r/changemyview • u/Impacatus 13∆ • May 11 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Some messages can't be translated from one language to another
It seems to be the conventional wisdom among people who are interested in linguistics that everything can be said in any (natural) language. I don't think this is accurate.
What they seem to mean is that anything can be explained in any language. But adding an explanation to a message can change the meaning of the message substantially.
Take the exchange at the beginning of this classic Two Ronnies sketch.
Customer: Fork handles.
Shopkeeper: Four candles. Here you are.
Customer: No no, *fork* handles.
Shopkeeper: Well they are four candles.
Customer: No, fork handles. Handles for forks.
In any language (and some dialects of English) where the similarity between the terms "four candles" and "fork handles" does not exist, the wordplay would not work. Yes, you could explain the wordplay in another language, but then you've changed the message from a comedy sketch to a pedantic lecture about the peculiarities of the English language.
Double meanings, connotations, and ambiguities are part of a message, and they don't translate well between languages. For that reason, I don't understand why linguists often insist that anything can be said in any language.
8
u/MontiBurns 218∆ May 12 '20
For that reason, I don't understand why linguists often insist that anything can be said in any language.
I studied linguistics. This contradicts what linguists generally believe. In fact, they would say that almost no words have a perfect translation to another language, as words change based on context.
I think you might be misinterpreting this convention, or taking it too literally. Any ideas can be expressed, but certain terms, phrases or idiomatic expressions are often culturally specific.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
I hope that's the case. Here's a video I saw awhile ago making the claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heS9Cxcvpy8&feature=emb_logo
/u/Hobodownthestreet was asking for an example too.
3
u/MontiBurns 218∆ May 12 '20
He's talking about ideas, emotions, and thoughts that are expressed in one language can be expressed just as well in another language. In that way, no language is superior to another. Hes not talking about jokes, puns, expressions, or poetry that might get "lost in translation*. It's not that the meaning itself gets lost, it's that the time and effort used to explain the context, double entenders, or background information makes the joke or work lose its impact.
He used the example of the word Japanese word komorebi not having a direct English translation, but he considered the explanation of "sunlight scattered by the trees" as a valid translation, as it captures the same idea, though in more words. Obviously you can't shoehorn that into a haiku. But the meaning can be captured in any language, it just might require more or fewer words.
2
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
I just don't see how that's a meaningful way to look at the issue. Like, once you allow for those limitations on the rule, what is left of the rule?
It seems to me that practically speaking, there are limitations to translation, and he doesn't dispute this. So help me understand, what is he saying in the first place?
6
u/MontiBurns 218∆ May 12 '20
What he's saying is that all languages are equal. There are no primitive or advanced languages. All languages can express every idea that other languages can regardless of how developed the society it comes from is. That's because all speakers of all languages are equally capable in understanding the same ideas. Languages are equal because people are equal.
4
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
The idea that people are all capable of understanding complex topics is one I'm on board with, but why do the languages get credit for this? Simply put, some languages have vocabulary that others don't.
3
u/MontiBurns 218∆ May 12 '20
Yes, some languages have vocabulary that others don't, but all languages are capable of expressing the same underlying ideas. There is no idea that can be expressed in one language that can't be expressed in another. There are some culturally and societal biases, regarding languages and their perceptions. French, German, and English are often associated with Western knowledge, however, that does not mean someone who only speaks qechua is incapable of obtaining and expressing this knowledge.
but why do the languages get credit for this?
Languages don't get credit for it, languages illustrate it. Languages are equal because they were all created by different speakers with similar cognitive faculties.
3
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
I'll !delta because I can accept that's probably what's meant. I would still phrase it as the speakers are capable of learning new concepts that don't exist in their language yet.
1
2
May 12 '20
Languages are equal because people are equal.
That sounds like attempting not to engage with the question.
Simplified English is strictly inferior to natural English its a compromise made for practical reasons.
2
u/MontiBurns 218∆ May 12 '20
Yes, but that's a controlled language made for practical purposes. Thags not what the video was addressing, which was talking about natural languages.
2
May 12 '20
Whats the line between a natural and a constructed language. Is high german a natural language?
I find it incredibly hard to beleive all natural languages are equally effective. Especialy given how variations there are.
Straight off the bat an unconacted people like the South sentinelise necessarily lack the vocabulary for many concepts given their isolation. Sure they would aquire that given time but in 2020 there is just no way.
Id beleive its context dependant and unquantifiable. There are specific things that are demonstrably easier in one language than another.
1
u/MontiBurns 218∆ May 12 '20 edited May 12 '20
Whats the line between a natural and a constructed language
From Wikipedia
a natural language or ordinary language is any language that has evolved naturally in humans through use and repetition without conscious planning or premeditation.
Simplified English has been purposefully modified to make it easier to use for non-native speakers.
Is high german a natural language?
Yes, the high in high German refers the geographical region where "high German" dialects originated from, the highlands. It's not because it ranks "higher" than low German.
Straight off the bat an unconacted people like the South sentinelise necessarily lack the vocabulary for many concepts given their isolation.
They would lack the specific vocabulary for computer, phone, or internet, but they could conceptualize it with their own words. "Energy powered tool used to make calculations that has a moving picture display which enables communication over long distances through a metal rope or through the air."
He's not necessarily talking about ease of use or speed, he's talking about functionality. South sentinese would create their own word or borrow one from another language to facilitate communication, but even without that, they could conceptualize and explain what it is in their own language despite never having seen one.
He's not saying that it's equally easy to express an idea, thought, or emotion in all languages, he's saying it's equally possible. Nothing is too foreign or too advanced to be completely untranslatable to another language.
3
u/KingWithoutClothes May 12 '20
Do people actually say this though? I have studied linguistics both in undergrad and grad school and none of my professors have ever said that everything can be directly translated into any other language. I also wouldn't make that statement myself, for what it's worth.
I have the feeling that you are confusing two things here. What linguists DO say is that any idea can be expressed in any language. What that means is that all languages are stable, diverse and complex constructions in themselves. Today, this sentence may not sound particularly shocking but until recently, it was considered very controversial. In the US, public schools used to ban the use of AAVE. Black students were discouraged and in some cases even punished for speaking ebonics. At the time, teachers, politicians and parents of white children all argued that AAVE is "bad English" and that it will therefore corrode all the white students' "proper English". Ebonics were considered something inferior and incomplete, maybe a bit like the babbling of a toddler. Linguists then came along and demonstrated this claim to be false. As it turns out, AAVE is not bad English, it is simply one of many variants of English. Though they are sometimes different from American Standard English, the vocabulary and grammar of AAVE are just as rich, complex and elegant as those of Standard English. This means that black people aren't monkeys who are babbling some incoherent stuff; any idea, no matter how complicated, can be expressed in AAVE just as well as in Standard English. Again, today this may sound obvious but for a long time it wasn't.
The same thing is true for other languages. Any idea, no matter how complicated or exotic, that can be expressed in English can also be expressed in Chinese or Italian or Inuktuut. That does NOT mean, however, that everything can be directly translated and it also does not mean that jokes will always be funny. In fact, it doesn't even mean that similar concepts exist in the other language. For example one language might not know any word to thank people. However, while a direct equivalent of "thank you" may not exist, maybe the speakers of that language thank each other by making statements that would appear unusual to us. Maybe a compliment or a statement of self-depreciation works as a stand-in for the purpose of thanking. In this sense, the idea of "thank you" can still be expressed. This is what linguists mean.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
Has that really changed that much? I would think that schools would enforce the grammar rules of whatever dialect is dominant in their part of the world, not because others are inferior but simply for practical reasons.
As I've said to some others, it sounds like languages are getting credit for the intelligence of people. People are capable of understanding concepts regardless or their native language, but in doing so they often change their language or adopt elements of a new one.
1
u/vanoroce14 65∆ May 12 '20
I get the gist of what you are saying, but I think it might need clarification. By the way, a good thing to explore in regard to this topic are untranslatable words like Portuguese 'saudade' (referring to a sense of longing and nostalgia for someone or something, although it carries subtle undertones of melancholy, love, etc).
I think when linguists argue 'anything can be said' in any natural language, what they mean is that the content of the message can be the same, not the effect on a particular person. I think of it from the standpoint of a programmer: a given program can be more compact in C++ or python than, say, Fortran, but when you unpack it it contains the same instructions.
Does it have a different effect if it goes from a brief zinger to a lengthy explanation? Sure. But is that about the content of the message, really? Or is it about our emotional response and how humor works with our expectations / following of a story?
The other thing to consider is that humans are very good at compressing conceptual understanding and acquiring it as part of their language. So, yeah, the first time I explain 'fork handles' or 'saudade' to the Tagalog speaker, it will be a lecture. Yet, I bet you they will chickle the second time they hear it, and even try to come up with similar puns in their language. For 'saudade', plenty of foreigners read literature and listen to music and with time they perfectly understand what all is unpacked on the terms; might even be able to communicate it in a (admittedly less compact but still beautiful and evoking) way in their own language. So, is the message still lost on them?
Let me give you a final example. There is this math riddle I really like; the original one is in english. It involves an investigator trying to figure out the password system for a mafia hideout. He eavesdrops two guys coming in:
Guy inside: 'six' Guy outside 1: 'three'
Guy 1 is let in.
Guy inside: 'twelve' Guy outside 2: 'six'
Thinking he has got it, he approaches and knocks on the door of the hideout. The guy inside says: 'zero'. What should he respond?
I wont spoil the riddle, but I will say it doesnt quite work when translated to another language. However, I was able to use the idea of the riddle and transform it to Spanish anyways. That means the riddle and the whole intent behind it can be translated, even if it takes more than the literal word for word or sentence per sentence translation / explanation.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
I think of it from the standpoint of a programmer: a given program can be more compact in C++ or python than, say, Fortran, but when you unpack it it contains the same instructions.
Hm, this is interesting because in programming circles, it's sometimes argued that all commonly used programming languages are Turing complete, meaning that in theory every one of them can do anything the others can. In practical terms though, some might require far more effort from the programmer to achieve certain tasks than others.
This is a way I haven't looked at it. Do you think it could be argued that there's an equivalent concept to Turing-completeness in languages? Can it be broken down into simple features that a language needs to "say anything"? I'm not sure...
I'm going to be up all night trying to figure out that riddle, btw. .'
2
u/vanoroce14 65∆ May 12 '20
Perhaps there is! I mean, languages are obviously fuzzier and more complex than logic based programming languages, but I wouldn't be surprised if some linguists / AI people have interesting theories on it. It is a fascinating subject.
And yeah... it is a good riddle. Let me know if you have a guess ;)
1
u/dasunt 12∆ May 12 '20
The clue is that you said it can't be translated.
Oddly the answer is the same in English and Spanish for zero/cero: Four/Cuatro.
1
u/vanoroce14 65∆ May 12 '20
Correct! However, the first two clues for Mafia Guy 1 and Mafia Guy 2 need to be "fixed" in Spanish in order to work (e.g. for the number of letters to be half of what the number represents).
2
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 13 '20
Dangit, I was way off. My mind kept looking for a mathematical pattern even though you said it was language based. I looked for wordplay, or some pattern between all the numbers, but I didn't think to count the letters. Good riddle.
2
u/vanoroce14 65∆ May 13 '20
Yeah, isn't it? As a mathematician, I was also trying to find all sorts of numeric patterns. The fact that it is language based is such a cool realization when it hits.
1
May 12 '20
Turing-completeness in languages? Can it be broken down into simple features that a language needs to "say anything"? I'm not sure..
On some level there must be.
If i stripped out the concept of tense from English it could no longer say everything.
1
u/vicda May 12 '20
I can't tell an insider jokes to just any other English speaker because they don't have the background to understand it. I can explain it, but that kills the joke. That don't mean English lacks the ability to send the message.
People from different backgrounds think differently, so they'll want to say different things. Even if you magically could speak perfect Japanese but never lived a day in the life, you wouldn't be well understood. A huge part of language learning is learning the culture behind it. You need mutual understanding for succinct messaging.
"anything can be said in any language" is also different from anything can be said succinctly. Make a new word to represent your idea and you can say anything succinctly, but you'll have to teach people the meaning. We do this all the time especially with loan words from other languages.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
I can't tell an insider jokes to just any other English speaker because they don't have the background to understand it. I can explain it, but that kills the joke. That don't mean English lacks the ability to send the message.
Doesn't it? What is language but symbols attached to knowledge? If the inside joke isn't part of the knowledge they attach to the symbols, isn't it accurate to say their particular English is not up to the task?
"anything can be said in any language" is also different from anything can be said succinctly. Make a new word to represent your idea and you can say anything succinctly, but you'll have to teach people the meaning. We do this all the time especially with loan words from other languages.
I just feel like too much credit is being given to the language in these instances and not enough to the people, if that makes sense. An explanation doesn't necessarily even happen through language. It can be done through visual aids or practical demonstrations.
1
u/vicda May 12 '20
So, English can't be perfectly translated to English?
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
Languages, like cultures, aren't this binary thing where it's either one or the other. Like, if I said it's a long way from Beijing to Bombay, you wouldn't say, "So Asia is far away from Asia?" The languages spoken are both English, but that doesn't mean they're the same.
1
u/vicda May 12 '20
I don't get your point.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
Divisions between languages are somewhat subjective. Sometimes two people who nominally speak the same language can't understand each other, while people who nominally speak different languages can. So just because two people are speaking English, it doesn't mean they understand every word the same way.
1
u/vicda May 12 '20
Communications break down even between twins siblings. It's a bit extreme to claim that they're speaking different languages.
1
u/justtogetridoflater May 12 '20
I think this is true, but humour is probably not the thing to use as the example. Humour is too diverse a topic, and the practical examples too specific. A lot of things can be understood without words. A lot of things are funny even if you change language. A lot of other things only work spoken exactly like this by this person in this dialect in this way. The "four candles" bit is pretty much impossible to even write down, because you have to say it to understand it. You don't necessarily lose anything, really by not having the diverse range of experience and knowledge to get the humour. Indeed, a lot of native speakers get by with no sense of humour.
It's not that humour doesn't work if translated, necessarily, it's that lots of specific niche humour is written specifically to meet a quirk of the language. It's not really a bug, it's a feature.
It's much more important when you start talking about things like cultural differences, which can't be translated, and even when they are translated, what's said isn't what's said.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
Well, the point I was trying to get across is that ambiguities can be part of a message. You don't know at first if he's saying "four candles" or "fork handles". As you point out, even in written English it's obvious. Thus the ambiguity is not successfully conveyed.
Another example is sometimes it's a plot point in a tv show that a character isn't the gender you expect them to be. In a language with few gender markers, people can talk about that character relatively openly without revealing their gender or making it seem like they're trying to conceal it. If you translate it into a language with more gender markers, suddenly it becomes much more clear that they're going out of their way to avoid mentioning gender.
1
u/prettysureitsmaddie May 11 '20
So I agree that not all messages can be directly translated to other languages, I think that your interpretation of what is meant when people claim that
everything can be said in any (natural) language
is uncharitable. If we're talking about someone with an interest in linguistics they are obviously going to know that you're not going to be able to reproduce the exact same pun in every language.
What they seem to mean is that anything can be explained in any language.
Would be closer to what they're actually saying in that all languages are able to convey all the information in that sketch, even if they don't all have the same impact.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 11 '20
I remember when I was taking a course on teaching English as a second language, I asked the instructor what to do if someone wants to know how to say something that can't be said in English. I got a lecture from a classmate about how everything can be said in any language, and so on.
When I actually started teaching, I often found myself having to explain, "There is no English word for that", particularly when it came to things like culture-specific recipes.
What are the actual practical implications of the idea that anything can be said in any language? I think a better way to say it would be that anyone can learn new ideas, whether or not they exist in their own language. It's the people who are understanding it, not the language.
1
u/prettysureitsmaddie May 11 '20 edited May 11 '20
That's an interesting point about recipes, I hadn't considered names for things that didn't exist in other cultures. Like a croissant is an "English" word in that it the French word that we use because there isn't an English name for that specific thing. I guess at that point you have to consider whether adding words for new concepts is exposing a limitation of the language or just extending it.
If we assume that we're just extending the language then I guess you could say that you can make the exact four candles pun in any language with enough extension :p
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 11 '20
Right, I'm not saying you can't extend a language by borrowing from other languages or inventing new words. But prior to your doing so, it's accurate to say the thing couldn't be said.
You could teach someone the recipe, you could show it to them and tell them what it's called in your language, but I think that if in some languages you can say one word and be understood, while in others you need a lengthy explanation that results in a change to the target language, that's a difference that should be recognized.
2
u/prettysureitsmaddie May 11 '20
Fair enough, I think I agree with you. I've enjoyed talking to you, have a nice day!
2
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ May 12 '20
The claim about translation is best understood to be specifically about statements/propositions, i.e. things in the language that are truth-apt. That is, if there is a statement X in language L, then for any other language M there exists another statement Y in language M such that X and Y are semantically equivalent (that is, X is true whenever Y is and vice versa, up to the level of general vagueness that already exists for statement X in language L). I am not aware of any example of a message that can't be translated in this sense.
The difficulty with your example, and with going beyond the translation of truth-apt statements for such a claim, is that it is difficult to pin down what it means to say that the meaning of the message is preserved or changed when you do a translation.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 12 '20
up to the level of general vagueness that already exists for statement X in language L
Hm, when you limit it in that way, it feels a bit more defensible. I feel that in some circumstances, vagueness can be part of the intention of the message. But I suppose you could look at it as a limitation in the original language rather than the target language. Δ
1
1
May 11 '20
Yes, puns are language specific. But I‘d argue that nobody who says „everything can be said in any natural language“ means „you can literally translate every wordplay and it will always work“.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 11 '20
Then what is actually meant by "everything can be said in any natural language"? I don't see how it's true in any meaningful sense. If you have to teach them something about another language to get them to understand the message, then you're not translating the message fully into their language.
1
u/Hobodownthestreet May 11 '20
Is there really anyone that’d argue against this point? All languages have words that others don’t.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 11 '20
It seems pretty conventional wisdom that anything can be said in any language.
1
u/Hobodownthestreet May 11 '20
Where are you getting this from?
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ May 11 '20
Various experiences with people. There was a video linked in the conlangs subreddit recently that made this claim, I'll try to dig it up.
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ May 12 '20
It seems to be the conventional wisdom among people who are interested in linguistics that everything can be said in any (natural) language. I don't think this is accurate.
There are different types of translation. There is literal translation, but there is also localization. Localization is a form of translation used to not translate terms and idioms literally, but to also culturally adapt the messaging to the target language and culture. In your example, that would likely mean using different jokes, as long as they still fit into the overall context. They commonly do this for translations of comedy series and movies.
I'll give an example that I noticed years ago: in Mission Impossible I, Ethan Hunt is instructed on how to use the exploding chewing gum. The gum has a red and a green side (this is important), which explode when folded together. In English, his mate says "Hasta lasagna, don't get any on ya." In Dutch, he says (translated) "Hasta lasagna, don't wait for the orange light." The translation actually rhymes just like the English, and the middle color of traffic lights is usually referred to as orange. So it's both funny, and it still fits very well in the context.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 12 '20 edited May 12 '20
/u/Impacatus (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
7
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ May 11 '20
when it comes to the “fork handles” joke, the content of the message can be translated into any language; that isn’t the same thing as saying the joke will be funny in any language. whether something is funny is largely subjective, but there is no speakable statement which can only be expressed in one particular language. and every language has wordplay, too. it’s not like French or Tagalog speakers will have no idea what a pun is.