Language desk
< December 21	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 23 >

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 22

креатура (Russian! :)

Hello. I want to use the word 'креатура' in Russian. I've found it means creature, but also minion or henchman. If I wanted to say for example minions of (X) with 'креатура' (e.g. "minions of God"), how would it be? I tried using an online translator, but it uses Russian words other than креатура, and I don't understand from the translations how the 'of' or the plural work in Russian, so that's why I'm asking here :) I would appreciate a short explanation of these and any other grammatical rules needed to understand the translation. Thanks in advance! :3 190.157.136.97 (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'креатура' does not mean creature / minion / henchman. There is no such word as 'креатура' in proper Russian at all. You may use 'креатура' as a transliteration of the English word 'creature' in any sense or context the word 'creature' is used. However, that won't make it a Russian word; it will still be an importation, a loanword. It may enter Russian eventually as a neologism, but I doubt it. Now, there are many words in Russian that correspond to the English word 'minion'. Different Russian words for 'minion' express different degrees of derision, so you should choose wisely. I can not suggest anything without knowing the context... --Dr Dima (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why do several dictionaries say the word does exist then, like here, here, here, and here? Did all of them make it up? And from where would they get the 'minion/henchman' meaning? What does this mean??? 190.157.136.97 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Oxford Russian-English Dictionary (1972 edition) has 'креатура', meaning "creature, minion". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, my 1997 edition of the ORED doesn't have креатура but it doesn't have an entry for "minion." and создание is the only translation for "creature." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

В.К.Мюллер's Англо-Русский Словарь (Moscow, Russian Language Publishers, 17th ed, 1977) gives 'креатура' as the 2nd meanings of both "minion" and "henchman". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your original question, the (nominative) plural of 'креатура' is 'креатуры'. "Of God" is the genitive of 'Бог', viz. 'Бога'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I believe I understand now... one last question: is the genitive singular of 'креатура', well, 'креатура'? :) 190.157.136.97 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the same as the nominative plural, 'креатуры'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, it's because it's feminine... thanks again :3 190.157.136.97 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to use 'креатура' as a feminine noun, the declension for the singular form would be as follows. Imenitelnyi (nominative) - 'креатура', roditelnyi (genetive) - 'креатуры', datelnyi (dative) - 'креатуре', vinitelnyi (accusative) - 'креатуру', tvoritelnyi (instrumental) - 'креатурой', predlozhnyi (prepositional) - 'креатуре'. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The declension of креатура is at wikt:ru:креатура. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeit macht frei - translation

Is there a generally accepted English translation of Arbeit macht frei, used by historians? A glance at the revision history of that article shows frequent changes to the translation.

A while ago it read "[Arbeit macht frei] literally translates [sic] 'Work Makes Free'", so I changed the verb "translates" to "has the word-for-word meaning", since "Work Makes Free" is a sequence of word glosses rather than a translation; and anyway, we should not use "translate" in this way as an intransitive verb because translation is an active process. But soon afterwards, "Work Makes Free" was replaced by "Work will set you free", but still with the description "word-for-word meaning", which it is not. Then there is a second attempt for good measure - "Labour liberates" - so the whole thing is clearly in need of some expert attention.

I hope we can find a stable solution that is based on actual, verifiable usage by historians and translators, instead of attempting the translation ourselves. Lfh (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most literal translation is "Work makes free". This is the only translation that I think can be acceptable as "word-for-word". The translation "labour liberates" takes too much translators' licence into account. "Work will set you free" is perhaps the best translation, as it makes more sense in english than the blocky "work makes free". A quick search on google shows approx 4460000 hits for "arbeit macht frei", 15900 for "work makes free", 211000 for "work will set you free", and 956 for "labour liberates".

My suggestion to the article's opening sentence is to change "work will set you free" to "work makes free" and change "labour liberates" to " work will set you free". I'll go ahead and make this and see if anyone objects. Them From Space 17:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Lfh said, "work makes free" is not a translation. It's a gloss. kwami (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "literal translation". It's like Vaya con Dios is literally "Go with God" in Spanish, and the English idiom is "May God be with you." It's useful to have both, to better understand how words are put together in another language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to "Work makes free", as long as we mark it for what it is (be that "gloss" or "literal translation"). But whether or not we have "Work makes free", we should have an actual translation too, and I would like to know if translators and historians have ever reached a consensus or if it remains debated (like Das Judenthum in der Musik). And if the latter, how should we cover the issue? Lfh (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In newspapers over the past few days, I have seen only "work makes you free" or "work will set you free". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in as an inhouse translator for a historical archive, I can offer "work makes [one] free" as a rendition faithful to the German~~, and within ten hours shall return here with the version used in the English-language edition of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust published by Yad Vashem, a highly authoritative academic source~~. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and from the English-language edition of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, vol.4, p.1751 (Glossary), published by Yad Vashem, a highly authoritative academic source:

"Arbeit macht frei" ("Work liberates") Slogan above the entrance gate to Auschwitz I and other concentration camps.

-- Deborahjay (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deborahjay (and everyone). I'll add this translation and reference to the article, and also add a note asking people not to change it without good reason. Lfh (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also frequently heard it translated as "work brings freedom", a looser translation perhaps but maintains the three word pithiness of the original meltBanana 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]