In translation, at least, there are two things to consider: semantics and modality. Semantics refers to the meaning of words comprising a text; modality refers to the mode or expression of the text. Translating the meaning of words in a text is easier than translating the modality of the text. It may be possible to render precise equivalent in terms of lexical meaning; but it is not always possible to render precise equivalent in terms of modality. When a text is translated into English in terms of the way the native English speakers express the same ideas contained in the original text, the result may be something like "Englisized." In this case, suppose the lexical meaning is rendered precisely, the modality found in the original text (the one being traslated) is lost, or mutated into an English modality. And, since modality, which is the mode or manner of expression in certain language, is a kind of "signature" of the speaker in one's original language, it is supposed to be preserved. Thus, one has to render precise translation in terms of lexical meaning as well as in terms of modality. But, if in rendering precise lexical meaning, the modality is lost, it would be better to render only precise lexical meaning without sacrificing modality, because this is the "signature" of the speaker. If one's signature is lost, then it can be said that one's language is lost to another, and one's identity, i.e., as a Cebuano as the case may be. Now, it seems that the translation renders a kind of modality that is not found in the original text. It seems that oi and oh are not exactly equivalent. In Cebuano, especially conversational Cebuano, the speakers are used to omit subjects; it is just natural for us speakers. And, there is an addition of a word which cannot be seen in the original text, not even by implication, i.e., the conjunction.

jose