"With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
English word!" -
<https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>

On 27/02/2024 14:16, Hibou wrote:
> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
> English word!" -
> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>

Interesting but not very convincing. I googled 'difficult words in
English to translate', and I got several listings. They were all
different, but none were very convincing.

E.g.

‘Procrastinate’ – it has no equivalent in Spanish. (Really? How about
mañana, said in a bored, dismissive way?)

Another list said:

'Kitsch' - Only English speakers and Germans, from whom the word
originated, can so concisely describe pretentious, outdated, tacky, or
inferior art. (Yes, the German word is very concise. That's why English
appropriated it, like schadenfreude.)

One or two got close.

My favourite is 'ish'. BrE speakers people have a way of adding 'ish'
to a word to denote doubt, almost as if to say "almost right, but no
coconut". Example: "She's young." "Well, young-ish."

Untranslatable, yes. But is it a word?

Hibou wrote:

> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
> English word!" -
> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>

It's probably unfair to send this message, because only with deep
knowledge of Danish can you judge the quality of my answers, but I was
provoked by the article. Maybe Anders Nygaard has some comments?

Jinx - uheldssvanger (literally: pregnant with disaster)

Fair - retfærdig (also means "just" in the legal sense)

Tough - sej (very much the same meaning)

Multitasking:
A person good at multitasking is called "en blæksprutte" (an octopus).
One might produce the verb "at blæksprutte" - but it has never been
used. I'm certain that it would be understood immediately.

Procrastinate - sylte ("pickle" - a process that prepares for longtime
storage)

Put - "put" is an old Danish word. It has several meanings, and I
believe that it quite well fits the English word.

Spouse - "there’s no word to express this concept in Danish."
I think that I have to agree. We can say "kønspartner" (literally:
gender-partner, but more to the point: sex-partner), but it is a bit of
a joke. I did use it recently, though, in an invitation to my 75th
birthday.

You have to use either the equivalent for ‘partner’ (which extends to
business, as well) or the word ‘ægtefælle’ – which usually means
spouses are legally married.

Not just usually. That is what it means. "At ægte" means "to marry".
"Fælle" is related to "fellow".

Serendipity - I give up.

Free - I'd say that "fri" covers the meanings pretty well.

Toe - tå. We have two names for the toes, translated: big-toe and
little-toe.

Cheesy - I don't even know what it means, unless it's "smeared in
cheese".

--
Bertel, Denmark

In article <urkuji$393qt$1@dont-email.me>,
gadekryds@lundhansen.dk says...
>
> Hibou wrote:
>
> > "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don?t
> > always find a correspondent in other languages. That?s why, sometimes,
> > translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
> > English word!" -
> > <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>
>
> It's probably unfair to send this message, because only with deep
> knowledge of Danish can you judge the quality of my answers, but I was
> provoked by the article. Maybe Anders Nygaard has some comments?
>
> Jinx - uheldssvanger (literally: pregnant with disaster)
>
> Fair - retfærdig (also means "just" in the legal sense)
>
> Tough - sej (very much the same meaning)
>
> Multitasking:
> A person good at multitasking is called "en blæksprutte" (an octopus).
> One might produce the verb "at blæksprutte" - but it has never been
> used. I'm certain that it would be understood immediately.
>
> Procrastinate - sylte ("pickle" - a process that prepares for longtime
> storage)
>
> Put - "put" is an old Danish word. It has several meanings, and I
> believe that it quite well fits the English word.
>
> Spouse - "there?s no word to express this concept in Danish."
> I think that I have to agree. We can say "kønspartner" (literally:
> gender-partner, but more to the point: sex-partner), but it is a bit of
> a joke. I did use it recently, though, in an invitation to my 75th
> birthday.
>
> You have to use either the equivalent for ?partner? (which extends to
> business, as well) or the word ?ægtefælle? ? which usually means
> spouses are legally married.
>
> Not just usually. That is what it means. "At ægte" means "to marry".
> "Fælle" is related to "fellow".

In my Eng, "spouse" is only used for married persons.
"Partner" is usual used about bidey-ins who are not
spouses (of each other. Though they might be the spouses
of other people.)

Janet

On 2024-02-27 09:20, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Hibou wrote:
>
>> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
>> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
>> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
>> English word!" -
>> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>
>
> It's probably unfair to send this message, because only with deep
> knowledge of Danish can you judge the quality of my answers, but I was
> provoked by the article. Maybe Anders Nygaard has some comments?
>
> Jinx - uheldssvanger (literally: pregnant with disaster)
>
> Fair - retfærdig (also means "just" in the legal sense)
>
> Tough - sej (very much the same meaning)
>
> Multitasking:
> A person good at multitasking is called "en blæksprutte" (an octopus).
> One might produce the verb "at blæksprutte" - but it has never been
> used. I'm certain that it would be understood immediately.
>
> Procrastinate - sylte ("pickle" - a process that prepares for longtime
> storage)
>
> Put - "put" is an old Danish word. It has several meanings, and I
> believe that it quite well fits the English word.
>
> Spouse - "there’s no word to express this concept in Danish."
> I think that I have to agree. We can say "kønspartner" (literally:
> gender-partner, but more to the point: sex-partner), but it is a bit of
> a joke. I did use it recently, though, in an invitation to my 75th
> birthday.
>
> You have to use either the equivalent for ‘partner’ (which extends to
> business, as well) or the word ‘ægtefælle’ – which usually means
> spouses are legally married.
>
> Not just usually. That is what it means. "At ægte" means "to marry".
> "Fælle" is related to "fellow".
>
> Serendipity - I give up.
>
> Free - I'd say that "fri" covers the meanings pretty well.
>
> Toe - tå. We have two names for the toes, translated: big-toe and
> little-toe.
>
> Cheesy - I don't even know what it means, unless it's "smeared in
> cheese".

adjective: (informal) Over-dramatic, excessively emotional or clichéd,
trite, contrived.

adjective: (informal) Cheap, of poor quality.

adjective: Exaggerated and likely to be forced or insincere. (of a
smile or grin)

--
I tried making orange juice from concentrate,
but all I got was a really bad headache.

Janet wrote:

> In article <urkuji$393qt$1@dont-email.me>,
> gadekryds@lundhansen.dk says...
>>
>> Hibou wrote:
>>
>> > "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don?t
>> > always find a correspondent in other languages. That?s why, sometimes,
>> > translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
>> > English word!" -
>> > <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>
...

>> Spouse - "there?s no word to express this concept in Danish."
>> I think that I have to agree. We can say "kønspartner" (literally:
>> gender-partner, but more to the point: sex-partner), but it is a bit of
>> a joke. I did use it recently, though, in an invitation to my 75th
>> birthday.
>>
>> You have to use either the equivalent for ?partner? (which extends to
>> business, as well) or the word ?ægtefælle? ? which usually means
>> spouses are legally married.
>>
>> Not just usually. That is what it means. "At ægte" means "to marry".
>> "Fælle" is related to "fellow".

> In my Eng, "spouse" is only used for married persons.
> "Partner" is usual used about bidey-ins who are not
> spouses (of each other. Though they might be the spouses
> of other people.)

Same in my English all the way over and down here.

--
Jerry Friedman

Hibou hat am 27.02.2024 um 14:16 geschrieben:
> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
> English word!" -
> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>

So what, asks a professional translator? A one-to-one correspondence is
relatively rare, even within the same Indoeuropean branch.

Also, we never translate isolated words, unless stupid customers force
us to do it with f* Excel lists. We translate MEANINGS!

Too expensive on my real tombstone, so please let me have it written on
my virtual one:
Die Übersetzung hängt vom Zusammenhang ab, i.e. The translation depends
on the context.
Even this very short translation does have by chance the same number of
words, but no 1:1 correspondence.
And the translation in my mothertongue does not even match the number of
words.
La traduzione dipende dal contesto. A rare instance where Italian is
shorter than both German and English.

By the way, the same problem shows up in translations INTO English of
many common words in other languages.

Actually, a much bigger problem in my daily work is caused by words with
several meanings, which require different translations in the target
language, when the context does not tell clearly enough which concept
has been expressed in the sentence I'm working on.

occam wrote:

> My favourite is 'ish'. BrE speakers people have a way of adding 'ish'
> to a word to denote doubt, almost as if to say "almost right, but no
> coconut". Example: "She's young." "Well, young-ish."
>
> Untranslatable, yes.

No. In Danish it's "-agtigt".

> But is it a word?

One sound that carries a heap of meaning? Yes, that is a word. The funny
thing about it is that it started its life as and still functions as an
appendix.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

>> coconut". Example: "She's young." "Well, young-ish."
>>
>> Untranslatable, yes.
>
> No. In Danish it's "-agtigt".
>
>> But is it a word?
>
> One sound that carries a heap of meaning?

One example from a film with some friends who go on a road trip to visit
different wine areas and taste the local product (forgotten which
country). Two of them are sitting one evening on a bench with a glass of
wine and talking about their marriages.

You've always been faithful.
... -ish.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Hibou wrote:

> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
> English word!" -
> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>

In some cases they're arguing against themselves. If English had a
/richer/ vocabulary, it wouldn't need to use "free" for both "libre"
and "gratuit", "corner" for both "esquina" and "rincón", etc., etc.,
etc.

In other news, tomorrow will be windy, unless it's calm.

"Correspondent"?

--
Jerry Friedman

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, at 17:22:40, jerryfriedman posted:
>Janet wrote:
>
>> In article <urkuji$393qt$1@dont-email.me>, gadekryds@lundhansen.dk
>>says...
>>> Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> > "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words
>>> >don?t always find a correspondent in other languages. That?s why,
>>> >sometimes, translators need as many as five or six words to
>>> >translate a single English word!" -
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> >>><https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>
>..
>
>>> Spouse - "there?s no word to express this concept in Danish."
>>> I think that I have to agree. We can say "kønspartner" (literally:
>>> gender-partner, but more to the point: sex-partner), but it is a bit of
>>> a joke. I did use it recently, though, in an invitation to my 75th
>>> birthday.
>>> You have to use either the equivalent for ?partner? (which
>>>extends to business, as well) or the word ?ægtefælle? ? which
>>>usually means spouses are legally married.
>>> Not just usually. That is what it means. "At ægte" means "to
>>>marry".
>>> "Fælle" is related to "fellow".
>
>> In my Eng, "spouse" is only used for married persons. "Partner" is
>>usual used about bidey-ins who are not spouses (of each other.
>>Though they might be the spouses of other people.)
>
>Same in my English all the way over and down here.
>
But not "bidey-ins", surely? I smiled reading that phrase from Janet. I
think I knew it before, but had forgotten. Scottish without any doubt.
--
Paul W

On 27-Feb-24 17:19, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2024-02-27 09:20, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Hibou wrote:
>>
>>> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
>>> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
>>> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
>>> English word!" -
>>> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>
>>
>> It's probably unfair to send this message, because only with deep
>> knowledge of Danish can you judge the quality of my answers, but I was
>> provoked by the article. Maybe Anders Nygaard has some comments?
>>
>> Jinx - uheldssvanger (literally: pregnant with disaster)
>>
>> Fair - retfærdig (also means "just" in the legal sense)
>>
>> Tough - sej (very much the same meaning)
>>
>> Multitasking:
>> A person good at multitasking is called "en blæksprutte" (an octopus).
>> One might produce the verb "at blæksprutte" - but it has never been
>> used. I'm certain that it would be understood immediately.
>>
>> Procrastinate - sylte ("pickle" - a process that prepares for longtime
>> storage)
>>
>> Put - "put" is an old Danish word. It has several meanings, and I
>> believe that it quite well fits the English word.
>>
>> Spouse - "there’s no word to express this concept in Danish."
>> I think that I have to agree. We can say "kønspartner" (literally:
>> gender-partner, but more to the point: sex-partner), but it is a bit of
>> a joke. I did use it recently, though, in an invitation to my 75th
>> birthday.
>>
>>        You have to use either the equivalent for ‘partner’ (which
>> extends to
>>        business, as well) or the word ‘ægtefælle’ – which usually means
>>        spouses are legally married.
>>
>> Not just usually. That is what it means. "At ægte" means "to marry".
>> "Fælle" is related to "fellow".
>>
>> Serendipity - I give up.
>>
>> Free  - I'd say that "fri" covers the meanings pretty well.
>>
>> Toe - tå. We have two names for the toes, translated: big-toe and
>> little-toe.
>>
>> Cheesy - I don't even know what it means, unless it's "smeared in
>> cheese".
>
> adjective:  (informal) Over-dramatic, excessively emotional or clichéd,
> trite, contrived.
>
> adjective:  (informal) Cheap, of poor quality.
>
> adjective:  Exaggerated and likely to be forced or insincere. (of a
> smile or grin)

Short version.
"Trump"

--
Sam Plusnet

Janet hat am 27.02.2024 um 18:08 geschrieben:
> In my Eng, "spouse" is only used for married persons.
> "Partner" is usual used about bidey-ins who are not
> spouses (of each other. Though they might be the spouses
> of other people.)

The paper and online dictionaries I have easy access to don't know
"bidey" or "bidey-in". Where does it come from? Do people from other
parts of the English-speaking universe understand it? Is my assumption
correct, that it means "a part of an _unmarried_ couple"? Is it for all
sorts of sexual relationships appropriate or only for traditional
man-woman couples?

Silvano wrote:

> Janet hat am 27.02.2024 um 18:08 geschrieben:
>> In my Eng, "spouse" is only used for married persons.
>> "Partner" is usual used about bidey-ins who are not
>> spouses (of each other. Though they might be the spouses
>> of other people.)

> The paper and online dictionaries I have easy access to don't know
> "bidey" or "bidey-in". Where does it come from? Do people from other
> parts of the English-speaking universe understand it? Is my assumption
> correct, that it means "a part of an _unmarried_ couple"? Is it for all
> sorts of sexual relationships appropriate or only for traditional
> man-woman couples?

The more usual spelling is "bidie-in". It's from "bide", to stay, stay
at a place, live in a place. As Paul suggested, Americans are unlikely
to recognize it except for those with some knowledge of Scotland, in my
case the fictional Scotlands of Ian Rankin, Charles Stross, et al.

Your assumption about the meaning is right. Janet may be the only
one here who can answer your question about traditional couples.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 28/02/24 00:16, Hibou wrote:

> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
> English word!" -
> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>

Yes, we all know the Germans have no word for schadenfreude.

The word "serendipity" is itself a borrowing. "Serendip" is an old name
of Sri Lanka.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-02-27 15:33, jerryfriedman wrote:
> Silvano wrote:
>
>> Janet hat am 27.02.2024 um 18:08 geschrieben:
>>>   In my Eng, "spouse" is only used for married persons.   "Partner"
>>> is usual used about bidey-ins who are not spouses (of each other.
>>> Though they might be the spouses of  other people.)
>
>> The paper and online dictionaries I have easy access to don't know
>> "bidey" or "bidey-in". Where does it come from? Do people from other
>> parts of the English-speaking universe understand it? Is my assumption
>> correct, that it means "a part of an _unmarried_ couple"? Is it for all
>> sorts of sexual relationships appropriate or only for traditional
>> man-woman couples?
>
> The more usual spelling is "bidie-in".  It's from "bide", to stay, stay
> at a place, live in a place.  As Paul suggested, Americans are unlikely
> to recognize it except for those with some knowledge of Scotland, in my
> case the fictional Scotlands of Ian Rankin, Charles Stross, et al.
>
> Your assumption about the meaning is right.  Janet may be the only
> one here who can answer your question about traditional couples.

When I read bidey-in, I recognized it from the phrase bide-a-wee, which,
for some reason, I knew.

--
Palindromedary: n. A camel with one hump, but two front-ends.
https://palindromedary.us/

On 2024-02-27 14:44, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 27-Feb-24 17:19, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-02-27 09:20, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>>> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
>>>> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
>>>> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
>>>> English word!" -
>>>> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>
>>>
>>> It's probably unfair to send this message, because only with deep
>>> knowledge of Danish can you judge the quality of my answers, but I was
>>> provoked by the article. Maybe Anders Nygaard has some comments?
>>>
>>> Jinx - uheldssvanger (literally: pregnant with disaster)
>>>
>>> Fair - retfærdig (also means "just" in the legal sense)
>>>
>>> Tough - sej (very much the same meaning)
>>>
>>> Multitasking:
>>> A person good at multitasking is called "en blæksprutte" (an octopus).
>>> One might produce the verb "at blæksprutte" - but it has never been
>>> used. I'm certain that it would be understood immediately.
>>>
>>> Procrastinate - sylte ("pickle" - a process that prepares for longtime
>>> storage)
>>>
>>> Put - "put" is an old Danish word. It has several meanings, and I
>>> believe that it quite well fits the English word.
>>>
>>> Spouse - "there’s no word to express this concept in Danish."
>>> I think that I have to agree. We can say "kønspartner" (literally:
>>> gender-partner, but more to the point: sex-partner), but it is a bit of
>>> a joke. I did use it recently, though, in an invitation to my 75th
>>> birthday.
>>>
>>>        You have to use either the equivalent for ‘partner’ (which
>>> extends to
>>>        business, as well) or the word ‘ægtefælle’ – which usually means
>>>        spouses are legally married.
>>>
>>> Not just usually. That is what it means. "At ægte" means "to marry".
>>> "Fælle" is related to "fellow".
>>>
>>> Serendipity - I give up.
>>>
>>> Free  - I'd say that "fri" covers the meanings pretty well.
>>>
>>> Toe - tå. We have two names for the toes, translated: big-toe and
>>> little-toe.
>>>
>>> Cheesy - I don't even know what it means, unless it's "smeared in
>>> cheese".
>>
>> adjective:  (informal) Over-dramatic, excessively emotional or
>> clichéd, trite, contrived.
>>
>> adjective:  (informal) Cheap, of poor quality.
>>
>> adjective:  Exaggerated and likely to be forced or insincere. (of a
>> smile or grin)
>
> Short version.
> "Trump"

Canadian version.
"Trudeau"

--
Dogs have owners, cats have staff.

Le 27/02/2024 à 19:57, jerryfriedman a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
>>
>> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words don’t
>> always find a correspondent in other languages. That’s why, sometimes,
>> translators need as many as five or six words to translate a single
>> English word!" -
>> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-words-to-translate/>
>
> In some cases they're arguing against themselves.  If English had a
> /richer/ vocabulary, it wouldn't need to use "free" for both "libre"
> and "gratuit", "corner" for both "esquina" and "rincón", etc., etc.,
> etc.
>
> In other news, tomorrow will be windy, unless it's calm.
>
> "Correspondent"?

Well, first, I was quoting this article because I thought it
interesting; I wasn't endorsing it.

I think it's true that English has an exceptionally rich vocabulary, but
that doesn't mean it's a superset of all the world's vocabularies. There
will always be examples both ways. 'To know' translates into either
'connaître' or 'savoir', 'faire' into 'to do' and 'to make' (this often
trips up French people learning English, it seems).

English is the world's most widely spoken language. It is used for just
about everything that Man does, and it has acquired a correspondingly
large vocabulary. In particular, it is the language of the science and
technology on which our lives depend, the language of every new
development in a rapidly evolving world. Other languages scramble to
keep up. Unless they take over as world language, they will never match
us for breadth of vocabulary.

In article <urmeli$3m646$3@dont-email.me>,
larry@invalid.ca says...

(attributions scrambled)
> >>> Cheesy - I don't even know what it means, unless it's "smeared in
> >>> cheese".
> >>
> >> adjective:  (informal) Over-dramatic, excessively emotional or
> >> clichéd, trite, contrived.
> >>
> >> adjective:  (informal) Cheap, of poor quality.
> >>
> >> adjective:  Exaggerated and likely to be forced or insincere. (of a
> >> smile or grin)
> >
> > Short version.
> > "Trump"
>
> Canadian version.
> "Trudeau"

Britain just recycled a familiar English word.

"Bliar".

To enhance the insult, pronounce it Bee-liar. B is a
euphemistic abbreviation of "bloody", a minced oath
particularly offensive to Roman Catholics. Bliar's
conversion was a typical slither.

Janet

In article <urli3q$3dgjf$1@dont-email.me>,
Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it says...
>
> Janet hat am 27.02.2024 um 18:08 geschrieben:
> > In my Eng, "spouse" is only used for married persons.
> > "Partner" is usual used about bidey-ins who are not
> > spouses (of each other. Though they might be the spouses
> > of other people.)
>
> The paper and online dictionaries I have easy access to don't know
> "bidey" or "bidey-in". Where does it come from? Do people from other
> parts of the English-speaking universe understand it? Is my assumption
> correct, that it means "a part of an _unmarried_ couple"? Is it for all
> sorts of sexual relationships appropriate or only for traditional
> man-woman couples?

It's a Scottish term for an unmarried couple (any
gender) in a sexual relationship, who live together (bide)
under the same roof.

Janet.

El Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:31:33 +0100, Silvano escribió:

> Also, we never translate isolated words, unless stupid customers force
> us to do it with f* Excel lists. We translate MEANINGS!

I have hung up my trados. I could no longer tolerate having to compete
with google.

As for the excel lists, I've haven't seen them for quite a while. Given
all CMSs nowadays use files full of strings that can be proper
translations. Even menu items etc. can be properly translated. The only
problem comes when a client doesn't want you to see the context, in which
case all bets are off.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

El Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:57:15 +0000, jerryfriedman escribió:

> In some cases they're arguing against themselves. If English had a
> /richer/ vocabulary, it wouldn't need to use "free" for both "libre" and
> "gratuit", "corner" for both "esquina" and "rincón", etc., etc.,
> etc.

Some would argue in favour of economy, given we rarely see text without
context.

BTW, I have a pain in one of my dedos. I can't decide whether to call it
a finger or a toe.

"Standing on the corner, watching all the girls go by..." - "on" =
esquina.

"Go and sit in the corner" - "in" = rincón.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

Hibou wrote:

> I think it's true that English has an exceptionally rich vocabulary, but
> that doesn't mean it's a superset of all the world's vocabularies. There
> will always be examples both ways. 'To know' translates into either
> 'connaître' or 'savoir', 'faire' into 'to do' and 'to make' (this often
> trips up French people learning English, it seems).
>
> English is the world's most widely spoken language. It is used for just
> about everything that Man does, and it has acquired a correspondingly
> large vocabulary. In particular, it is the language of the science and
> technology on which our lives depend, the language of every new
> development in a rapidly evolving world. Other languages scramble to
> keep up. Unless they take over as world language, they will never match
> us for breadth of vocabulary.

English language gained a lot because so many countries/regions were
incorporated in the empire, but it also accepts e.g. latin words where
Danish doesn't. An ordinary Dane wouldn't know what "umbilikal" means
unless they are involved in medicine or diving. We only use "navle".

Another thing that surprised me, was learning that snails and slugs are
two groups of animals. We say "snegl" about them both.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 17:31 27 Feb 2024, Silvano said:
> Hibou hat am 27.02.2024 um 14:16 geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> "With English having one of the richest vocabularies, some words
>> don�t always find a correspondent in other languages. That�s why,
>> sometimes, translators need as many as five or six words to translate
>> a single English word!" -
>>
>> <https://clearwordstranslations.com/language/pt/difficult-
>> words-to-translate/>
>
>
> So what, asks a professional translator? A one-to-one correspondence
> is relatively rare, even within the same Indoeuropean branch.
>
> Also, we never translate isolated words, unless stupid customers force
> us to do it with f* Excel lists. We translate MEANINGS!
>
> Too expensive on my real tombstone, so please let me have it written
> on my virtual one:
>
> Die �bersetzung h�ngt vom Zusammenhang ab, i.e. The translation
> depends on the context.
>
> Even this very short translation does have by chance the same number
> of words, but no 1:1 correspondence.
>
> And the translation in my mothertongue does not even match the number
> of words.
>
> La traduzione dipende dal contesto. A rare instance where Italian is
> shorter than both German and English.
>
> By the way, the same problem shows up in translations INTO English of
> many common words in other languages.
>
> Actually, a much bigger problem in my daily work is caused by words
> with several meanings, which require different translations in the
> target language, when the context does not tell clearly enough which
> concept has been expressed in the sentence I'm working on.

That's interesting.

If single words in certain languages are represented by several words in
English, then translating a word from English is a "many to one"
relationship (going from English to the other language).

I would have thought this makes translation easier, not harder as the
quotation asserts. Conversely, I suspect it would be harder to translate
from the other language to English, which may be what the author
actually meant.

Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>If single words in certain languages are represented by several words in
>English, then translating a word from English is a "many to one"
>relationship (going from English to the other language).

You might get this idea if you look at a translation as processing
each word in isolation. But as soon as you translate larger units
of text, you can use the opportunity of translating in such a
way that the size sometimes grows and sometimes shrinks.

Free translations can be adaptations which do not attempt to
translate every detail, but which reproduce the general idea
of a text in another language.

But it still might be true, that translations from English
increase the size when measured in words, because English
indeed has a rich vocabulary!

Japanese uses Kanjis, which are single characters that sometimes
express what corresponds to a word in English. So when measured
in characters, a translation from English to Japanese might
shrink in size. (I just tested this with a random paragraph. Its
Japanese translation was a bit smaller when measured in lines.
4.7 lines became 4.05 lines, approximately.)