What Does the Russian Word Poshlost Really Mean?

[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."

language 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.

 

[symbolipoint]

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

Should someone tell us what is the meaning of "language"?

 

[symbolipoint]

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

You see this is why we should have an emoticon indicating "Interesting!".

 

[symbolipoint]

Here is a thought on Translation.

If a sentence is originally made in two words, then a translation should be in no more than three words. If a sentence originally is made in three words, then a translation might be done in three or four or five words. We may have some increased size sentences onward describing the same claim. At some point we should reckon that if an original sentence is made using for example, three words, then if the translation must be done in 25 or more words, then either this is a bad translation, or the original sentence is not translatable.

Now, go ahead and pick at that if you want.

 

[green slime]

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.

There is a lot of speculation around this in Linguistic circles.

One thing modern humans have, that earlier hominids and the other great apes do not, is have a mouth cavity and tongue constructed in such a way, that we are far more likely to swallow our tongue. This of course is quite dangerous; you can die from asphyxiation. It is currently believed, that this evolutionary trait that humans possesses must therefore be connected to some greater advantage: that is, our ability to make a wider array of sounds, especially vowels. Yes, there are linguists examining the skulls of dead ancestors and writing papers on the topic. There are, however, examples of languages with few vowels still existing in the world, such as Khoisan.

Personally, I do not believe language sprung into being with the advent of Homo sapiens 130,000-200,000 years ago (this is merely the minimum age that language must be).

I'm of the opinion, that Neanderthals probably did have a language; I'd go even further, and suggest it goes even further back in time, to around 1,5 - 2 million years during Homo Erectus. But that is just me. I base that purely on fire, tool use: surely these developed alongside the ability to communicate ideas. As I said, a lot of speculation, and utterly no proof, beyond the vast rich complexity of all human languages. The example of fire use is also controversial; little evidence remains after 1,5 million of years, as you can imagine... so even that is debated.

 

[pinball1970]

Sure
View attachment 289137


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).

I did not anticipate a purple cow on pf, spherical? Yes. Purple. No.

colours of the rainbow?

So assuming the purple cow is real, that colour on the cow is that little bit there on the rainbow, A Bolivian kid will agree an Australian kid who will agree with me.

Purple is purple.

However we have to remember purple is still vague in that it does not tell you what kind of purple it is. How much red does it have?

Same with Green and blue when does green gain so much blue it just becomes blue? Think mixing paint

Yellow gaining red to become orange then just red?

I have destroyed my own argument to an extent.

Colour are ball park.

Shapes. A square is always a square right?

 

[symbolipoint]

pinball1970,
Colors should usually for the most part be translatable. What do people in different places recognize depends on what colors they have seen or experienced. Best is, one person show a sample to someone else; and as long as neither these people are color-blind, the person shown can learn that color and name of color.

There were a few brief posts somewhere in Physicsforums telling of Purple Cow as something the author and Mathematician Spivak created idea for. Something which is unlikely, or ridiculously impossible can be called a "Purple Cow". "So you want this, this, and this too? That just won't happen; you're asking for a purple cow."

I did see a purple dog, once.

 

[BillTre]

Colors should usually for the most part be translatable. What do people in different places recognize depends on what colors they have seen or experienced. Best is, one person show a sample to someone else; and as long as neither these people are color-blind, the person shown can learn that color and name of color.

Word for particular colors is a verbal description of the internally observed mental sensation.
The nervous system gets involved and it is no longer simple. Internally observed colors are based on nervous system signals that make "corrections" for things like an objects surroundings or illumination.

The idea of color as a descriptive word starts to lose its meaning for people with varying derees of color blindness. What about for blind people. If they have never seen, it may have no meaning at all.

There were a few brief posts somewhere in Physicsforums telling of Purple Cow as something the author and Mathematician Spivak created idea for. Something which is unlikely, or ridiculously impossible can be called a "Purple Cow". "So you want this, this, and this too? That just won't happen; you're asking for a purple cow."

Clearly, you guys need to dye a cow purple, or use photoshop.

 

[Rive]

There were a few brief posts somewhere in Physicsforums telling of Purple Cow as something the author and Mathematician Spivak created idea for.

Well, on one side I'm glad that the issue with translating colours got such a good example.
On the other side this feels like quite a failure, so please tell me what word would you use to describe this colour:

 

[symbolipoint]

Rive, the color there looks like light blue with a tiny bit of red in it. The STRENGTH of the color changes when I view it from different positions.

 

[Rive]

For me it's in the range of purple, a bit on the blue side.
By Wiki it's 'lilac', which is described as 'a pale violet': violet is closely associated with purple.
By raw search it's often described as pale/light/soft shade of purple.

Well, good luck, translators!

 

[pinball1970]

Well, on one side I'm glad that the issue with translating colours got such a good example.
On the other side this feels like quite a failure, so please tell me what word would you use to describe this colour:
View attachment 289173

I don't have a calibrated screen and presumably we are all using different devices to view the image. On my tablet it's purple on the cow and a pale dull purple round the outside

 

[BWV]

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.

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.

I made an attempt at FW this summer, got about halfway through. I enjoyed Book 1 then got lost and frustrated in Book 2. My goal was just to read it through and enjoy it and not try to analyze every passage. I would read short chapter summaries to sort of know where it was going. The book is written in a sort of dream language, with a heavy nod toward Jung - its a night's sleep for a Scandinavian immigrant pub-owner worried about his ruined reputation after committing some unspecified sex offense in a park. Interestingly for a book written in the 30s, Joyce references television in multiple passages, seemingly prescient on its later importance.

Given the importance of puns (often multilingual) in the book, its hard to see how it works in Mandarin. Chinese puns, as far as I know, are all about either pure homophones or changing the tone of a certain syllable. (this is interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophonic_puns_in_Standard_Chinese).

Im not a huge fan of free Jazz and prefer Wayne Shorter to Coltrane, but the key is just to listen without expectations - most of peoples disconnect with any type of music is not meeting it on its own terms (of course it does not mean you have to like it)

 

[gmax137]

Sure
View attachment 289137


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).

This one is real, I've seen it in person...

 

[sbrothy]

Should someone tell us what is the meaning of "language"?

Robert Sapolsky has some interesting things to say about the connection between the FOX2P gene and language. Appearently pidgin languages all have similar grammar. I can't remember which lecture I heard it in but this would probably be a good start (this one and "Schizophrenia"):



btw, he has a wonderful articulate way of speaking. He never says "er", or "um". He just "drones" on. :)

Robert Sapolsky.Angry, but surprisingly articulate.

 

[symbolipoint]

post #119 from @sbrothy
A little hard to follow and seems to cover too many topics, and that is just up to about 18 minutes through the video timeline. I hope we do not have a quiz afterwards.

I asked for it; hoped a linguist would give us some answers about things been discussed. I wished they could be simpler. In that video, Dr. Sapolsky is a neuroendocrinologist, not a linguist. At least we should be aware, Linguistics is multidisciplinary.

About 30 minutes in, Sapolsky talks about brain damage and strokes and aphasia but I am stopping now; can not keep up...