I think it has stayed in place because of the US defense umbrella, but to suggestion that it was the Japanese put this forward because they felt safe in the embrace of the US is ahistorical.
My sense is that Japan's constitutional restrictions on military activity are very much based on a confident belief that, if Japan were attacked, the US would (as promised) come to its defense. But today we have a US administration which could care less about what the US might have promised, what treaty obligations we might have made.
Japan would have to be crazy, suicidal even, not to rethink their policies on their military. What kind of Constitutional change might be best, I can't say. But refusing to change isn't really a viable option.
In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
Some countries launched campaigns, made laws to rid themselves of loan words. Some did so with a certain creativity like Iceland where computer has become tölva, a portmanteau from tala and völva (=> "number prophetess"). France was pedantic and not much short of making it a misdemeanor not to use the prescribed neologisms. Germany did in WW1 with official dictionaries to give people guidance with which words to replace real or perceived French imports.
Although it went far over the top, quite a bit actually stuck and superfluous French words got replaced by fully suitable German equivalents. Some older purists had come up with simply ridiculous substitutes for words no one normal would have considered foreign*, like Nase (nose). I doubt the old Germans needed the Romans to get a word for this part of anatomy or would have gone for Gesichtserker (face oriel) as more natural. Dörrleiche (jerky corpse) for mummy did not catch on either.
A newer trend is to invent English terms for items that are not used by actual English speaking people. E.g Handy for cellphone or Beamer for video projector. They seem so fitting that most Germans do not even know that those are fake loans.
*admittedly some of their proposals got into common language but usually as alternatives not replacements.
It occurs to me to wonder. How many of the ultra-macho xenophobes in this administration have a clue that "macho" is of Spanish origin?
Can we get a Hegseth/Miller cage match? Preferably with weapons like brass knuckles, which are non-lethal enough to have both get seriously damaged before one strokes out.
Not all of our immigrants are people. A lot of words came here and settled, too.
People tend to speak at about 39 bits of information per second, regardless of the language they're speaking. Ben Shapiro and Steven Bonnell(Destiny) give the impression of speaking twice the normal English rate.
I've read a few articles about Spanish being either overlooked or resistant to AI. Some of the arguments were Spanish had more dialectical variants, Spain had stronger data laws. The articles vary from lauding it to complaining that AI models are English-centric. The point of your roommate may also play into it, a fully duplex language has reduced information density, which means that it is more difficult to derive logical principals out of it that a language that requires alternating turns
Spanish tends to use about a third more words than English to express the same thing.
My graduate school roommate was getting a PhD in linguistics. He talked about Spanish being a "full duplex language", meaning that the information density was low enough it was possible (at least in casual conversation) to talk and listen at the same time. English was dense enough it was a "half duplex language" where you could listen, or talk, but not both simultaneously. His dissertation topic was going to be on cultural ramifications of that difference.
Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
In basic modern algebra, many of the structures are named using words for common items: group, ring, field, etc. In German, the same sort of convention is used but not all of the common terms are the same as the ones used in English. I had to do a final project translating a chapter from a German college math text. I put a cover note on it for the instructor pointing out that I knew der Körper translated to body in general use, but the structure it was used for was called a field in English.
I don't speak or read Spanish so I only read the English translation.
My takeaway is that the Spanish PM is a thoughtful and articulate person who laid out a sane and humane response to the insanity we are unleashing on Iran and the world.
I can only say that I am envious of the Spanish for having a leader who can hold and articulate such a clear moral perspective.
It comes down to What are you trying to do? If your intention is to translate the message, then go with "three words." If your intention is to translate the words, "stick with "four words" like the translation we have here.
Or, as I learned it, are you doing a literal translation or a free translation? Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
** It was a pretty trivial test. Time to look up (open dictionary!) every word that wasn't a cognate for the literal translation. And still plenty of time to do the free translation. Good thing, though, that they didn't require a translation going the other way!
"He might have said “en pocas palabras” but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier."
So you must sacrifice the pithiness. Isn't that part of the message?
I considered the use of something that simply avoided the specific number for the English translation. But my previous thought was limited to translating "cuatro" to "three."
When Sánchez said "La posición del Gobierno de España se resume en cuatro palabras: 'No a la guerra'" he wasn't seeking to tell us how many words there are in 'No a la guerra'. He might have said "en pocas palabras" but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier.
If one translates it as "...in four words: 'no to war'" the thought induced in the reader is first that the count is wrong, second (in a reader with some familiarity with romance languages) that there must have been a definite article in the Spanish. That is not the message Sánchez intended.
One should translate to give the message, not literally word by word.
More seriously, I thought about the translation going from a 4-word Spanish phrase to a 3-word English phrase as uncontroversial because it best conveyed the intended meaning. But with the preceding reference to the number words in the phrase, going from "cuatro" to "three" wouldn't convey the intended meaning. It's just no longer the correct number of words after the translation.
I don't know if there's a convention for translating in that kind of situation, but somehow translating a word that has a more or less perfect analog for the intended meaning in another language to a different word seems fundamentally wrong to me. Words for numbers are about as exact in meaning as language can manage. There's no selecting for sense or feeling or inference.
Pro Bono - In French, it’s compulsory to use an article in that sort of construction – “non à la guerre”. cf. “vive la France”. I guess that Spanish is similar.
I would have changed “four words” to “three words” in the translation.
Yes, Spanish is the same. "Tengo que trabajar los domingos" is literally "I have [that] to work the Sundays," but idiomatically it's " I have to work on Sundays."
I think it's fun that the translation nods towards the actual Spanish construction, but can see how that might be confusing (or annoying) to someone who does not know Spanish. Changing the "four" to "three" preserves the sense. Adding "the" to make it four words creates ambiguity and introduces confusion because the definite article signals opposite things in the two languages.
These sorts of translation issues remind me of one of the challenges I ran into during the Spanish translation exam I took as part of my Ph.D. qualification. The Spanish word in one of the sentences was "patria" - the most literal translation of that would be "fatherland" or "land of my fathers," but it could also be "home" or "homeland." The writer could have chosen "pais" - "country," or "nación" - "nation" in place of "patria," but those would have lost the romantic, familial sense of "home," and the sense of patriotism.
Because it was a book about the Spanish Civil War, and the person being written about was a member of the CNT/FAI and not a Nationalist, I decided to use "motherland" in place of "fatherland" in order to avoid the fascistic connotations of "fatherland" in American English (which might have led to the person being associated with Franco rather than the anarchists if the reader didn't know much about the person, but knew just enough about the war to lead themselves astray), and dropped a footnote into the translation to explain that choice.
Spanish tends to use about a third more words than English to express the same thing. Japanese is also less information-dense than English. Vietnamese and spoken Chinese are more information-dense.
On “The penny drops”
The problem with that is that the constitution in general and Article 9 in particular were very much creations of MacArthur and GHQ.
https://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/ronten/02ronten.html
I think it has stayed in place because of the US defense umbrella, but to suggestion that it was the Japanese put this forward because they felt safe in the embrace of the US is ahistorical.
"
My sense is that Japan's constitutional restrictions on military activity are very much based on a confident belief that, if Japan were attacked, the US would (as promised) come to its defense. But today we have a US administration which could care less about what the US might have promised, what treaty obligations we might have made.
Japan would have to be crazy, suicidal even, not to rethink their policies on their military. What kind of Constitutional change might be best, I can't say. But refusing to change isn't really a viable option.
On “A little language practice”
In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
"
Some countries launched campaigns, made laws to rid themselves of loan words. Some did so with a certain creativity like Iceland where computer has become tölva, a portmanteau from tala and völva (=> "number prophetess"). France was pedantic and not much short of making it a misdemeanor not to use the prescribed neologisms. Germany did in WW1 with official dictionaries to give people guidance with which words to replace real or perceived French imports.
Although it went far over the top, quite a bit actually stuck and superfluous French words got replaced by fully suitable German equivalents. Some older purists had come up with simply ridiculous substitutes for words no one normal would have considered foreign*, like Nase (nose). I doubt the old Germans needed the Romans to get a word for this part of anatomy or would have gone for Gesichtserker (face oriel) as more natural. Dörrleiche (jerky corpse) for mummy did not catch on either.
A newer trend is to invent English terms for items that are not used by actual English speaking people. E.g Handy for cellphone or Beamer for video projector. They seem so fitting that most Germans do not even know that those are fake loans.
*admittedly some of their proposals got into common language but usually as alternatives not replacements.
"
How Words Entered the English Language
"
Since this is a thread about language.....
It occurs to me to wonder. How many of the ultra-macho xenophobes in this administration have a clue that "macho" is of Spanish origin?
Can we get a Hegseth/Miller cage match? Preferably with weapons like brass knuckles, which are non-lethal enough to have both get seriously damaged before one strokes out.
Not all of our immigrants are people. A lot of words came here and settled, too.
"
People tend to speak at about 39 bits of information per second, regardless of the language they're speaking. Ben Shapiro and Steven Bonnell(Destiny) give the impression of speaking twice the normal English rate.
"
I've read a few articles about Spanish being either overlooked or resistant to AI. Some of the arguments were Spanish had more dialectical variants, Spain had stronger data laws. The articles vary from lauding it to complaining that AI models are English-centric. The point of your roommate may also play into it, a fully duplex language has reduced information density, which means that it is more difficult to derive logical principals out of it that a language that requires alternating turns
cf: https://www.youtube.com/live/CyyL0yDhr7I?si=1RiobEdzk1GiuOHp&t=2083
"
Spanish tends to use about a third more words than English to express the same thing.
My graduate school roommate was getting a PhD in linguistics. He talked about Spanish being a "full duplex language", meaning that the information density was low enough it was possible (at least in casual conversation) to talk and listen at the same time. English was dense enough it was a "half duplex language" where you could listen, or talk, but not both simultaneously. His dissertation topic was going to be on cultural ramifications of that difference.
"
Okay. You (whoever that includes) win. Make the English "three."
"
English vs Spanish: Language Comparison
English vs German: Comparison
"
Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
In basic modern algebra, many of the structures are named using words for common items: group, ring, field, etc. In German, the same sort of convention is used but not all of the common terms are the same as the ones used in English. I had to do a final project translating a chapter from a German college math text. I put a cover note on it for the instructor pointing out that I knew der Körper translated to body in general use, but the structure it was used for was called a field in English.
"
I don't speak or read Spanish so I only read the English translation.
My takeaway is that the Spanish PM is a thoughtful and articulate person who laid out a sane and humane response to the insanity we are unleashing on Iran and the world.
I can only say that I am envious of the Spanish for having a leader who can hold and articulate such a clear moral perspective.
"
It comes down to What are you trying to do? If your intention is to translate the message, then go with "three words." If your intention is to translate the words, "stick with "four words" like the translation we have here.
Or, as I learned it, are you doing a literal translation or a free translation? Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
** It was a pretty trivial test. Time to look up (open dictionary!) every word that wasn't a cognate for the literal translation. And still plenty of time to do the free translation. Good thing, though, that they didn't require a translation going the other way!
"
Would anyone here argue for that?
Yes, I would.
I would have changed “four words” to “three words” in the translation.
"
"He might have said “en pocas palabras” but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier."
So you must sacrifice the pithiness. Isn't that part of the message?
I considered the use of something that simply avoided the specific number for the English translation. But my previous thought was limited to translating "cuatro" to "three."
Would anyone here argue for that?
"
“In two words, impossible.” — Samuel Goldwyn
"
I'm not sure what I would do with the translation, but I'd consider saying it as something like 'one simple phrase' or 'one short phrase'
Counting words reminds me of the West Wing debate between Jed Bartlett and Florida gov Ritchie
https://youtu.be/sS4UAZ5UfGY?si=-aIzURqqN19_mgbP
"
Not right.
When Sánchez said "La posición del Gobierno de España se resume en cuatro palabras: 'No a la guerra'" he wasn't seeking to tell us how many words there are in 'No a la guerra'. He might have said "en pocas palabras" but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier.
If one translates it as "...in four words: 'no to war'" the thought induced in the reader is first that the count is wrong, second (in a reader with some familiarity with romance languages) that there must have been a definite article in the Spanish. That is not the message Sánchez intended.
One should translate to give the message, not literally word by word.
"
More seriously, I thought about the translation going from a 4-word Spanish phrase to a 3-word English phrase as uncontroversial because it best conveyed the intended meaning. But with the preceding reference to the number words in the phrase, going from "cuatro" to "three" wouldn't convey the intended meaning. It's just no longer the correct number of words after the translation.
I don't know if there's a convention for translating in that kind of situation, but somehow translating a word that has a more or less perfect analog for the intended meaning in another language to a different word seems fundamentally wrong to me. Words for numbers are about as exact in meaning as language can manage. There's no selecting for sense or feeling or inference.
Four is just f**king four, right?
"
"Pro patria mori" (in Latin) is usually translated "To die for one's country".
"
This is such a square bunch on this blog. The Spanish play it fast and loose when it comes to counting. Just relax and go with it.
"
Pro Bono - In French, it’s compulsory to use an article in that sort of construction – “non à la guerre”. cf. “vive la France”. I guess that Spanish is similar.
I would have changed “four words” to “three words” in the translation.
Yes, Spanish is the same. "Tengo que trabajar los domingos" is literally "I have [that] to work the Sundays," but idiomatically it's " I have to work on Sundays."
I think it's fun that the translation nods towards the actual Spanish construction, but can see how that might be confusing (or annoying) to someone who does not know Spanish. Changing the "four" to "three" preserves the sense. Adding "the" to make it four words creates ambiguity and introduces confusion because the definite article signals opposite things in the two languages.
These sorts of translation issues remind me of one of the challenges I ran into during the Spanish translation exam I took as part of my Ph.D. qualification. The Spanish word in one of the sentences was "patria" - the most literal translation of that would be "fatherland" or "land of my fathers," but it could also be "home" or "homeland." The writer could have chosen "pais" - "country," or "nación" - "nation" in place of "patria," but those would have lost the romantic, familial sense of "home," and the sense of patriotism.
Because it was a book about the Spanish Civil War, and the person being written about was a member of the CNT/FAI and not a Nationalist, I decided to use "motherland" in place of "fatherland" in order to avoid the fascistic connotations of "fatherland" in American English (which might have led to the person being associated with Franco rather than the anarchists if the reader didn't know much about the person, but knew just enough about the war to lead themselves astray), and dropped a footnote into the translation to explain that choice.
"
Spanish tends to use about a third more words than English to express the same thing. Japanese is also less information-dense than English. Vietnamese and spoken Chinese are more information-dense.
"
In French, it's compulsory to use an article in that sort of construction - "non à la guerre". cf. "vive la France". I guess that Spanish is similar.
I would have changed "four words" to "three words" in the translation.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.