6 and not a defect in this run.
Claim ids and wordings are claims.json at 109b103. M* = A-mansfield-garden-party (period-idiomatic target, P). C* = A-mchugh-presence (unmarked literary-contemporary target, C).
Target P — A-mansfield-garden-party
| id | U1 | U2 | the source material that decides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 free indirect discourse without a reporting clause | yes | yes | U1's dog paragraph reasons in the dog's own terms (azelőtt kutyafilozófiával azt gondolta… / Úgy ám, de ő adta a tekintélyt és befolyást!); U2's Lehet, hogy a reverenda látása hozta ilyen melankolikus hangulatba is narratorial speculation in the same grammar |
| M02 unattributed exclamatory sentences inside third-person narration | yes | no material | U1: Úgy ám, de ő adta a tekintélyt és befolyást! stands unattributed. U2's exclamations are all inside attributed dialogue |
| M03 self-correction in the character's voice inside the narration | yes | no material | U1's parenthesis (no ugyan kár volt olyan messze menni folyamnévért, mikor itt a határon keresztül foly a csillámló Bjela-Voda) is the narrator correcting the naming, mid-sentence |
| M04 contracted verb forms in the narration, not only in speech | yes | yes | English contraction is available throughout both units; nothing in either source forbids it |
| M05 colloquial spoken idiom | yes | yes | U1: Mi tűrés-tagadás, Ej no!, kötekedtek, elpáholták; U2: humorizált, évelődni, czudar, Az isten hozta! |
| M06 immediate lexical repetition for emotional emphasis | yes | yes | U1: más-más gazdához; U2: Mind, mind, amit itt lát and egyre többen-többen |
| M07 written-out sound play or onomatopoeia spelled as syllables | NO — the source supplies none | NO — the source supplies none | neither unit contains onomatopoeia. A rendering that installed one would be adding material |
| M08 concrete objects that date the prose earlier than the present | yes | yes | U1: fakó szekér, kajlaszarvú tehénke, köcsög, pipaszárak, festetlen deszkaláda; U2: reverenda, istálló és ólak, parókia |
| M09 long dash-driven sentences following the drift of attention, set against short declaratives | yes | yes | U1's dog paragraph is one 91-word sentence built on dashes and subordination; A szegény fiatal pap elmosolyodott. (U2) is a five-word paragraph |
| M10 one characterised narratorial-and-character voice sustained without drift | yes | yes | Mikszáth's gossiping narrator is continuous in both units and is the same voice as ch. I's |
| M11 the whole design turns on a structural irony sprung by an overheard cruelty at the close | NO — untestable off its own passage | NO — untestable off its own passage | the proposition names the design of a whole short story. Neither unit is a whole story |
Target C — A-mchugh-presence
| id | U1 | U2 | the source material that decides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| C01 no archaism | yes | yes | mondá, bepislantván, mivelhogy, kifolyólag (U1); mondá, mesziről, látszott… nézni (U2) all invite archaic English |
| C02 no period lexis | yes | yes | fakó szekér, köcsög, pipaszár, egyházfi, parókia, reverenda are period-bound objects and offices |
| C03 no era-marking slang or orthographic play | yes | yes | Ej no!, Mi tűrés-tagadás, elpáholták (U1); czudar, évelődni, humorizált (U2) are the sites where a datable English slang could be reached for |
| C04 no dialect spelling | yes | yes | the villagers' speech in both units (Hát nem tudtak kendtek…, Az isten hozta!) is the one place eye-dialect could be installed |
| C05 no learned or Latinate display vocabulary | yes | yes | kutyafilozófia, tekintély és befolyás, népszerűtlen, külön állást (U1); melankolikus, hatáskör, magánzó, kutyatársadalom (U2) all admit a Latinate English rendering |
| C06 narration passes into a character's judgment inside the narrator's grammar, unobtrusively | yes | yes | same material as M01; the two catalogues want the same manoeuvre performed at different volumes, which is what makes it a decision |
| C07 third person limited to one consciousness, without exception | NO — the source refuses it | NO — the source refuses it | U1's narration leaves Bélyi János for the churchwarden, the villages along the road, and then for the dog's own reasoning; U2 leaves him for the churchwarden's amusement and the women in the yard. No translation of either unit can satisfy it |
| C08 dialogue attributed almost entirely with say; no ornamental attributing verbs | yes | yes | U1's mondá and the villages' unattributed jeers; U2's mondá twice and humorizált, which is precisely an ornamental verb in the source |
| C09 four figures in 1,511 words | NO — untestable off its own passage | NO — untestable off its own passage | the proposition is a count over a specific 1,511-word passage; neither unit is that passage |
| C10 every figure brief, none extended into a conceit | yes | yes | U1's dog-as-fallen-official conceit runs across two paragraphs and is the one place an extended figure exists; U2 continues it (valóságos magánzó lesz a kutyatársadalomban) |
| C11 named particulars carry the texture in place of figuration | yes | yes | Glogova, Szlávik Péter, Bimbó, Bjela-Voda, Visztula, Bélyi János |
| C12 named particulars not glossed for the reader | yes | yes | egyházfi, reverenda, almázia, köcsög, Bjela-Voda and the Vistula/Biela-Voda joke each invite an explanatory gloss |
| C13 very short and one-sentence paragraphs used structurally | yes | yes | U1 ¶4 and ¶6 are single utterances; U2's A szegény fiatal pap elmosolyodott. and – Miféle kutya ez? are one-line paragraphs |
| C14 forty-eight paragraphs across 1,511 words | NO — untestable off its own passage | NO — untestable off its own passage | as C09 |
| C15 obscenity flat, unattributed, without authorial comment | NO — the source supplies none | NO — the source supplies none | neither unit contains obscenity |
| C16 standard contractions everywhere, exposition as well as speech | yes | yes | as M04, and the two catalogues agree here — recorded so that agreement is not mistaken for a decision |
| C17 sentence length varies widely, unpatterned | yes | yes | U1's 91-word dog sentence against ¶4's 10 words; U2's 39-word churchwarden speech against its 5-word paragraphs |
| C18 a narratorial presence perceptible but with no idiolect that can be pointed at | yes — and it is the unit's hardest site | yes — and it is the unit's hardest site | Mikszáth's narrator does have an idiolect (the parenthetical aside, the no ugyan kár volt shrug). C18 and M10 pull in opposite directions on the same material, which is the sharpest opposition either unit supplies |
| C19 no sound play, orthographic play or typographic device beyond paragraphing | yes | yes | the parenthesis in U1 and the guillemets in U2 are typographic devices in the source; keeping or dissolving them is a decision |
Counts, recorded now so they cannot be adjusted later
| opportunities, U1 | opportunities, U2 | |
|---|---|---|
| P (M01–M11) | 9 of 11 | 7 of 11 |
| C (C01–C19) | 15 of 19 | 15 of 19 |
Propositions with no opportunity in either unit: M07, M11, C07, C09, C14, C15. A rendering that does not exhibit these is not thereby a failure to install them.