Note from a credentialled professional Danish-English translator: I probably would have translated the reporter's question as, "So, if Trump really wants Greenland, he's going to have to invade to get it?" and Løkke's reply as, "He's not going to get Greenland. And that's why I'm not going to stand here and give him a recipe for how to get something he's not going to get." (Note: career professional Danish-English translator here.) One could discuss whether it was intentional or not that the last "skal have" in Løkke's answer was not simply a repetition of the same modal verb phrase, but intentional, because one could absolutely also understand that last bit to mean - or at least have connotations of - "something we're not going to give him" or "something we don't think he should have."
Note from a credentialled professional Danish-English translator: I probably would have translated the reporter's question as, "So, if Trump really wants Greenland, he's going to have to invade to get it?" and Løkke's reply as, "He's not going to get Greenland. And that's why I'm not going to stand here and give him a recipe for how to get something he's not going to get."
One could discuss whether that the last "skal have" in Løkke's answer could be interpreted as more than simply a repetition of the modal verb phrase, because one could absolutely also understand that last bit to mean - or at least have connotations of - "something we're not going to give him" or "something we don't think he should have."
Agree. I probably should have chosen more idiomatic English (get). Sometimes I think a more literal translation gives a Danish flavor, but here it sounds a little stilted or weird.
Still, depending on the intonation, one might say, "I WILL have that island!"
Love it!! Keep it up! That "WILL" is UK usage, too (= must have, strong intention)! Contrasts with the UK use of "shall", which in the first and third person merely indicates future tense: e.g. "I shall soon stop lecturing you on grammar." Whereas "you/they shall leave now", means "you/they have to go now" - weird, isn't it?)
Yes, "you shall leave now" - an order. "They" IS the third person, but "they" might be a sort of disguised second person. "They" are present and are told to leave without even the courtesy of direct address.
Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches..." uses "shall" to indicate strong intention, determination, defiance.
Note from a credentialled professional Danish-English translator: I probably would have translated the reporter's question as, "So, if Trump really wants Greenland, he's going to have to invade to get it?" and Løkke's reply as, "He's not going to get Greenland. And that's why I'm not going to stand here and give him a recipe for how to get something he's not going to get." (Note: career professional Danish-English translator here.) One could discuss whether it was intentional or not that the last "skal have" in Løkke's answer was not simply a repetition of the same modal verb phrase, but intentional, because one could absolutely also understand that last bit to mean - or at least have connotations of - "something we're not going to give him" or "something we don't think he should have."
Same credentialled professional translator can only plead time constraints as a lack of a copy editor on her unnecessarily repetitious comment. Arrgh.
Corrected copy:
Note from a credentialled professional Danish-English translator: I probably would have translated the reporter's question as, "So, if Trump really wants Greenland, he's going to have to invade to get it?" and Løkke's reply as, "He's not going to get Greenland. And that's why I'm not going to stand here and give him a recipe for how to get something he's not going to get."
One could discuss whether that the last "skal have" in Løkke's answer could be interpreted as more than simply a repetition of the modal verb phrase, because one could absolutely also understand that last bit to mean - or at least have connotations of - "something we're not going to give him" or "something we don't think he should have."
Just keeping you on your toes, Dee.
Agree. I probably should have chosen more idiomatic English (get). Sometimes I think a more literal translation gives a Danish flavor, but here it sounds a little stilted or weird.
Still, depending on the intonation, one might say, "I WILL have that island!"
Love it!! Keep it up! That "WILL" is UK usage, too (= must have, strong intention)! Contrasts with the UK use of "shall", which in the first and third person merely indicates future tense: e.g. "I shall soon stop lecturing you on grammar." Whereas "you/they shall leave now", means "you/they have to go now" - weird, isn't it?)
Yes, "you shall leave now" - an order. "They" IS the third person, but "they" might be a sort of disguised second person. "They" are present and are told to leave without even the courtesy of direct address.
Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches..." uses "shall" to indicate strong intention, determination, defiance.