Language desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 25[edit]

Spanish question[edit]

Hi! The text "So I’m blackmailing you for something sexual in nature." in English (it is a part of a speech on sextortion). Would that be "Así que te estoy chantajeando por algo sexual." or "por algo sexual en natureza"? I'm working on making a draft of Commons:TimedText:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg.en.srt in Spanish at Commons:File_talk:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg (if you want to add to it, please feel free) with the final destination being Commons:TimedText:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg.es.srt Thanks

Pues, te extorsiono por algo de carácter sexual. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. "Pues" would be used in place of "so" as in "so I am doing this" WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I assumed you were using "so" as a connector, like "well". (When I try to play the ogg my browser crashes.) If it actually means "thus" in the original sentence then another term like "entonces" or "por eso" might be more appropriate. Así normally and rather literally means "like this". See google translate. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Do you feel that sometimes you have to listen to the whole thing (even if you have the English transcript) to get the tones that the announcer is using? (there is a download for the interview, at http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/february/sextortion_021012/sextortion.mp3 ) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having listened to the file, I would say stick with Pues, or perhaps go with Es decir,--literally "That is to say,". A literal translation is a bit odd as well because in Spanish one would be much more likely to use an infinitive phrase than to couch it in the first person, although that's okay if you want to be very literal. I would say, "Es decir, extorcionar a alguien por algo de carácter sexual." μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll work on more of the file and try to post a draft here so others can take a look and do what they need :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this sentence from[edit]

I googled it and I found no result "In it is God's glory to hide, man's pride to unravel" or some variation of it.--95.82.51.62 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well where did you find it? Rcsprinter (rap) @ 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proverbs 25:2. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." [1]. Tevildo (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was written on a board in lab.--Irrational number (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "Hand" means in "Hand of the Heavenly Brider".[edit]

Hello. There is a game titled Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride in English version, and the original Japanese name is "Dragon Quest V Tenkuu no Hanayome" (ドラゴンクエストV 天空の花嫁). I know "Tenkuu no Hanayome" means closely with "Heavenly Bride", but why translated it into English, it's bride's hand, not herself? PS: In game, players can (and must) choose one heaven blood bride from two or three (depended on platforms), and some plot-releated items about hand are just figure rings. I didn't find bride's hand is special...--Torwiththeipbe (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the OED says, one sense of hand involves a hand's use "in various ways in making a promise or oath; spec[ifically] as the symbol of troth-plight in marriage; pledge of marriage; bestowal in marriage". Thus a man can be said to ask for a woman's hand (ask that she promise to marry him), a woman can be said to give her hand in marriage, and so forth. It might be considered a form of metonymy. Deor (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of colonel and lieutenant[edit]

Why is the pronunciation of words "colonel" and "lieutenant" different from what they should be? 106.209.193.70 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For "colonel", check out the "origins" here. For lieutenant, it is less clear, but still gives the origin of the /f/ in the British English pronunciation (though I don't pronounce it that way; I'm from the US). The spellings "lieu" and "tenant" come from French, which pronounces these words wildly differently than we do in English. American English seems to pronounce "lieutenant" slightly closer to the way that it would be pronounced in French. For colonel, it seems that there were two different words; one ended up being retained in writing, the other in speaking. Falconus^{p t c} 15:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Colonel comes from two different spellings/pronunciations of the same word. The original usage was as the leader of a "column" of troops, from the Italian word "colonnella", which in Middle French had been changed in spelling to "coronel". The modern spelling & pronunciation comes from a merger of the two forms. See [2] and [3] and [4]. There are a few etymologies that say that the "coronel" form comes from the word "crown" (corona) (i.e. [5]), but I think this may be a "folk etymology", as most of the more reliable etymology sources (OED, Miriam Webster) don't mention it, and instead just indicate the pronunciation change as occurring naturally in Middle French. --Jayron32 15:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why then does this not sound "cornel", but "curnel"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, I lived with a guy from Kentucky, and we called him 'The Colonel', but I started calling him 'The Kernel', because he was a nutcase. (Same pronunciation in my non-rhotic dialect). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same pronunciation in rhotic accents too. Angr (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, since spoken language is primary and written language is but a poor imitation of it, the question is not why the pronunciation is different from what it should be (it isn't, it's exactly what it should be), the question is why the spelling is different from what it should be. Angr (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you mean by "should". There are some languages where there's virtually a one-to-one correspondence between letters (or defined groups of letters) and sounds. English is definitely not such a language. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ger>Eng. Unter Menschen[edit]

Is there any possible translation into English that would preserve the play on word of the original? OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean "Untermenschen" as one word, I think "sub-human" is usual. filelakeshoe (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a good translation that would preserve the word play (unter Menschen also meaning "among people" or "among humans"). However, I'm not sure that most Germans are even aware of the word play, since the word was generally used quite unambiguously to mean "subhumans". (Also, the ambiguity disappears in spoken German, because the accent in Untermenschen is on the first syllable, whereas in unter Menschen it's on the first syllable of Menschen.) So I'm not sure there is much point in trying to preserve a double meaning. Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that context should make it clear what meaning is intended. For an analogous situation in English, consider:

"That dining room set is notable because it belonged to George Washington."
"That dining room set has no table, and thus I would never purchase it."

The difference in meaning between "notable" and "no table" is clear from both context and stress in the words, and I think a similar situation exists in the German for the terms "unter menschen" meaning "among people" and "untermenschen" meaning "subhuman". --Jayron32 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do believe the author of the documentary Unter Menschen indeed wanted to associate both meanings: among people, animals are treated as subhumans. For more information see [6]. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) Jayron32 is right that the pronunciation of Untermenschen and unter Menschen are different, but only in the placement of stress, not really in the shapes of the consonants or vowels; whereas the difference in pronunciation is much sharper between notable and no table. Also, the components of unter Menschen and Untermenschen are etymologically and phonologically (apart from stress) identical, whereas those of notable and no table are not. A better English analogy might be undergarments and under garments, as in "under garments there are naked bodies." 2) While it is easier to make a wordplay out of Untermenschen than notable/no table, the documentary producer had to separate the word components (into Unter Menschen) to make the wordplay evident. The producer did this to make a connection that I don't think is immediately apparent to a German speaker from the word Untermenschen. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In human and inhuman might work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do translators know when to translate literally or figuratively?[edit]

If a nonreligious Chinese woman says something that is borderline religious and borderline idiomatic, "老天爷", would the translator translate it figuratively or literally? If taken literally, I am afraid that would automatically send a misleading message that the Chinese woman is religious, even though she is not. She does not believe in 老天爷 or an old sky man (literal translation). Taken figuratively, one may assume that she believes in Tian, the sky god in Shenism, even though she is nonreligious and atheistic. Perhaps, a good translation would be "Oh, dear!" However, there is a problem, when the person approaches borderline religiosity by treating "老天爷" as a person based on societal-cultural learning (without the worship stuff) and may use the idiom to mean that the "old sky man" is going to strike you with lightning. As this point, how would a translator be able to translate the phrase, or would the translator's translation always be his or her opinion based on what he or she thinks it is saying without knowing the exact intent? 140.254.226.233 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good translator would try to preserve as much of the original as possible. In this case, there are similar expressions in English. Originally, they were religiously inspired exclamations, and they still may be used religiously, but for most people they have lost their religious meaning and are just exclamations. In this case, I would think that "Oh, God!" or "Oh my God!" might be the best translation, assuming that this expression still has any religious coloring in Chinese. (I don't know enough Chinese to know this.) If the expression rarely or never carries any religious coloring today, than "Oh dear!" might be better. Good translation always involves the exercise of judgment on the part of the translator, and a good translator really needs to be conversant in both cultures, not just both languages, precisely so that he or she can make accurate judgments in cases like this. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I think that is the function of a biblical translator. A biblical translator may need to learn the ancient languages in order to decipher the Bible and also study the culture behind the text, if that is possible. However, that may involve the assumption that the biblical cultures are real or truthful in that the authors did not just write whatever they want in it without prior consensus from the society in which they lived. I am not sure how one is going to understand a culture, once a culture becomes extinguished or assimilated into another culture. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good translator, like any good writer, is always thinking about the reader. A literal translation carries more of the flavor of the original, but that's useless if the majority of readers won't be able to understand the message. The trick is to find a way of translating that both maintains the flavor of the original and also can be understood by readers. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Google Translate thinks that the said term means "God". Unfortunately, it's taking the term out of context and not considering the speaker's disposition. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the translator needs to know the audience, and translate specifically for that audience. Some audiences want the translation to be technically accurate, and don't care about things like tone, while others are the opposite. Unfortunately, this means you really need multiple translations for different audiences. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this just means that a person may never really understand the Bible until he or she learns the ancient languages and the culture in which the Bible was written. That may take years of academic study or loads of spare time (if such a person does it recreationally). Another method is to find a good pastor or priest with a firm background in the area you are interested in and an interest in preaching what you are interested in and a graduate from a well-qualified theological seminary (maybe Harvard Divinity School). However, that may involve actually attending church and listening to the sermons or homilies. A denomination may color one's thinking, so many pastors from many denominations may be better. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get yourself a good annotated Bible (like the Oxford Annotated Bible), where scholars who do speak the original languages have already done all the work to figure out what the original meant. Unfortunately, on some points, even the experts don't agree, so you will get multiple opinions on what some things mean. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Looie496 and I really disagree. Of course, the translator needs to think of his or her readers, and when I said that a translator should preserve as much of the original as possible, I meant as much as possible without impairing readers' comprehension. If the goal is not to preserve the meaning of the original, then it is not really a translation, but perhaps a loose paraphrase or an independent work loosely derived from a work in a different language. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good translator with any sense would ask the source client first, if there is any doubt. "Heavens above" would be a decent translation of the Chinese phrase used here, as it has a neutral feeling to it. Paraphrasing is not a problem. I work full-time as a translator and interpreter, and the rule is, so long as you get the meaning across, that's enough. There is no need to translate everything literally, because sometimes it will be meaningless to the target client, not having the cultural background knowledge. You need to keep that flavour. I once read an English version of the very popular sunday TV show Sazae-san and the translation was absolutely awful, written by someone who was very likely to be rather upper class, even though it was a story about a working class family. Rule of thumb: when in doubt, ask out. Ask your client. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]