Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 26

Are there words in other languages that cannot be translated into english?

This question is inspired by what I read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denmark/Archive_1#Danish_mottos

I would have thought that if a translator spent enough time explaining the sense of a foreign word that eventually its meaning could be understood. ExitRight (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, by "can't be translated", they mean there isn't a single word or short phrase with the same meaning. It's always possible to describe something, but it may take quite a few sentences to do so. Translating "tree" into the Inuit language was probably like that once, although by now I'm sure they have adopted a word for tree. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not finding the meaning of these words which is difficult, "but rather conveying their cultural connotations and overtones", as Jurga Zilinskiene is quoted in the article on Ilunga (a word which apparently 'means' "a person who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate it a second time, but never a third time"). I think the same applies to the Danish example you gave. See also untranslatability for more scope. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

as a court translator i find this question disconcerting, when there isn't an exact translation there is a definition of a word, and that definition can always be translated, and if a particular word in the definition cannot be translated, well i just find a synonym, the idea that some words cannot be translated is rather defeatist, however, with regards to translation losses footnotes must be used, i.e. i.e. thing and china rhyme in spanish, or a word that has a double meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.82.231 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This term "court translator" [sic] is ambiguous: please note the distinction made in English between translation of written texts vs. interpreting oral language - e.g. "simultaneous" or "consecutive" interpreting. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

...or perhaps s/he helps umpires explain line calls to players who don't speak English...? :) Grutness...wha? 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Or for the seat of nobility. Whichever court you like, the point is still that translation is written, interpreting is oral. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that any individual word in untranslatable. The only thing I've seen that was untranslatable was puns. Those aren't individual words, though. It is almost always impossible to keep the pun in a translation. Wrad (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, any play on words. Also metaphors may require the substition of a culturally appropriate equivalent. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Schadenfreude. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so, we have gloating and then there's sadism which is one-sided fun. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And for that matter we have schadenfreude. --Anon, 07:50 UTC, December 26, 2008.

schadenfreude = scathespride (verbatim) -lysdexia 12:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for words which don't have a one-word translation into English, many words dealing with family relations seem absent in English. For example, many other languages have distinct words for "male cousin" and "aunt on your mother's side". StuRat (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember hearing somewhere that the Tibetan language doesn't have a word for squeeze play. I imagine that certain tactics used in Tibetan sports likewise can't be translated into English except by using a definition. Joeldl (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone who actually knows Chinese can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Chinese actually has words for four different kinds of aunts: mother's older sister, mother's younger sister, father's older sister, and father's younger sister. I don't know what they do about aunts by marriage, who are also simply called "aunt" in English. —Angr 15:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There are certain words and phrases which cannot be directly translated (which is why people mention schadenfreude above), and we have calques, of course. But from my understanding ALL languages are almost impossible to translate without losing some of hte original meaning. Isn't "sleepless night" in French "nuit blanche"?

doktorb _words^deeds 15:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese "natsukashii" comes to mind. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes two words without explanation are used for this: "good times" usually repeated: "good times, good times" implying nostalgic longing for "the good old days". Julia Rossi (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are an absolute ton of words in other languages that cannot be translated simply and exactly into English. In many cases, we don't feel there's much of a need for them a lot of the time, and can explain them with a few words to get the general gist (even though some might be very useful, such as the differentiation in Maori between "we" meaning "us but not you" and "we" meaning "us and you"). Often, though, we do something that English is very good at - we add in loan words. Rather than attempting to translate, we bring in words directly from other languages to aid in the concept. That's one reason why English has sets of seemingly identically-translateable terms with subtle differences of meaning (compare "knowhow" and "savoir faire"). Having the ability to simply add words from different sources allows phrases to be more readily understood, as well as adding a certain je ne sais quoi and mana to the language. We may miss out on the schadenfreude of seeing someone trying to translate something where no equivalent term exists, but it enables us to navigate the cwms and fjords of the lingustic map and come to some metaphorical rapprochement with the intended meaning. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese 'setsunai' (a bitter/sweet feeling of sadness upon the departure of a loved one) is another one I have never found a good translation for, as well as 'yappari', which basically means 'just as could/should have been expected'.--KageTora (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yappari = Snafu ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not realy :) Snafu is inevitably referring to a bad situation, whereas yappari doesn't necessarily have to imply a bad turn out of events. You can just as well be completely detached from something and still go "well, that was to be expected, wasn't it?" (i.e., yappari, ne). TomorrowTime (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers says "cruel" for setsunai and What is yappari? says "of course" or "you know?" for yappari. I say "wretched" and "duh". -lysdexia 12:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the example given on the "What is yappari" page is a bit dodgy (the spelling mistake could be unintentional, the crude alignment of speech registers is a bit more worrisome), so I wouldn't put utter faith in the page... The author of that entry seems (hastily surmised from the one page I read, granted) to have a basic grasp of Japanese, but not beyond that. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about not being able to translate word into English, but I know that some English words cannot be translated into another language. Most (all?) Slavic languages don't have concept of articles. I speak Croatian myself, and there is simply now way to translate "a" and "the" into Croatian. Not with single word, and VERY hard if not impossible with definitions. Croatian speakers simply cannot comprehend concept of articles. And they are often hardest thing to master for Croatians learning English.--Melmann^(talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Vidi brata Hrvata :) Nice to see someone from my neck of the woods on this board. I'm Slovene, and I can confirm what Melmann says - articles are in effect realised in different paradygms of word declanations in Slavic languages (or at least, the South Slavic ones), and learners of English around here often have a hard time deciding whether to use "a", "an" or "the". On the other hand, there are Easter egg bonuses, such as the "The Two Towers" example described in bulletin number 7. of this, now unfortunately defunct blog's FAQ: http://www.carniola.org/stop-asking TomorrowTime (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Bulgarian has articles. In other Slavic languages, articles in English, French, etc., can still in some instances be translated by using words meaning "this," "that," or "one." Interestingly, word order can also sometimes fulfill this purpose. For example, in Russian, you have Kniga ležit na stole, meaning "The book is on the table" (literally "Book lies on table"), but Na stole ležit kniga, meaning "A book is on the table" (literally "On table lies book"). Joeldl (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When I address this problem with speakers of slavic languages I invite them to consider a as a kind of weakened one, and (much more importantly) the as a weakened that. In Serbian, for example, ona devojčica means that girl, and jedna devojčica means one girl. A Serbian can ask herself which she would say, if forced to add either ona or jedna before devojčica, in a sentence in her native language. If ona, then the will very likely be apt in English; if jedna, then a may be apt. Of course, it doesn't always work. The behaviour of indefinite and definite articles is a subtle and complex matter, and those languages that do robustly have them treat them differently: je suis professeur, but I am a teacher; la vérité est la beauté, but truth is beauty. Interestingly though, indefinite articles are often identical in form with one (as in the Romance languages), and typically originate as the same item; and definite articles originate as demonstrative adjectives or pronouns. In Homeric Greek the forms that emerge in classical Greek as definite articles (like τό) are demonstratives (see Ancient_Greek_grammar#The_article).

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there do exist untranslatable words and phrases. I once borrowed a book of lists from the local library that listed a bunch of untranslatable words. I remember one of them was an Italian phrase literally meaning "reheated cabbage" (perhaps cavolo riscaldato, but I'm not sure since I don't have the book and used an online translator). It roughly means a relationship that has been ended and then restarted, something unworkable. There is also a famous Chinese phrase (pinyin máo dùn, not sure of how it's written) that literally means roughly "sword shield". It comes from an ancient story that someone was showing a sword that could destroy buildings, as well as a shield that could protect against any type of attack. Then someone asked "what if you used your own sword against your shield, what would happen"? The person who was showing the equipment left, for there was a problem. If the sword could break the shield, that means the shield is inferior, and if the sword couldn't break the shield, then the sword was inferior. The phrase roughly means a big problem. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the Chinese phrase, It came from an episode in the fourth section in the 難一 chapter in Han Feizi (book). 楚人有鬻楯與矛者，譽之曰：‘吾楯之堅，莫能陷也。’又譽其矛曰：‘吾矛之利，於物無不陷也。’或曰：‘以子之矛陷子之楯，何如？’其人弗能應也。In Japanese, it's 矛盾/むじゅん/mujun and the meaning is contradiction and inconsistency. The letter 矛 is a pike or a spear and 盾 is a shield. Oda Mari (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that some language has a verb meaning "To look at each other expecting the other party to do that which both want to be done, but neither feels like taking the initiative to do", which was said to be the most meaningful single word in the world. What language was that? JIP | Talk 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between the literal meaning and definition of a word, the equivalent meaning in English and the usage of the word in the context of it's native language. That's why there is a difference between a translation and a localization of a text. (... and why good translators inform their clients what local version of the target language they are going to use. I would never offer to translate to BE.) Consider e.g. the simple German phrase

• "Er fühlte sich wie Rummenigge nach einem Elfmeter."
• Literally: He felt like Rummenigge after an eleven meter.
• Adjusted for the fact that this is a term from soccer: He felt like Rummenigge after a penalty kick.
• Adjusted for use of tense: He was feeling like Rummenigge after a penalty kick. You could now add explanations that Rummenigge is a well known former soccer player in Germany and what a penalty kick is. A localization, however would convey the intended effect of the phrase to the target audience:
• Localized: He was feeling like Babe Ruth after a home run.

There are lots of German terms that are untranslatable in their entire scope of meaning. In German "im Allgemeinen" (in general) or "grundsätzlich" (basikcally) are often inserted to convey precision and attention to detail. The equivalent terms in English often have the opposite effect of conveying a feeling that there are other, more detailed cases that the author is just not telling us about here. "Verpflichtet" (obligated) and "verantwortlich" (responsible/ in charge of) are other terms that have quite a different feel to them in English than they do in German. This often leads to translated texts sounding officious, and people unfamiliar with local culture getting a wrong idea as to what a text means. The same is true for many other languages.

When English speakers encountered Native American medicine men the function these individuals occupied within their society was so alien to the new arrivals that medicine man was the closest they could come to comprehending the concept. A whole array of professions as diverse as preacher, fortune teller, teacher, government adviser and doctor were comprised in this one individuals occupation due to a culture that didn't distinguish between concepts like "spiritual" and "scientific" that were considered distinct or inconsistent by the people looking for an English term to describe them.

Colors are another thing that can lead to wrong ideas in translations. Things like "mauve", turquoise, maroon and "taupe" can be almost impossible to convey with any precision. Not to mention the cultural significance of certain colors in the local context.

There was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that I found very interesting where Troy explained that when she would point at a mug and utter "mug" an alien might understand that to mean either "vessel", "hot" or "liquid" depending on their own concept of the idea. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: JIP: That language is the Yaghan language with only one remaining native speaker. The word is Mamihlapinatapai and it's also in the Guiness Book of World Records 2006 pg. 140-something. Also I seem to perfectly understand the meaning of the word by the translation although linguists find it challenging to translate it. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Gemütlichkeit. Saudade fits also. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm surprised nobody's mentioned poetry, particularly rhyming verse. Sure, you can get a reasonable approximation of the meaning of the words and sentences, but you usually lose the underlying sense conveyed by the rhyme, which is an inherent component of the poem. Or, you can find rhyming words in the target language, but at the cost of the precise meaning. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The book Le Ton beau de Marot, page 443, quotes the following previously published sentence in the Dutch language.

Dit pangram bevat vijf a's, twee b's, twee c's, drie d's, zesenveertig e's, vijf f's, vier g's, twee h's, vijftien i's, vier j's, een k, twee l's, twee m's, zeventien n's, een o, twee p's, een q, zeven r's, vierentwintig s's, zestien t's, een u, elf v's, acht w's, een x, een y, en zes z's.

Here is the literal meaning in English, but the meaning is false for the English sentence.

This pangram contains five a's, two b's, two c's, three d's, forty-six e's, five f's, four g's, two h's, fifteen i's, four j's, one k, two l's, two m's, seventeen n's, one o, two p's, one q, seven r's, twenty-four s's, sixteen t's, one u, eleven v's, eight w's, one x, one y, and six z's.

The following English sentence, from page 444, is true.

This pangram contains four a's, one b, two c's, one d, thirty e's, six f's, five g's, seven h's, eleven i's,, one j, one k, two l's, two m's, eighteen n's, fifteen o's, two p's, one q, five r's, twenty-seven s's, eighteen t's, two u's, seven v's, eight w's, two x's, three y's, & one z.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I italicized the title of the book and I wikified the word pangram. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I corrected my incorrect spelling of "contains". -- Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the same book has the English anagram

"ELEVEN AND TWO = TWELVE AND ONE"

and the Italian equation

"ami + amo = amiamo"

(meaning "you [singular] love + I love = we love").

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

English has a tendency of stealing - er - loan wording and never checking the due date - such words, unless, as in the above German examples, they're large, gestaltish words; I think the reason being that they are too large to fit under our coat when visiting the neighbors. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese translation request

Hello WP:RD, happy holidays!

I found a translation　for this song, but it makes these two lines related. I was thinking that they're not related:
素顔をとり戻せるのは。。。
私は染められていくの。。。

translation:
It’s because I’m being stained like this
That I can be direct again…

They come up again in the chorus:
※素顔をとり戻せるのは
あなただけ
そのまなざしだけで
私は染められていくの
指先まで すべて※

I think I understand the chorus, but not 染められていく. The translation uses simply "stained". I can't find the potential form and the te form being used together in my reference books. But I feel like it's not just "stained" because of the いく, maybe something more like "I can go change my [true] colors".

Oops, could it be the passive form there, 染められて? "I'm being dyed"?

Thank you for your help Louis Waweru  Talk  06:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Word by word: 素顔(honest/honesty)を(particle denoting verb object)とり戻せる(to be able to restore/to be able to take back)のは(particle combination with a meaning similar to "is" in this case)。。。
Meaning: "[The fact that I am] able to go back to being honest is [because]..."
Word by word: 私[I]は[Subject-denoting particle]染められて["to dye" passive: "to be dyed"]いく["to go", when combined with another verb (to dye) denotes that the action will take place "from hereon") の[particle denoting an explanation, in this case]。。。
Meaning: "...I will be dyed [my true colors] from now on"

Thus:
From now on I will be dyed, that is why I can retake my honesty.

Or a slightly less literal translation that makes more sense in English:
From now on I will let my true colors dye me, and be honest once more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.7.70 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay...the way you put it makes sense. I couldn't make sense of the original translation. TY Louis Waweru  Talk  23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If literally translate '素顔をとり戻せるのはあなただけ', it would be 'only you can bring back my true colors'. Or 'I can be myself only when I'm with you' could be possible. Yes, 染められて is the passive form and means I'm being dyed. The English translation, 'My uncertain heart can last to tomorrow' is wrong. It should be 'My uncertain heart would be left yesterday' or 'I can send my uncertain heart to yesterday'. Personally, I think it's a terrible lyric. Oda Mari (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks Oda Mari. I was thinking along the same lines. I had it as something like "this uncertain heart will be a thing of the past". Louis Waweru  Talk  23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

January 1 or 1 January

• I want to start my work from January 1
• I want to start my work from 1 January
• I want to start my work from 1st January
• I want to start my work from January 1st

Which is correct in above statements? Thank you--202.168.229.245 (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They're all correct. The choice between them is stylistic. —Angr 10:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this depend on the local culture? In the US, you would either say 1 or 4, not 2 or 3. In most (all?) European cultures, the day comes before the month so it would be 2 or 3, not 1 or 4. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but in the US you would say "I want to start my work on ...". Would others say "from" ? StuRat (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Our friend seems to be in Bangladesh. To start one's work "from" a date is unidiomatic where I am (New Jersey, USA), but not by much. We'd most likely put it "I want to start my work beginning on...", if "my work" is actually called for. I suspect that our friend meant something more like "I want to start work on January first" or "I want to start my new job on January first."

The question of how to write the date is a matter of style, pure and simple, as Angr said. I, personally, like to write so as to be read aloud, and everybody I know would say "January first" or "the first of January". So, idiomaticity aside, "I want to start my work from January 1st" is right. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 3 is ever correct. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a UK speaker, none of these are correct in my idiom. The way I'd phrase it would be either:

• I want to start my work on January the 1st or
• I want to start my work on the 1st of January .

The definite article is not optional for me, but in casual speech it's more often elided to just a [d] or [t], depending on the voicing of surrounding sounds, so it might sound like it's not there. And using 'from' in this sentence is definitely unidiomatic too; ditto using cardinal numbers ('one') rather than ordinal ('first'). 79.78.46.63 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that written expressions are not always spoken exactly as they're written, and vice-versa, and this is a classic case. If I received a business letter containing the sentence "I want to start my work from 1 January", and I read the letter out loud, I would say "I want to start my work from the first of January". If I were dictating such a sentence, I'd also say the words "the first of January", because that's the most natural expression for me, but I'd expect whoever typed it up to write "1 January". If they spelled it out word for word, I'd sack them. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct?

Some people feel a terrible pain by high art. Is this sentence correct? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.182.61 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. If you mean "Some people suffer pains while in proximity to art work", then it's right. However, this seems like an odd thing to say. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean, some people "are moved by" high art? People may feel emotional when in awe of a work of high art. An example sometimes given: Mark Rothko#The Chapel's works that apparently, acted on the viewer subliminally. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You can't feel pain "by" anything, except in the unlikely literal definition of "by" as "next to". I can't believe you meant StuRat's correct but literal intepretation, but I'm not sure what you did mean. "High art causes some people terrible pain" would at least be idiomatic, and if you mean Duchamp's sculpture, I'm one of those people. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to hijack, but is that sentence factually true? Can people feel physical pain by seeing work of art (or anything for that matter, apart of strong light and flashing, I know that can cause pain and seizure).--Melmann^(talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The author might have tried to make an analogy to the term "death by ..." as in these examples - /recent.html;jsessionid=8E927B5A161D4B5716B10DB30CFEC0EB?method=Search - [1] - [2]. The usage is derived from reports on causes of death e.g. for statistical purposes {see Lists of people by cause of death. The author might have attempted to indicate that rather than suffering death the "victims" were subjected to pain [3], [4], [5] caused by works of modern art. If this was the intention the author evidently failed in using language to communicate with his/her audience. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)