tl;dr I live (sort of – more accurately, I live between places) in continental Europe and I have noticed that it is very easy for me to confuse non-native English speakers by using either a...
tl;dr
Do not beat about the bush with idioms when it comes to making your meaning clear
I live (sort of – more accurately, I live between places) in continental Europe and I have noticed that it is very easy for me to confuse non-native English speakers by using either a plethora (which is a word that apparently sounds pretentious but I think is rather lovely) of esoteric words or a lot of idioms (or worse, Shakespeare quotes).
I do love the fact that the English language (like all languages, this isn't at all specific to English) is so varied and can be used at many different levels (from less to more sophisticated – more sophisticated is not "better" or worse), but I agree that when organising meetings or conferences it is curteous to restrict oneself to a more limited vocabulary and to use fewer metaphors/idioms.
One thing that I will actually defend which continental Europeans do not like is euphemism and heavy indirection (following social norms). It makes it possible to communicate earnst criticism by taking some of the heat out of it. People argue for example that Anglo types are less direct than Germans, but I don't think this is really true. For example English-speakers (especially of the British middle-class persuasion) will use lots of window dressing (idiom, oops) when communicating criticism or negativity. Of course to someone who isn't used to this and adjusted to the social norms, this sounds like an inability to be direct. However, most native English speakers understand that these phrases don't mean exactly what they ostensibly say on the tin (another idiom, oops) and actually convey a lot more negativity.
I think it's quite fun that one can exchange insults with someone while sounding very polite at the same time.
I think it's important to point out that some native speakers may have this easier than others. An anecdotal example: I'm from the rural Southern US, a region where indirection and carefully...
I think it's important to point out that some native speakers may have this easier than others.
An anecdotal example: I'm from the rural Southern US, a region where indirection and carefully phrasing things to not offend people is important - to the point where speaking too plainly will absolutely offend people, especially older speakers. It's extremely difficult for me not to use idioms, metaphors, and indirect suggestion (not to mention suppressing my regional accent!) especially when trying hard to be polite - I have to actively concentrate to do all this.
That said, I don't mean that it's not important to do it! Of course we should accommodate people the best we can, especially in a business setting. I just think it's worth noting that the skill doesn't come with equal levels of difficulty across dialects of English and that not all native speakers will have the same experiences - everyone's English is at least slightly different from everyone else's.
As for myself, I work in tech where being able to speak plainly to non-native speakers is a very important skill for me to have. But it can take a lot out of me after a while.
Edit: Also, the region I'm from is famous for having little old ladies insult you so sharply and so cleanly that you have no idea anyone was being nasty to you - "bless your heart" and all that. :) You'd probably find it fun!
I live in the Midwest US (which oddly is middle of the whole country, not middle of the western half) and I'm amazed at how often native speakers don't know the origin of idioms. Just yesterday...
I live in the Midwest US (which oddly is middle of the whole country, not middle of the western half) and I'm amazed at how often native speakers don't know the origin of idioms.
Just yesterday someone used "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Of course they understood that it means don't criticize a gift, but they didn't understand why that idiom means that.
It really goes to show how we use them almost subconsciously
If it makes everyone think of male genitalia, does it really matter what the actual origin is? If you find yourself needing to explain repeatedly “No, no, it’s a reference to aviation throttles...
If it makes everyone think of male genitalia, does it really matter what the actual origin is? If you find yourself needing to explain repeatedly “No, no, it’s a reference to aviation throttles not testicles, you incurious dolt!”, it seems reasonable to prefer an alternative phrasing that doesn’t make everyone think of balls. Unless that’s intended. I mean, it’s clear at this point that it makes everyone think of balls.
The point of language is communication, and if you like using phrases like “balls to the wall”, you should at least be aware that a good chunk of your audience will think you’re using an idiom...
The point of language is communication, and if you like using phrases like “balls to the wall”, you should at least be aware that a good chunk of your audience will think you’re using an idiom that refers to testicles. If you’re fine with communicating that, then by all means use it.
There are many, many ways to translate a given idea into words. Personally, I have no problems with avoiding balls-based idioms in my speech.
As with all communication, I think it’s up to all participants to strive for common understanding. If you’ve never had a single person communicate (or allude to, or quietly snicker at) a potential...
How much responsibility does an audience share though?
As with all communication, I think it’s up to all participants to strive for common understanding.
If you’ve never had a single person communicate (or allude to, or quietly snicker at) a potential pitfall with you (you personally, not a generalised person) about the use of that phrase, I’m not expecting you to read minds.
But if you have had these qualms brought to your attention and you continue to use the phrase because you don’t believe that another person’s interpretation is worth adjusting your language for, then that’s on you.
I’m not telling you whether you’re correct here or not, by the way; that’s for you to examine your own behaviour and accept it if you can, or change it if you can’t.
Neither of those sound quite as much like male genitalia as "balls to the wall", because the first is transparent in origin to most english speakers (at least the ones familiar with sport) and the...
Neither of those sound quite as much like male genitalia as "balls to the wall", because the first is transparent in origin to most english speakers (at least the ones familiar with sport) and the other is a technical word that there is no ready replacement for that people just learn the first time they hear it.
(for transparency, I'm a relatively educated Australian English speaker. I would not be 100% sure of what "balls to the wall" meant out of context, and it absolutely sounds as crass to my ear in the same way that something like "sweating my tits off" does)
Okay, but for the sake of conversation, imagine it didn't. Imagine that since the first time you heard the phrase, you had a mental image of bowling balls rolling across the floor of a trunk of a...
Okay, but for the sake of conversation, imagine it didn't. Imagine that since the first time you heard the phrase, you had a mental image of bowling balls rolling across the floor of a trunk of a car. That seems reasonable to me. That person cannot possibly predict which of these spherical metaphors will evoke nonsensical allusion to genitalia. Now what? Who is the incidental reference hurting? Who is more right in their misinterpretation? Both are ahistorical, one is more popular, but the innocuous one is both more in-line with usage and less popular. Is that speaker somehow failing to communicate more than the people who have an image of testicles...being pressed against a wall?
As with all things language, it's fluid and depends on your audience. Once you know that it likely evokes that image for a lot of people, you have a choice whether you want to do that or not....
As with all things language, it's fluid and depends on your audience. Once you know that it likely evokes that image for a lot of people, you have a choice whether you want to do that or not. Listeners don't have a choice though, a phrase evokes what it evokes.
I don't see why we would talk about hypothetical crass interpretations of phrases no-one has that problem with though, that seems pretty boring...
Listeners absolutely have a choice, they can decide to leave it at the first impression level of evocation or they can spend some time wondering and researching because they think something is...
Listeners absolutely have a choice, they can decide to leave it at the first impression level of evocation or they can spend some time wondering and researching because they think something is weird. They can also disengage or get mad or whatever they want. The writer isn't manifesting thoughts in the reader's head.
I'm lucky I married an inquisitive woman, we often look up etymology and idiom origins together and have a fun dive into the why of things. We've even branched into other languages now, mostly...
I'm lucky I married an inquisitive woman, we often look up etymology and idiom origins together and have a fun dive into the why of things. We've even branched into other languages now, mostly German/Japanese/Vietnamese and sometimes French (cuz Canada). There's so many interesting tidbits buried deep down, I don't understand why anybody wouldn't be curious!
My mental organization (or lack thereof, thanks ADHD!) doesn't allow me to pull out any specific examples, but once something triggers a memory, I'll suddenly have a vast amount of knowledge about the subject.
Dam's up on the Red River - a Winnipeger lamenting their partner's menstruation Barn door's open - a kind person alerting another that their pants zipper is low
Dam's up on the Red River - a Winnipeger lamenting their partner's menstruation
Barn door's open - a kind person alerting another that their pants zipper is low
These are “dead metaphors” for which the implicit analogy is mostly lost. Sure, you could look it up or explain it, but it’s often better writing to skip the metaphor or come up with a new one.
These are “dead metaphors” for which the implicit analogy is mostly lost. Sure, you could look it up or explain it, but it’s often better writing to skip the metaphor or come up with a new one.
…or keep using it if it's already widely understood. Works better for local publication than for international business communications, obviously. To address @orlox's point about the lack of...
…or keep using it if it's already widely understood. Works better for local publication than for international business communications, obviously.
To address @orlox's point about the lack of curiosity, it's like a fish being apathetic about water. It's what is and will always be; what else is there to question? Some scientifically-minded fish may care, but the school will remain indifferent until pollution changes their water for the worse.
Sorry about that. Transposition errors are the worst: one of 'em sneaks in and the entire post is urined. The one change I do support from that is moving away from master/slave toward more...
That’s Olrox, sir. From Castlevania.
Sorry about that. Transposition errors are the worst: one of 'em sneaks in and the entire post is urined.
If they’re going to be prescriptive toward our supposed negative impact toward people’s feelings, at least figure out if the impact is meaningful.
… Stanford IT thing
The one change I do support from that is moving away from master/slave toward more specific and accurate analogies: master/replica, controller/worker, etc…
Most of the rest seems to be designed to impress people who aren't metaphorically in the room.
One of my best friends uses a wheelchair. His opinion on handicapable language is, "fuck you, I'm a cripple." My favorite is chromosome collector. But changing the signs provides jobs for...
I get somewhat irritated at people demanding that we stop calling it “wheelchair bound” and instead use “person who uses a wheelchair” since it doesn’t really do much to protect the person in the wheelchair
One of my best friends uses a wheelchair. His opinion on handicapable language is, "fuck you, I'm a cripple."
degrading euphemisms for mentally retarded
My favorite is chromosome collector.
Do we truly believe that replacing “felon” with “justice-involved person” will solve the issues faced by most people in the system?
But changing the signs provides jobs for sign-makers as well as sensitivity consultants.
I have no idea if this was true, as it supposedly happened long before I had the capacity to pay attention. There was allegedly a coordinated push to rename GLBT to LGBT. Almost all the major GLBT rights organizations wasted money reprinting stationery to show solidarity with the new arrangement of letters.
master/slave
Even without such loaded historical baggage, it's best replaced due to a lack of specificity. Is this master/replica (or primary/replica), scheduler/worker, or something else? Both use the master/slave dichotomy, yet they have different technical implications.
Cold enough to freeze the balls off of a brass monkey - shelves that held cannonballs were called 'monkeys' and were constructed from brass, which was prone to shrinking in cold weather, causing...
Cold enough to freeze the balls off of a brass monkey - shelves that held cannonballs were called 'monkeys' and were constructed from brass, which was prone to shrinking in cold weather, causing the artillery to fall off. No primate genitalia intended.
While we're on the topic, I noticed an earlier comment of yours I just wanted to point out that "read it and weep" is sometimes used as a taunting phrase. I figure you don't mean anything...
I just wanted to point out that "read it and weep" is sometimes used as a taunting phrase. I figure you don't mean anything malicious by it but it did strike me as a bit odd.
Ah I meant it in the most literal way (that it is bad) rather than as a poker-derived idiom (one problem with idioms is that it is easy to sometimes accidentally stumble upon one). I have edited...
I just wanted to point out that "read it and weep" is sometimes used as a taunting phrase. I figure you don't mean anything malicious by it but it did strike me as a bit odd.
Ah I meant it in the most literal way (that it is bad) rather than as a poker-derived idiom (one problem with idioms is that it is easy to sometimes accidentally stumble upon one). I have edited the post to clarify it.
Idioms and set phrases can make translation to other languages tough. I've found having a dictionary of idioms is essential once you start translating articles and such. Even just common...
Idioms and set phrases can make translation to other languages tough. I've found having a dictionary of idioms is essential once you start translating articles and such. Even just common collocations like "burnt down" or "under arrest" send me to the dictionary because they're not things you'd literally translate, and it would sound wacky if you did. Thankfully I picked Japanese to learn, and for all it's insane learning curve, one thing it does have is a gigantic market of remarkably advanced, pocketable electronic dictionaries that make looking those up a cinch.
Yes, there was another FT article about a book in which a fictional translator is wrestling with the phrase from a letter to the FT where faggot refers to a kind of meatball and not its use an a slur.
Yes, there was another FT article about a book in which a fictional translator is wrestling with the phrase
For some 30 years, I have been observing native English speakers being misunderstood by “foreigners”. Michael Skapinker’s advice (“How native English speakers can stop confusing everyone else”, FT.com November 3) is excellent: avoid phrasal verbs, idiomatic and colloquial language. Perhaps a classic is the fictional Japanese translator of a gritty northern English novel in David Lodge’s book Small World, wrestling with the phrase: “Bugger me, but I feel like some faggots tonight.”
Hm, I actually don't think that's a particularly hard sentence to translate, or an example realy of what either article was talking about. That's more of a case of the meaning of words shifting...
Hm, I actually don't think that's a particularly hard sentence to translate, or an example realy of what either article was talking about. That's more of a case of the meaning of words shifting over time, which is something that happens with all natural languages. Faggots use to mean other things, now it has a distinctly different meaning which makes that sentence shocking at first glance.
But a) it's fairly easy to realize within the context of the sentence that, if "faggot" was used a derogatory synonym for gay people, the sentence makes no sense and b) to then pull out a dictionary and move down the list of definitions until something edible appears.
It's not a tricky colloquialism or idiom where two meanings can both be legitimate, but one is what the author meant, and what natives readers would infer, and the other is plausible but wrong. It's just definitions shifting around.
I can confirm that while my electronic dictionary has the English meaning in question, it has no suggestions or example sentences for how that would be translated in Japanese. I’d be stuck either...
I can confirm that while my electronic dictionary has the English meaning in question, it has no suggestions or example sentences for how that would be translated in Japanese. I’d be stuck either using miitoboru or getting descriptive about the specific type of meatball, both of which would lose meaning. It does suggest ひえー驚いた for “bugger me,” though, and that’s kind of amusing that there’s an entry for that.
Edit: Now I’m just laughing that Google Translate comes back with 私をブッガー!
This absolutely is not the case for this sentence. "Bugger" literally means "to penetrate in anal sex" when used as a verb -- even though that's obviously not what most Northern Englishmen mean...
a) it's fairly easy to realize within the context of the sentence that, if "faggot" was used a derogatory synonym for gay people, the sentence makes no sense
This absolutely is not the case for this sentence. "Bugger" literally means "to penetrate in anal sex" when used as a verb -- even though that's obviously not what most Northern Englishmen mean when they use "Bugger me!" as an exclamation, it's not even an antiquated meaning. It comes up if you google the word even. I could absolutely hear this sentence from someone who actually meant "Damn, I'm horny, let's go cruising for gay sex."
I love the English language as well, for many similar reasons as yours. Still, your style of writing at least in this one comment is difficult to follow. The main reason IMO is structure more than...
I love the English language as well, for many similar reasons as yours. Still, your style of writing at least in this one comment is difficult to follow. The main reason IMO is structure more than vocabulary: the amount of parentheses, and the path you take to make your point.
It’s possible to use very advanced vocabulary and not lose readers, if the structure of your text is easy to follow. This is what sets really good writers apart: structure is almost invisible to the common reader, and can empower them to understand beyond their level.
Yes I have terrible writing structure. My professional writing structure is quite a bit better mostly because I spend a lot of time editing. On Tildes I tend to write in a more stream of...
Yes I have terrible writing structure. My professional writing structure is quite a bit better mostly because I spend a lot of time editing. On Tildes I tend to write in a more stream of consciousness manner, with only a little editing to remove the most egregious errors. Unfortunately as I write I tend to have lots of different thoughts, and thus get sidetracked trying to write them all down.
I know the feeling! I'm much the same. It takes a lot of effort to pause, think about what I'm going to write, edit it, etc. I think I might make this my next year's theme.
I know the feeling! I'm much the same. It takes a lot of effort to pause, think about what I'm going to write, edit it, etc.
I'm another notably bad writer in this regard. The lack of footnote support in almost all online forums forces me to have such convoluted sentences. Instead of a 1 followed by a note down below,...
the amount of parentheses
I'm another notably bad writer in this regard. The lack of footnote support in almost all online forums forces me to have such convoluted sentences. Instead of a 1 followed by a note down below, my sidebars and tangents are inelegantly shoved into the main stream of text.
1 No, this doesn't count. This is manually-constructed and not in-line while typing the above paragraph.
On Hacker News, I got in the habit of writing footnotes by hand, because that's the best way to add a link. It seems like that would work in any fourm?
On Hacker News, I got in the habit of writing footnotes by hand, because that's the best way to add a link. It seems like that would work in any fourm?
It’s an awkward workflow to manually type your anchors and then jump to the notes section compared to \footnote{Meta commentary here} LaTeX-style notes. Further, a proper web implementation of...
It’s an awkward workflow to manually type your anchors and then jump to the notes section compared to \footnote{Meta commentary here} LaTeX-style notes.
Further, a proper web implementation of footnotes would follow Wait But Why and give popovers on mouseover instead of petulantly sticking to the definition of footnote.
Yes, but don't let that stop you from using them at all. Comments often are so short (all on the screen at once) that you can just glance at the bottom of the comment, no link needed. An example:...
Yes, but don't let that stop you from using them at all. Comments often are so short (all on the screen at once) that you can just glance at the bottom of the comment, no link needed.
What other cultures have dramatic understatement as an integral part of their lexicon outside the Anglosphere?
most native English speakers understand that these phrases don't mean exactly what they ostensibly say on the tin (another idiom, oops) and actually convey a lot more negativity
What other cultures have dramatic understatement as an integral part of their lexicon outside the Anglosphere?
I'm sure that there are many. The only other languages I speak are continental European ones so unfortunately I can only really compare those to English.
I'm sure that there are many. The only other languages I speak are continental European ones so unfortunately I can only really compare those to English.
I mean, from my education, "How's the weather?" Functions similarly between British English and Japanese... In that it's not about the weather and is an indirect way to say the American English...
I mean, from my education, "How's the weather?" Functions similarly between British English and Japanese...
In that it's not about the weather and is an indirect way to say the American English "How are you?"
I am neither, but in my conversations, it generally is about the weather, at least to start. I often start conversations with relatives talking about the weather. Then we move on to other things.
I am neither, but in my conversations, it generally is about the weather, at least to start. I often start conversations with relatives talking about the weather. Then we move on to other things.
I have been interviewing a lot of folks this week where English is not their first language, but still had strong English skills. I come from a very rural (read: hick) part of Northern Ontario in...
I have been interviewing a lot of folks this week where English is not their first language, but still had strong English skills. I come from a very rural (read: hick) part of Northern Ontario in Canada and I can absolutely slip into bizarre idioms and metaphors to explain my thinking.
It takes a big effort for me to be as direct and literal as possible and I love when an interviewee is like "Sorry can you repeat that?" so I can think of a better way to phrase what I want.
Its also funny - I have a one year old son and my wife is always on me about being more direct with my nouns when I talk to him so he can actually learn the words. Less "this" and "that" and more "toast" and "mouth".
Article was locked for me but the title reminds me of this list: https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/ While most of them aren't hard to see the meaning they must sound very...
Article was locked for me but the title reminds me of this list: https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/
While most of them aren't hard to see the meaning they must sound very strange if you didn't grow up hearing them all the time.
I have found most of what the article complains about can be solved by Grammarly (I use the free version). There are times it insists on too many commas, but it's always nice to have a second...
I have found most of what the article complains about can be solved by Grammarly (I use the free version). There are times it insists on too many commas, but it's always nice to have a second opinion for clarity.
No, Grammarly, not everything I write is a list. You also need your human-powered third opinion to check that Grammarly's clarity suggestions did not change the sentence's meaning. It often does...
too many commas
No, Grammarly, not everything I write is a list.
2nd opinion for clarity
You also need your human-powered third opinion to check that Grammarly's clarity suggestions did not change the sentence's meaning. It often does that when attempting to clean my writing into something concise.
tl;dr
I live (sort of – more accurately, I live between places) in continental Europe and I have noticed that it is very easy for me to confuse non-native English speakers by using either a plethora (which is a word that apparently sounds pretentious but I think is rather lovely) of esoteric words or a lot of idioms (or worse, Shakespeare quotes).
I do love the fact that the English language (like all languages, this isn't at all specific to English) is so varied and can be used at many different levels (from less to more sophisticated – more sophisticated is not "better" or worse), but I agree that when organising meetings or conferences it is curteous to restrict oneself to a more limited vocabulary and to use fewer metaphors/idioms.
One thing that I will actually defend which continental Europeans do not like is euphemism and heavy indirection (following social norms). It makes it possible to communicate earnst criticism by taking some of the heat out of it. People argue for example that Anglo types are less direct than Germans, but I don't think this is really true. For example English-speakers (especially of the British middle-class persuasion) will use lots of window dressing (idiom, oops) when communicating criticism or negativity. Of course to someone who isn't used to this and adjusted to the social norms, this sounds like an inability to be direct. However, most native English speakers understand that these phrases don't mean exactly what they ostensibly say on the tin (another idiom, oops) and actually convey a lot more negativity.
I think it's quite fun that one can exchange insults with someone while sounding very polite at the same time.
I think it's important to point out that some native speakers may have this easier than others.
An anecdotal example: I'm from the rural Southern US, a region where indirection and carefully phrasing things to not offend people is important - to the point where speaking too plainly will absolutely offend people, especially older speakers. It's extremely difficult for me not to use idioms, metaphors, and indirect suggestion (not to mention suppressing my regional accent!) especially when trying hard to be polite - I have to actively concentrate to do all this.
That said, I don't mean that it's not important to do it! Of course we should accommodate people the best we can, especially in a business setting. I just think it's worth noting that the skill doesn't come with equal levels of difficulty across dialects of English and that not all native speakers will have the same experiences - everyone's English is at least slightly different from everyone else's.
As for myself, I work in tech where being able to speak plainly to non-native speakers is a very important skill for me to have. But it can take a lot out of me after a while.
Edit: Also, the region I'm from is famous for having little old ladies insult you so sharply and so cleanly that you have no idea anyone was being nasty to you - "bless your heart" and all that. :) You'd probably find it fun!
I live in the Midwest US (which oddly is middle of the whole country, not middle of the western half) and I'm amazed at how often native speakers don't know the origin of idioms.
Just yesterday someone used "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Of course they understood that it means don't criticize a gift, but they didn't understand why that idiom means that.
It really goes to show how we use them almost subconsciously
Fascinating, I had no idea what the origin of that phrase was! For anyone else interested: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
Our VP of Engineering used the phrase "balls to the wall" at an all-hands meeting. At the next all-hands we got a presentation on the phrase's origin.
If it makes everyone think of male genitalia, does it really matter what the actual origin is? If you find yourself needing to explain repeatedly “No, no, it’s a reference to aviation throttles not testicles, you incurious dolt!”, it seems reasonable to prefer an alternative phrasing that doesn’t make everyone think of balls. Unless that’s intended. I mean, it’s clear at this point that it makes everyone think of balls.
The point of language is communication, and if you like using phrases like “balls to the wall”, you should at least be aware that a good chunk of your audience will think you’re using an idiom that refers to testicles. If you’re fine with communicating that, then by all means use it.
There are many, many ways to translate a given idea into words. Personally, I have no problems with avoiding balls-based idioms in my speech.
As with all communication, I think it’s up to all participants to strive for common understanding.
If you’ve never had a single person communicate (or allude to, or quietly snicker at) a potential pitfall with you (you personally, not a generalised person) about the use of that phrase, I’m not expecting you to read minds.
But if you have had these qualms brought to your attention and you continue to use the phrase because you don’t believe that another person’s interpretation is worth adjusting your language for, then that’s on you.
I’m not telling you whether you’re correct here or not, by the way; that’s for you to examine your own behaviour and accept it if you can, or change it if you can’t.
Neither of those sound quite as much like male genitalia as "balls to the wall", because the first is transparent in origin to most english speakers (at least the ones familiar with sport) and the other is a technical word that there is no ready replacement for that people just learn the first time they hear it.
(for transparency, I'm a relatively educated Australian English speaker. I would not be 100% sure of what "balls to the wall" meant out of context, and it absolutely sounds as crass to my ear in the same way that something like "sweating my tits off" does)
Okay, but for the sake of conversation, imagine it didn't. Imagine that since the first time you heard the phrase, you had a mental image of bowling balls rolling across the floor of a trunk of a car. That seems reasonable to me. That person cannot possibly predict which of these spherical metaphors will evoke nonsensical allusion to genitalia. Now what? Who is the incidental reference hurting? Who is more right in their misinterpretation? Both are ahistorical, one is more popular, but the innocuous one is both more in-line with usage and less popular. Is that speaker somehow failing to communicate more than the people who have an image of testicles...being pressed against a wall?
As with all things language, it's fluid and depends on your audience. Once you know that it likely evokes that image for a lot of people, you have a choice whether you want to do that or not. Listeners don't have a choice though, a phrase evokes what it evokes.
I don't see why we would talk about hypothetical crass interpretations of phrases no-one has that problem with though, that seems pretty boring...
Listeners absolutely have a choice, they can decide to leave it at the first impression level of evocation or they can spend some time wondering and researching because they think something is weird. They can also disengage or get mad or whatever they want. The writer isn't manifesting thoughts in the reader's head.
I don't follow your last sentence.
I'm lucky I married an inquisitive woman, we often look up etymology and idiom origins together and have a fun dive into the why of things. We've even branched into other languages now, mostly German/Japanese/Vietnamese and sometimes French (cuz Canada). There's so many interesting tidbits buried deep down, I don't understand why anybody wouldn't be curious!
My mental organization (or lack thereof, thanks ADHD!) doesn't allow me to pull out any specific examples, but once something triggers a memory, I'll suddenly have a vast amount of knowledge about the subject.
Dam's up on the Red River - a Winnipeger lamenting their partner's menstruation
Barn door's open - a kind person alerting another that their pants zipper is low
These are “dead metaphors” for which the implicit analogy is mostly lost. Sure, you could look it up or explain it, but it’s often better writing to skip the metaphor or come up with a new one.
…or keep using it if it's already widely understood. Works better for local publication than for international business communications, obviously.
To address @orlox's point about the lack of curiosity, it's like a fish being apathetic about water. It's what is and will always be; what else is there to question? Some scientifically-minded fish may care, but the school will remain indifferent until pollution changes their water for the worse.
Sorry about that. Transposition errors are the worst: one of 'em sneaks in and the entire post is urined.
The one change I do support from that is moving away from master/slave toward more specific and accurate analogies: master/replica, controller/worker, etc…
Most of the rest seems to be designed to impress people who aren't metaphorically in the room.
One of my best friends uses a wheelchair. His opinion on handicapable language is, "fuck you, I'm a cripple."
My favorite is chromosome collector.
But changing the signs provides jobs for sign-makers as well as sensitivity consultants.
I have no idea if this was true, as it supposedly happened long before I had the capacity to pay attention. There was allegedly a coordinated push to rename GLBT to LGBT. Almost all the major GLBT rights organizations wasted money reprinting stationery to show solidarity with the new arrangement of letters.
Even without such loaded historical baggage, it's best replaced due to a lack of specificity. Is this master/replica (or primary/replica), scheduler/worker, or something else? Both use the master/slave dichotomy, yet they have different technical implications.
Cold enough to freeze the balls off of a brass monkey - shelves that held cannonballs were called 'monkeys' and were constructed from brass, which was prone to shrinking in cold weather, causing the artillery to fall off. No primate genitalia intended.
While we're on the topic, I noticed an earlier comment of yours
I just wanted to point out that "read it and weep" is sometimes used as a taunting phrase. I figure you don't mean anything malicious by it but it did strike me as a bit odd.
Ah I meant it in the most literal way (that it is bad) rather than as a poker-derived idiom (one problem with idioms is that it is easy to sometimes accidentally stumble upon one). I have edited the post to clarify it.
Idioms and set phrases can make translation to other languages tough. I've found having a dictionary of idioms is essential once you start translating articles and such. Even just common collocations like "burnt down" or "under arrest" send me to the dictionary because they're not things you'd literally translate, and it would sound wacky if you did. Thankfully I picked Japanese to learn, and for all it's insane learning curve, one thing it does have is a gigantic market of remarkably advanced, pocketable electronic dictionaries that make looking those up a cinch.
Yes, there was another FT article about a book in which a fictional translator is wrestling with the phrase
where faggot refers to a kind of meatball and not its use an a slur.
Hm, I actually don't think that's a particularly hard sentence to translate, or an example realy of what either article was talking about. That's more of a case of the meaning of words shifting over time, which is something that happens with all natural languages. Faggots use to mean other things, now it has a distinctly different meaning which makes that sentence shocking at first glance.
But a) it's fairly easy to realize within the context of the sentence that, if "faggot" was used a derogatory synonym for gay people, the sentence makes no sense and b) to then pull out a dictionary and move down the list of definitions until something edible appears.
It's not a tricky colloquialism or idiom where two meanings can both be legitimate, but one is what the author meant, and what natives readers would infer, and the other is plausible but wrong. It's just definitions shifting around.
I can confirm that while my electronic dictionary has the English meaning in question, it has no suggestions or example sentences for how that would be translated in Japanese. I’d be stuck either using miitoboru or getting descriptive about the specific type of meatball, both of which would lose meaning. It does suggest ひえー驚いた for “bugger me,” though, and that’s kind of amusing that there’s an entry for that.
Edit: Now I’m just laughing that Google Translate comes back with 私をブッガー!
This absolutely is not the case for this sentence. "Bugger" literally means "to penetrate in anal sex" when used as a verb -- even though that's obviously not what most Northern Englishmen mean when they use "Bugger me!" as an exclamation, it's not even an antiquated meaning. It comes up if you google the word even. I could absolutely hear this sentence from someone who actually meant "Damn, I'm horny, let's go cruising for gay sex."
I love the English language as well, for many similar reasons as yours. Still, your style of writing at least in this one comment is difficult to follow. The main reason IMO is structure more than vocabulary: the amount of parentheses, and the path you take to make your point.
It’s possible to use very advanced vocabulary and not lose readers, if the structure of your text is easy to follow. This is what sets really good writers apart: structure is almost invisible to the common reader, and can empower them to understand beyond their level.
Yes I have terrible writing structure. My professional writing structure is quite a bit better mostly because I spend a lot of time editing. On Tildes I tend to write in a more stream of consciousness manner, with only a little editing to remove the most egregious errors. Unfortunately as I write I tend to have lots of different thoughts, and thus get sidetracked trying to write them all down.
I know the feeling! I'm much the same. It takes a lot of effort to pause, think about what I'm going to write, edit it, etc.
I think I might make this my next year's theme.
I'm another notably bad writer in this regard. The lack of footnote support in almost all online forums forces me to have such convoluted sentences. Instead of a 1 followed by a note down below, my sidebars and tangents are inelegantly shoved into the main stream of text.
1 No, this doesn't count. This is manually-constructed and not in-line while typing the above paragraph.
On Hacker News, I got in the habit of writing footnotes by hand, because that's the best way to add a link. It seems like that would work in any fourm?
It’s an awkward workflow to manually type your anchors and then jump to the notes section compared to
\footnote{Meta commentary here}LaTeX-style notes.Further, a proper web implementation of footnotes would follow Wait But Why and give popovers on mouseover instead of petulantly sticking to the definition of footnote.
Yes, but don't let that stop you from using them at all. Comments often are so short (all on the screen at once) that you can just glance at the bottom of the comment, no link needed.
An example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37801485
What other cultures have dramatic understatement as an integral part of their lexicon outside the Anglosphere?
I'm sure that there are many. The only other languages I speak are continental European ones so unfortunately I can only really compare those to English.
I mean, from my education, "How's the weather?" Functions similarly between British English and Japanese...
In that it's not about the weather and is an indirect way to say the American English "How are you?"
I am neither, but in my conversations, it generally is about the weather, at least to start. I often start conversations with relatives talking about the weather. Then we move on to other things.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/HnaZN
I have been interviewing a lot of folks this week where English is not their first language, but still had strong English skills. I come from a very rural (read: hick) part of Northern Ontario in Canada and I can absolutely slip into bizarre idioms and metaphors to explain my thinking.
It takes a big effort for me to be as direct and literal as possible and I love when an interviewee is like "Sorry can you repeat that?" so I can think of a better way to phrase what I want.
Its also funny - I have a one year old son and my wife is always on me about being more direct with my nouns when I talk to him so he can actually learn the words. Less "this" and "that" and more "toast" and "mouth".
Newfoundland cornered the market on bizarre idioms.
"Stays where you at 'til you comes where you to"
Article was locked for me but the title reminds me of this list:
https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/
While most of them aren't hard to see the meaning they must sound very strange if you didn't grow up hearing them all the time.
I have found most of what the article complains about can be solved by Grammarly (I use the free version). There are times it insists on too many commas, but it's always nice to have a second opinion for clarity.
No, Grammarly, not everything I write is a list.
You also need your human-powered third opinion to check that Grammarly's clarity suggestions did not change the sentence's meaning. It often does that when attempting to clean my writing into something concise.