Do not hesitate to post a comment if you see a mistake!
NOTE : If the sentence does not belong to anyone and you know how to correct the mistake, feel free to correct it without posting any comment. You will have to adopt the sentence before you can edit it.
Important! You are about to add a translation to the sentence above. If you do not understand this sentence, click on "Cancel" to display everything again, and then click on the sentence that you understand and want to translate from.
Please do not forget capital letters and punctuation! Thank you.
@NNC: The Japanese says that “the home” (meaning the people living in it) subscribes to a newspaper. Anyone know whether this can have that meaning?
@Cainntear: Watch out for English-Japanese sentence pairs that were added and linked at an unknown date (see the logs on the right of the translations). These are largely from the Tanaka corpus which has many errors and corrupt translations. Yet others, however, are just archaic or regional usage.
Checking the OED...
Yes, there is an archaic form meaning to subscribe -- there's citations from 1712, 1779 and 1891.
However, it's a phrasal verb -- "take in", not simply "take", so the sentence is definitely wrong.
Even if a deprecated form like this is acceptable here (and I don't see why it should be), looking at the number of erroneous translations I think this sentence is extremely dangerous.
Certainly the French and Spanish are assuming "take" as "get" (two very thick dictionaries have no record of "prendre" or "tomar" as "to subscribe"). Romance speakers who learn English quite often use "take" inappropriately, so this sentence compounds a common error.
@Cainntear: Watch out for English-Japanese sentence pairs that were added and linked at an unknown date (see the logs on the right of the translations). These are largely from the Tanaka corpus which has many errors and corrupt translations. Yet others, however, are just archaic or regional usage.
Yes, there is an archaic form meaning to subscribe -- there's citations from 1712, 1779 and 1891.
However, it's a phrasal verb -- "take in", not simply "take", so the sentence is definitely wrong.
Even if a deprecated form like this is acceptable here (and I don't see why it should be), looking at the number of erroneous translations I think this sentence is extremely dangerous.
Certainly the French and Spanish are assuming "take" as "get" (two very thick dictionaries have no record of "prendre" or "tomar" as "to subscribe"). Romance speakers who learn English quite often use "take" inappropriately, so this sentence compounds a common error.