Language desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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.

September 9

Famous English Quotations in Other Languages

Are famous quotations in English, as "famous" in other languages?

For example, Neil Armstrong saying "One small set for (a) man, etc....", surely that would have been translated more or less instantaneously into the languages of the many other countries watching the live broadcast.

Did the translator use the correct phrasing, could there have been a better way to say it? Important speeches are normally reviewed and re-written many times in order to sound as good as possible, however, a translator would have no such luxury.

Also, the whole point of a quotation, is the actual words uttered by the famous person.....not by the translator

If we look at it the other way around, when Diego Maradona famously scored using his hand, he called it "la mano de Dios", which is a fairly straightforward translation into English - "the Hand of God"

However, can we consider words which do not have a direct translation e.g. Nixon saying "I am not a crook". "Crook" could be described as a slang phrase in English, which perhaps does not have an exact equivalent in other languages

Also, for languages which use different characters (e.g. Chinese), surely there are many ways that English phrases could be written — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 11:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Jaseywasey (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Sweden, both the English quotation and the Swedish translation are used. It depends, I think, mostly upon the audience. For instance, the Swedish radio news also has to be understandable for those who do not speak English, so the original remark is followed by the Swedish translation. Lova Falk talk 11:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia has the "We shall fight them on the beaches...." speech rendered as "Wir werden auf den Stränden kämpfen...."; something which might causea few professionally annoyed people reason to seethe. doktorb _words^deeds 11:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better translation? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that a translation which used a transitive rather than an intransitive verb, and included an accusative pronoun, would be preferable to a reader who wished for the German to correspond more closely and literally with the English. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@doktorb: The German article translates "We shall fight on the beaches", a version without "them" given in the English Wikipedia, Wikiquote and Wikisource. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In German, you are not, usually, auf (on) the beach, but an ("at") the beach. So Churchill might be better rendered as "Wir werden sie an den Stränden bekämpfen...". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My old Petite Larousse edition has a "Locutions Latines et Étrangères" section printed on pink pages. It's brief expressions, not long quotes, but it gives an idea of what phrases Frenchmen of 50 years ago might be expected to be familiar with. English phrases include "All right", "At home", "English spoken"[sic], "For ever!"[sic], "Go ahead", "God save the King!", "Honest Iago", Much ado about nothing", "Remember!", "Rule, Britannia", "Self-made man", "Shocking", "Struggle for life", "That is the question", "The right man in the right place", "Time is money", "To be or not to be", and "Up to date". AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Honest Iago"? How have I managed to live this long without ever hearing that term? μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite able to grasp what your question is. It seems you are asking two questions: The first is whether quotes that are famous in English are famous in other langauges; and the second is, if this is the case, how are those quotes translated.

My answer to the first question is that depending on what the quote is, it may, or may not, be famous in other languages. Armstrong's statement on the moon, is (probably) famous in other languages as well, because this was a watershed of a moment in human history. Other quotes are not as likely to be famous in other languages, simply because the context in which they were said make them irrelevant. Bush's promise of 'read my lips, no new taxes' probably isn't that relevant to people in other cultures, so it is therefore not as famous, if known at all. What might be very poignant in one context, may not be so in another.

When it comes to translating quotes, I think there are multiple ways in which this is done. With quotes in books, obviously, when someone translates the book, he also translates the quote, and people can use that quote. And, just as with the book, the translator isn't seen as the person who wrote the story, but merely the one who translated it. (I.e. Tolstoy's works translated into English, are still seen to be Tolstoy's works, although somebody translated them.) As for one-liners used by politicians and other celebrities, my guess would be that there might be multiple translations available at first (e.g. one for each newspaper), but that with time, habit reduces that to one set phrase. And, you don't even need to go to languages using different scripts, even other languages using the Latin script could still have multiple, valid translations of a single English phrase. V85 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"To be or not to be" is famous enough in other languages to have an article in 14 other languages' Wikipedias. Pais (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I Have a Dream" has more than 30 interlanguage links. Oda Mari (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that was just finger trouble in the original question, but in case not, it should be "one small step for (a) man". 86.179.6.23 (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"God Save the Queen" with 70 interwikis seems to be widely known. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If national anthems are well-known in other countries at all, it's usually under their original names and incipits: "Deutschland, über Alles" (never "Germany, above all), "La Marseillaise" [Allons, enfants de la patrie, Le jour de gloire est arrivée] (never "Let's make tracks, kids of the fatherland, The day of glory has arrived"). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Marseillaise would translate as "The Marseillian", not "Let's go kids of the fatherland". But nothing beats Spasi, Hospodi, Lyudi Tvoya and the extended version. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was of course "translating" the incipit, Allons, enfants de la patrie, not the title. I think you know that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously, my concern was for people not familiar with French or the song or its history. BTW, my nephews love it when I sing the Marseillan. 22:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, O Anonymous One. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be puzzled by a mention of "The Marseillian" out of context. —Tamfang (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To what base uses...

The following is one of the passages in The Human Bondage by W. S. Maugham. Please teach me the meaning of “To what base uses…” Thank you in advance. -- Nobuhiko

"I see you're a journalist," said Philip. "What papers d'you write for?" "I write for all the papers. You cannot open a paper without seeing some of my writing." There was one by the side of the bed and reaching for it he pointed out an advertisement. In large letters was the name of a firm well-known to Philip, Lynn and Sedley, Regent Street, London; and below, in type smaller but still of some magnitude, was the dogmatic statement: Procrastinationis the Thief of Time. Then a question, startling because of its reasonableness: Why not order today? There was a repetition, in large letters, like the hammering of conscience on a murderer's heart: Why not? Then, boldly: Thousands of pairs of gloves from the leading markets of the world at astounding prices. Thousands of pairs of stockings from the most reliable manufacturers of the universe at sensational reductions. Finally the question recurred, but flung now like a challenging gauntlet in the lists: Why not order today? "I'm the press representative of Lynn and Sedley." He gave a little wave of his beautiful hand. "To what base uses..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.5.231.89 (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the above passages is that, although he calls himself a journalist, he earns his money from writing advertising copy for Lynn and Sedley, which he regards as beneath him. In that case, "base uses" describes writing adverts, as opposed to "higher uses" which would be something like investigative journalism. ICBW. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's specifically an allusion to Hamlet: "To what base uses we may return, Horatio!" (act 5, scene 1—a few speeches after the "Alas, poor Yorick" bit). Deor (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy's is the correct literal interpretation. Gotta love Shakespeare though, most brilliant writer ever, and the main reason English speakers should study English. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern speakers/readers are most familiar with the word "base" in its various noun or verb senses, which is why the above passage may be confusing, as it uses the word "base" not as a noun or verb, but in its in semi-archaic (at least, in the sense that such a usage is rare in common modern everyday speech) sense as an adjective meaning something like "vulgar". The quote "to what base uses..." thus means something like "to what vulgar uses...". —SeekingAnswers (reply) 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Base", in this context, means not only "vulgar" in the sense of "common", but low and contemptible as well. (Don't get this uppity peasant started on class bias built into English vocabulary.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It survives in the term base metal, for some reason. Card Zero (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more to do with character than with class. Base as an adjective means "low", and the richest guy in the world can be an utter low-life, while the poorest man in the world can be a saint. Meanwhile, I'm reminded of this line from Man of La Mancha: "...thou bleak and unbearable world, Thou art base and debauched as can be..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Gaelic userbox

Hi, I've been creating userboxes for Irish radio and television recently, and would like to do one for TG4; and because the channel is predominantly Gaelic speaking I thought it would be good to use Gaelic language for the box. So, how would I say "This user watches TG4"? Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breathnaíonn an t-úsáideoir seo ar TG4. Angr (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox now available at {{User TG4}}. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing systems

What's it called when a language's spoken form has changed to the point where it doesn't match up with the written form any more (e.g. Tibetan)? --168.7.236.91 (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that there's a commonly-used single word term for it, but linguists use terms such as "opacity" or "diglossia" in related contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, diglossia. Unfortunately that article itself is quite opaque to the lay reader, and conflates diglossia and bilingualism. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a technical term, but I would call it an 'antiquated orthography', alternatively, you could simply say its orthography is non-phonemic. Depending on the principles underlying the 'antiquated orthography' (and I don't know Tibetan, at all, so I can't say whether this applies for that language), it could be a deep orthography. V85 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know no Tibetan, but there is a huge divergence between Classical Tibetan and Standard Tibetan For example, the Classical Tibetan transcribed "Dbus-gtsang skad" is pronounced [ýʔtsáŋ kɛʔ], which might also be written "Ü-tsang kä". μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Baile Átha Cliath is pronounced [blʲaˈklʲiə]... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's a proper name; it's no different from pronouncing Cholmondeley "Chumley". Regular Irish words aren't that far removed from their spellings, especially not since the spelling reforms of the 1940s. The Irish name for eclipsis is pronounced [uru:] and is spelled urú, but it used to be spelled urdhubhadh. Anyway, "diglossia" is certainly not a name for the phenomenon of a language's spoken form no longer matching up with the written form, though of course there can be overlap between the two phenomena. Swiss German and Standard German exist in diglossia in Switzerland, but Swiss German has never corresponded to written Standard German. Angr (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Irish is just a little further gone down the deep orthography path than English. It's not really a case of diglossia where there are two Irish standards. But all these phenomena are related. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, people talk about the changes in Tibetan pronunciation as if that's all there is; I can imagine that the pronunciation has changed radically but all other aspects of the language have been frozen, so that sufficiently sophisticated text-to-speech rules produce perfectly normal modern output — but it seems highly unlikely! —Tamfang (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Lee's trilled German ells

In this appearance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwfodiDYpBI of Peggy Lee on the original What's My Line?, she affects German speech to disguise her voice. When she pronounces ja wohl she 'trills' her ells. How is this described phonetically? Is it typical for German? μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not typical for German. It sounds to me like she's "trilling" the vowel rather than the /l/ itself. It sounds like she's making the uvular trill [ʀ] while shaping her mouth to produce the resonant frequencies of [o], which is probably the best vowel for doing that, since the tongue is already pretty close to the uvula for [o]. I can make that sound easily (let's transcribe it [oᴿ]), and [ɑᴿ] is pretty easy too, but [uᴿ] is harder, and I can't produce [iᴿ] or [eᴿ] at all. In both well and jawohl she uses a heavily velarized dark l, which is doesn't exist in German at all (at least not standard German; maybe some dialects have it). Angr (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange trill indeed. I find [oᴿ] (or [ɔᴿ], which I think is more like the video) and [uᴿ] the easiest to produce, [ɑᴿ] still fairly easy, and [iᴿ] and [eᴿ] more or less impossible; I end up producing [iʀ] or [eʀ] instead. I don't think I've ever heard this in actual German speech, but I know a German language professor I can ask about this. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Asked my German professor about this. He says that while that is by no means standard German, and would not be heard in most places, this sort of pronunciation can be heard every once in a while in some southern (e.g. Bavarian) dialects. Definitely a regional thing, though, and rather uncommon. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video is eight minutes long. Want to give us a clue of where to listen? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the beginning. The first occasion is at about 0:50, and she does it a few more times in the following minute. Angr (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, without knowing her or him before I thought that her jawoll has a Scandinavian sound quality of the o and the ll, whereas his jawohl at 1:01 is German. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be surprising since her father was Swedish-American and her mother was Norwegian-American. She may have been imitating the way her elderly relatives spoke. Angr (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best example is just after 2:00 in the video, but it is worth watching from the beginning, which is why I didn't specify a time. She explains after they guess her identity that she was interested in accents, and that she grew up around German immigrants. To me its an almost perfect Marlene Dietrich impersonation[1], although the trill seems like a stage voice. One of the zexiest appeawances I haff seen on TV in a long time. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Shakespears wording

In Shakespears Play, Twelvth Night, ther is a reference to a word i am unfarmilar with. When asking Sir Toby Belch If their conspiricy devices have worked successfully to Mislead Malvolio,He is specifically asked"Did it work" and he replied, " Like Aquavitie to a Midwife". What did Shakespear have reference to when using the word, AQUAVITIE? The word is Pronounced, AQUA-VEE-TY, in the Play, but i am unsure of the proper Spelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.134.244 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

aqua vitae. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

try Aqua vitae and see if that helps. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~To the point, Aqua vitae is basically distilled alcohol, and midwives use it as a disinfectant. --Jayron32 23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't think that's what Shakespeare had in mind. This excerpt explains it well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. --Jayron32 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting side note, the original Latin pronunciation would be /akʷa witɛ/ or /akʷa witaj/, depending on the exact time period; other pronunciations are a product of Anglicization, use of the Italian-influenced ecclesiastical pronunciation, or both. The article on Latin spelling and pronunciation goes into quite a bit of detail on some of this. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]