What Does the Russian Word Poshlost Really Mean?

[Hornbein]

This is wrong. Schweigen can only somebody who could otherwise speak, ergo persons. The noun das Schweigen means the silence, but I was explicitly talking about the verb.

Alles schweiget, Nachtigallen
locken mit süßen Melodien
Tränen ins Auge, Schwermut ins Herz.

 

[fresh_42]

Alles schweiget, Nachtigallen
locken mit süßen Melodien
Tränen ins Auge, Schwermut ins Herz.

In which case the nightingale is the acting person, or everybody, which means the verb is used as an active one. All do something, in particular the nightingale, namely schweigen. You said everything can schweigen. This is wrong, a tree or a chair cannot.

It is quite simple: You cannot translate "Ich schweige." except you describe it otherwise or use a passive verb. E.g. Google translates it as "I am silent." which is obviously passive.

schweigen = to be silent which is grammatically completely different. That was all I said, there is no correspondence in English. The different grammar implies a different use, and a different meaning.

Edit: "Sie wünschten vermutlich ich shchwiege!" The closest in meaning would be "You wished presumably I shut up!" but this is neither a correct translation nor very nice.

 

[Hornbein]

Indonesian does not have the words brother or sister. Instead they use adik [younger sibling] or kakak [older sibling]. It's partly because you address people older than yourself differently than younger people. When you meet someone often the first question is how old are you.

In Bali people don't usually tell you their name. Instead they give you a title which tells you both their caste and their birth order. In Balinese the different castes are addressed differently. It's so complicated that you have to learn it from earliest childhood to do it correctly. Posted notices and public announcements can't make this distinction so they are done in Indonesian.

If you want to say brother or sister its something like adik perumpuan [younger sibling who is female].

Westerners think that the double word is a plural. That can be but it is usually something else. More often it indicates something that is fake or a toy in a sort of cute way. Like a ship is a kapal so toy ship is a kapal-kapal. Or it can be a word, a dolphin is a lomba-lomba. Such things are always pronounced with accent on the first and last syllable, so KApal-kaPAL.

That reminds me of a sentence I learned from a third grade textbook. Mengapa membanding-bandingkan? [Why make comparisons?] As you can see there's no inhibition about long words. Instead one-syllable words are uncommon.

 

[atyy]

Alles schweiget, Nachtigallen
locken mit süßen Melodien
Tränen ins Auge, Schwermut ins Herz.

In which case the nightingale is the acting person, or everybody, which means the verb is used as an active one. All do something, in particular the nightingale, namely schweigen. You said everything can schweigen. This is wrong, a tree or a chair cannot.

All is silent, but not the nightingales that sing.

 

[atyy]

In the late 1990's, I worked as an ex-pat S/W contractor in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Although English is widely spoken there, I made an effort every day to learn at least one or two new words of Malay/Indonesian (they call it just "Bahasa").

Some of my fellow expats were rather arrogant and dismissive of Bahasa compared to English, citing the way it uses a double-word to express plural. Then one day I became aware that of the words "kita" and "kami" translate (naively) to "we". I asked a Malaysian colleague to explain the distinction, and he actually had to go away for a little while to think about it, then returned with an explanation.

I'm no longer sure, but I'd say "kita" means "everyone here" while "kami" means "our group."

Yes, that's essentially how it was explained to me.

Interesting! I know very badly tiny phrases of Malay from the Singapore national anthem and pledge, and these include "kita" and "kami", but I never knew the distinction. The national anthem is always sung in Malay, never in translation. My knowledge of Malay is essentially zero so I'm mostly singing sounds whose meaning I don't know, although I learned their meaning long ago in school. The pledge is usually said in English, but school children have to say it in the other official languages from time to time (we recite after a leader in that case, since most Singaporeans only know English and one of the other official languages).

National anthem: Mari kita rakyat Singapura
English translation: Come fellow Singaporeans

Pledge: We, the citizens of Singapore,
Malay translation: Kami, warganegara Singapura

 

[atyy]

There's a Malay word or part of a word "lah" that has been adopted into colloquial Singapore English (Singlish). I don't think it is translatable. It's in the national anthem "Majulah", but usually we use it to convey an informal tone.

Wikipedia explains:
"In Malay, 'lah' is used to change a verb into a command or to soften its tone, particularly when usage of the verb may seem impolite. For example, "to drink" is "minum", but "Here, drink!" is "minumlah". Similarly, 'lah' is frequently used with imperatives in Singlish, such as the command, "Drink lah!" (Come on, drink!)."

 

[Hornbein]

Interesting! I know very badly tiny phrases of Malay from the Singapore national anthem and pledge, and these include "kita" and "kami", but I never knew the distinction. The national anthem is always sung in Malay, never in translation. My knowledge of Malay is essentially zero so I'm mostly singing sounds whose meaning I don't know, although I learned their meaning long ago in school. The pledge is usually said in English, but school children have to say it in the other official languages from time to time (we recite after a leader in that case, since most Singaporeans only know English and one of the other official languages).

National anthem: Mari kita rakyat Singapura
English translation: Come fellow Singaporeans

Pledge: We, the citizens of Singapore,
Malay translation: Kami, warganegara Singapura

Would I be correct in guessing that more Singaporeans speak Chinese than Malaysian?

 

[Hornbein]

There's a Malay word or part of a word "lah" that has been adopted into colloquial Singapore English (Singlish). I don't think it is translatable. It's in the national anthem "Majulah", but usually we use it to convey an informal tone.

Wikipedia explains:
"In Malay, 'lah' is used to change a verb into a command or to soften its tone, particularly when usage of the verb may seem impolite. For example, "to drink" is "minum", but "Here, drink!" is "minumlah". Similarly, 'lah' is frequently used with imperatives in Singlish, such as the command, "Drink lah!" (Come on, drink!)."

Yes, its a friendly imperative. Then there's "dong" which like a friendly "duh", as in pointing out that something is obvious. Ice cream vendors on bicycles would play a song that went "lari dong" which means "run, obviously."

Then "aduh" when means ouch, oi veh, oops, and so forth. There's only that one exclamation, while English has quite a few. Well, there's "weh!" which for a while was very popular but didn't seem to mean anything. To me it was more like a nervous tick.

 

[atyy]

Would I be correct in guessing that more Singaporeans speak Chinese than Malaysian?

Yes, although a significant minority of Chinese speak Malay fluently, especially if they grew up in Malaysia or Indonesia.

 

[strangerep]

Then there's "dong" which like a friendly "duh", as in pointing out that something is obvious.

My favorite expression, which I used ONLY towards other expat programmers, was "Otak kelapa!".

 

[Hornbein]

My favorite expression, which I used ONLY towards other expat programmers, was "Otak kelapa!".

Too bad. Kepala kelapa would be a lot more stylish. :-)

 

[fresh_42]

Too bad. Kepala kelapa would be a lot more stylish. :-)

 

[DaveC426913]

There's a Malay word or part of a word "lah" that has been adopted into colloquial Singapore English (Singlish). I don't think it is translatable. It's in the national anthem "Majulah", but usually we use it to convey an informal tone.

Wikipedia explains:
"In Malay, 'lah' is used to change a verb into a command or to soften its tone, particularly when usage of the verb may seem impolite. For example, "to drink" is "minum", but "Here, drink!" is "minumlah". Similarly, 'lah' is frequently used with imperatives in Singlish, such as the command, "Drink lah!" (Come on, drink!)."

While not a direct translation, something that fills that same function is "please", to-wit:

"Drink! Please!"

 

[Mark44]

My wife and I did a walking tour in Slovenia about 10 years ago. Before the trip I studied Slovene for about 6 months. One English word, "we," has no direct translation in Slovene, because that language distinguishes between a group of two people vs. a group of three or more.

We (two people) - medva - literally "we two"
We (three or more) - me

The same concept applies to 2nd person -- you two vs. you (a group of three or more), and 3rd person -- they (two) vs. they (three or more).

While most languages (at least the ones I'm familiar with) distinguish between singular pronouns (e.g. in English I, you, he, she, it) and plural pronouns (we, you, they), Slovene also has the concept of dual pronouns, a concept that was once present in all Slavic languages, but persists now only in Slovene.

 

[green slime]

My understanding is that there are no "untranslatable words." That is words encapsulate concepts in a language that can be described in any other human language. It may take a rather lot of words to adequately describe the concept, but it can be done.

For example, there are languages that lacks words for colours, only referring (for example) to light or dark. Yet the concept of "green" can be described to a speaker of the language as "light like the grass" (for example).

 

[Astronuc]

Yet the concept of "green" can be described to a speaker of the language as "light like the grass" (for example).

Or it could mean brown or tan (sandy colour) depending on location and time of year.

 

[Rive]

It may take a rather lot of words to adequately describe the concept, but it can be done.

I think that's the point. If you have to include a lengthy description in a translation (of some art or even just a sentence) than it's no longer a translation but ... commentary, maybe? So the translation actually failed.

I know there is a special kind of 'translation' when all the notes and references are meticulously included (I don't know how this is called) but again, that has a different title. (*)

Ps of (*): Critical edition. When the language or the context is so foreign, or the source is so broken/diverse that for better understanding all the relevant stuff included - so a few pages of ancient perchament is enough to fill a whole book.

 

[DaveC426913]

Or it could mean brown or tan (sandy colour) depending on location and time of year.

Indeed. And that's not just facetiousness.
'Light like the grass' is a very poor description for 'green'. It's not a translation.

 

[Keith_McClary]

It may take a rather lot of words to adequately describe the concept, but it can be done.

"Dictionary Paradox":
The first word in the dictionary is defined in terms of following words.
Also the second word, and so on.
Therefore, all words can be defined in terms of “Zyzzyva”.

 

[PeroK]

My understanding is that there are no "untranslatable words." That is words encapsulate concepts in a language that can be described in any other human language. It may take a rather lot of words to adequately describe the concept, but it can be done.

That assumes that all languages have sufficient words to describe everything. If a language had only two words - "yes" and "no", say - then a lot of words couldn't be translated into that language.

 

[DaveC426913]

. If a language had only two words - "yes" and "no", say - then a lot of words couldn't be translated into that language

No no no no
No
Yes no yes yes

is "Hey" in Morse code. :)

^{(And a song by the Human Beinz)}

 

[BWV]

Apparently nothing is untranslatable

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/05/finnegans-wake-china-james-joyce-hit

Backed by an elaborate billboard ad campaign, the first volume of "Fennigen de Shouling Ye" sold out its first run of 8,000 copies and reached number two on a prestigious bestseller list in Shanghai, second only to a biography of Deng Xiaoping.

 

[PeroK]

Apparently nothing is untranslatable

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/05/finnegans-wake-china-james-joyce-hit

Someone told me once that one way to understand Finnegan's Wake was to get a translation and what the translator had done gave a big clue to what it all meant. I recall he had a French translation, rather than Chinese.

I should say I've never tried to read it myself.

 

[Hornbein]

John V. Kelleher, one of my professors at Harvard, was a prominent Joyce scholar. He had grown up in Dublin so he could understand it. But he thought FWake was just a mishmosh of in jokes so he didn't like it at all.

I personally couldn't get past the first page. I think Dubliners is one of the greatest works of fiction, but it was all downhill from there. I guess that was too easy for him so he got bored with it. Kelleher's favorite was Portrait of the Artist.

John Coltrane was like that too. I don't know that anyone listens much to his late stuff. Respect yes, listen not.

 

[pinball1970]

Or it could mean brown or tan (sandy colour) depending on location and time of year.

Green leaves means the same thing. Autumn leaves. We should be safe with colour. If the territory is dramatically different a qualifier can inserted when teaching a child regarding the object. Then green is green. Brown is brown.
Otherwise adjectives would not be good enough.

 

[green slime]

That assumes that all languages have sufficient words to describe everything. If a language had only two words - "yes" and "no", say - then a lot of words couldn't be translated into that language.

That is not a language.

 

[PeroK]

That is not a language.

I guess not. What about three words: "yes", "no" and "maybe"?

 

[green slime]

Or it could mean brown or tan (sandy colour) depending on location and time of year.

'twas merely meant as a short example. Sorry for attempting to be brief. Depending on the location and or time of year, it could of course be expanded, and is. In general if the concept is understood, then it is good enough translation.

Linguists do not consider any word "untranslatable." That is something for laypeople to cuddle themselves with. That some words or concepts may be more difficult to translate, is a given. But nothing is untranslatable.

 

[Rive]

We should be safe with colour.

Sure

Ps.: to avoid confusion: I don't know if that cow on the picture is 'real' (I hope not), but I did hear childcare staff complaining about children knowing cows to be purple (due the chocolate, yes: since that's the only form of cow they have seen that age).

 

[green slime]

I guess not. What about three words: "yes", "no" and "maybe"?

Still no. Here's a hint: words are not the sole component of a language.

 

[green slime]

http://scholarpedia.org/article/Language_(linguistics)

"Language sets people apart from all other creatures. Every known human society has had a language and though some nonhumans may be able to communicate with one another in fairly complex ways, none of their communication systems begins to approach language in its ability to convey information. Nor is the transmission of complex and varied information such an integral part of the everyday lives of other creatures. Nor do other communication systems share many of the design features of human language, such as the ability to communicate about events other than in the here and now. "

"If all societies have languages then we may begin to ask in what ways all these languages differ from one another and in what ways they are similar. The first question, asked very early on in the history of the modern study of language, was whether one language is more advanced or evolved or complex than another. The answer is no: there is no obvious way to rank languages on some evolutionary scale: all languages appear to be equal in their expressive capacities. Some languages may have more words than others or may have words for certain notions that are not conventionalized in other languages but no language is inherently incapable of expressing a given proposition. This realization of the equality of natural languages was in turn important in the realization that all humans are equal, regardless of the material, social, economic, and political complexity of the society in which they live. We know that members of the materially most simple societies are equal to members of the materially most advanced societies in no small part because we can find no convincing evidence that the language of one is more advanced than the language of the other."

 

[PeroK]

Still no. Here's a hint: words are not the sole component of a language.

From a purely logical point of view, saying that all words in any language can be translated into any other language will force you:

1) To define a language in those terms. I.e. only something that can achieve that is defined as a language in the first place.

2) Define "translate" to be loose enough to sufficiently ignore shades of meaning.

If you gradually remove words from English, say, then eventually you must start to lose the ability to communicate to some extent.

It's also clear if you read some works in another language that the meaning is never quite captured in translation - even if the translation is good. Reading Franz Kafka or Thomas Mann in German is not the same as reading an English translation. What Thomas Mann does with German simply has no equivalent in English. You may get the broad meaning, of course, but reading the German is a revelation, even if you have seen an English translation.

 

[green slime]

From a purely logical point of view, saying that all words in any language can be translated into any other language will force you:

1) To define a language in those terms. I.e. only something that can achieve that is defined as a language in the first place.

2) Define "translate" to be loose enough to sufficiently ignore shades of meaning.

If you gradually remove words from English, say, then eventually you must start to lose the ability to communicate to some extent.

It's also clear if you read some works in another language that the meaning is never quite captured in translation - even if the translation is good. Reading Franz Kafka or Thomas Mann in German is not the same as reading an English translation. What Thomas Mann does with German simply has no equivalent in English. You may get the broad meaning, of course, but reading the German is a revelation, even if you have seen an English translation.

That is out of topic; which was "untranslatable words."

Langauge is a truly fascinating topic.

The issue is one of context, and even while words are very well translatable, sentences can carry even more meaning, beyond those just in each individual word. For example, previously in reply to Astronuc I was tempted to say "Just an example, Helge." Which is directly translated from the Swedish "Bara ett exempel Helge," but refrained as the lack of cultural context risks it being misunderstood.

Further, there is subtext in the spoken language. Even singular words can acquire even opposite meaning, based on how they are pronounced. "Really," being an obvious example.

Human languages are cultural constructs in societies, things that exist outside the bounds of any single human to dictate. As such, your proposition of gradually removing words is meaningless; languages evolve all time, shedding words, and gaining new ones. Spoken languages die when there are too few people to communicate with, not when there are too few words: People will invent words and grammar if there is a need.

 

[Rive]

That is out of topic; which was "untranslatable words."

Yes. And since the beginning all the nominates came with adequate descriptions.
So either the happily progressing topic itself is paradox and will develop into a logic black hole, or any too extensive rambling about the non-existence of 'untranslatable' is little bit moot here

 

[fluidistic]

http://scholarpedia.org/article/Language_(linguistics)

"Language sets people apart from all other creatures. Every known human society has had a language and though some nonhumans may be able to communicate with one another in fairly complex ways, none of their communication systems begins to approach language in its ability to convey information. Nor is the transmission of complex and varied information such an integral part of the everyday lives of other creatures. Nor do other communication systems share many of the design features of human language, such as the ability to communicate about events other than in the here and now. "

"If all societies have languages then we may begin to ask in what ways all these languages differ from one another and in what ways they are similar. The first question, asked very early on in the history of the modern study of language, was whether one language is more advanced or evolved or complex than another. The answer is no: there is no obvious way to rank languages on some evolutionary scale: all languages appear to be equal in their expressive capacities. Some languages may have more words than others or may have words for certain notions that are not conventionalized in other languages but no language is inherently incapable of expressing a given proposition. This realization of the equality of natural languages was in turn important in the realization that all humans are equal, regardless of the material, social, economic, and political complexity of the society in which they live. We know that members of the materially most simple societies are equal to members of the materially most advanced societies in no small part because we can find no convincing evidence that the language of one is more advanced than the language of the other."

That sucks.
What about Neanderthalians? Wikipedia states, with references, that we do not know the complexity of their languages, if they had any.
In any case, I do not think homo sapiens is different from all other creatures if we consider the now extinct other modern humans.