"The king summons the dancer."
Translation:Sang raja memanggil si penari.
OK, so who is it that requires the title "si," beyond fathers and dancers, and why are we notbrequired to use it in any of the other lessons that use the word "ayah"? Either it is a requirement of the translation or it is not.
OK, so who is it that requires the title "si," beyond fathers and dancers, and why are we notbrequired to use it in any of the other lessons that use the word "ayah"?
Either it is a requirement of the translation or it is not.
'sang' is a sort of a title that we use (in the formal style) to show that we highly respect the person we're referring to.
'si' is also a sort of a title, also used to refer to a specific person (mostly used in informal style).
This sentence shows the difference between 'sang' and 'si', in terms of when to use which, at least that's what I thought.
It's not really a (grammatical or technical) requirement of the translation to include 'sang' / 'si'.
You can omit both titles when translating from EN to ID.
The ID sentence without these words will still be correct in a technical way.
'Raja itu memanggil penari itu.'
'Raja itu memanggil penari.'
'Raja memanggil penari.'
When translating from EN to ID, you can avoid the use of 'sang' / 'si' , and it will still be marked correct.
That's why translating from EN to ID is not very useful for learning 'sang' / 'si'.
Translating such sentences from ID to EN should be easy.
There are no EN equivalents for these words, as far as I know.
'sang' / 'si' can only be translated into EN with 'the'.
'si' is used in this sentence to refer to a speficic person, the dancer, 'si penari'.
Even though the dancer might also be a person held in high respect, the king is 'higher' in ranking/respect.
This sentence shows the difference in terms of respect.
Sang Raja memanggil si penari.
I've seen a sentence where it's used like this:
'Si ayah tidak bekerja.'
For me, that's a strange sentence.
Let me emphasise that it's just my personal view.
So, maybe it's just me, but I've never used 'si ayah' or 'si ibu' when talking about my parents (or somebody else's parents).
I use it to refer to friends/children/familiar people/pets/etc..
It depends on the context, I guess.
From a technical/grammar point of view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
"Sang" makes total sense to me as an honorific. It's "si" I was having a little trouble with. I had thought it was just a lesser honorific, but if I am understanding you right here, it indicates familiarity, right?
Yes, 'familiarity' , I think that's a correct way to describe 'si'.
It's used to refer to someone familiar, but this word doesn't contain an element of respect in it.
'sang' is used to show this element of respect.