Language desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 3

False friend

I was looking at the false friend article, but it was probably false cognate I was thinking of. Anyway, the first paragraph of false friends says that they "are pairs of words or phrases in two languages or dialects (or letters in two alphabets)[1] that look or sound similar, but differ significantly in meaning." but the fourth paragraph says "There is often a partial overlap in meanings,". So which of the two statements is correct? Are the meanings between false friends completely different or similar? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key is in the word 'often', which usually doesn't mean 'always', so both statements can be true.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get what CBW is saying. The given definition that they "look or sound similar, but differ significantly in meaning" is rather absolute and straightforward. The second statement ("There is often a partial overlap in meanings") is inconsistent with the given definition of the term. If there is indeed "often a partial overlap in meanings", then they shouldn't be defined as words that "differ significantly in meaning".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I was getting at. I think the first one should read "but may differ significantly in meaning." as examples in the article show shows similar and different. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "false friend" is that, because words in two languages are similar in form, learners of a language are tempted to use the foreign word the same way they would use its lookalike in their native language, when in fact the meanings are often different. Often there are usages with similar meanings in both languages, and often the meanings are related, which contributes to the feeling that the word is a "friend". An example from German is aktuell, usually meaning "current" or "up-to-date", meanings which can occasionally overlap with the English sense of actual but would not usually be translated with that English word. Another is Kontrolle, meaning "checkpoint" or "inspection to determine whether a person or thing complies with laws or regulations". This can sometimes be used where control would be used in English, such as "border control", but using it as if it were synonymous with English control would lead to confusion or misunderstanding. Marco polo (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the question is mistaken. Words can have a significant difference in meaning (so that, as Marco points out, one cannot accurately be used to translate the other) and still overlap partially in meaning. "Significant difference" does not imply "no common ground". -- Elphion (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, French actuel is a false friend in the same way (the first example that came to my mind!). Likely German got it from French. —Tamfang (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actualizado means "current, updated" in Spanish as well. μηδείς (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "actual" is from Latin via French, which uses it to mean "up to date", but it's not used that way in English very much.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a German create the article? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a false friend that is also a false cognate would be Spanish sonrisa ('smile'), which I was sure was somehow the result of a borrowing from English under the logic that someone's smile is as beautiful as a sunrise. But no, it comes from Latin subrisa. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is the Japanese word for 'letter' (as in one that you send), which is 手紙 (literally: hand paper), which in Chinese means 'toilet paper'. I once sent a letter to a Chinese friend, and started the letter (in Chinese) with 'Thank you for your letter' and she wrote back saying she didn't send me any toilet paper. True story.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

08:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish translation

What would be a good translation into Swedish of "Me and Mrs Jones, we got a thing going on"? I want to avoid the twin pitfalls of "Mrs Jones and I are in a sexual relationship" and the "As to me and Jones-wife, there is owned an object, she move top-surface-ward" sort of thing that a machine translation would give. Could I also ask for a translation of "Is this a love thing, or is it just a sex thing"? To distil the questions, what's the best Swedish word or expression that captures this sense of "thing" in colloquial English? Tevildo (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you want a polite euphemism for a sexual relationship in Swedish, right ? StuRat (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much "polite euphemism", more "non-obscene colloquial expression", but yes. Tevildo (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: I would go for: "Me and Mrs Jones, we got a thing going on"? = Jag och Fru Jones, har ett (slags) förhållande. The "slags" (meaning "sort of") is optional. Adding it makes the word "förhållande" slightly ambiguous. Swedes tend to like putting small insignificant words into sentences, these makes it colloquial. and "Is this a love thing, or is it just a sex thing"? = Är det här kärlek eller bara sex?. The "thing" is implied in the words kärlek och sex. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 23:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) (just happened to be in the neighborhood)[reply]

Thanks very much! Tevildo (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't use capital letters with titles in Swedish so it should be "fru Jones" or should you keep the English title "Mrs Jones". Regards, Rex Sueciæ ✎ 12:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

German translation

Could someone please translate the following for me (from a PD source)? It seems to be written quite colloquially, which I assume is why Google is having trouble with it... Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man gebe sich über die Behauptung der ganzen Bocche überhaupt keiner Täuschung hin! Umgeben von einer wenig verlässlichen Bevölkerung, welche ungescheut nach Montenegro gravitirt, werden unsere Truppen in den Bocche von dem Augenblicke an, als russische Schiffe im adriatischen Golf erscheinen, auf die festen Plätze beschränkt sein und auf das Terrain, welches ihre Kanonen beherrschen.

"Make no mistakes about the control of the whole Bocche! Surrounded by an unreliable populace that unabashedly gravitates towards Montenegro, our forces in the Bocche will be restricted to the fortified places and to whatever areas are dominated by their own cannons, as soon as Russian ships will make their appearance in the Adriatic". (It's not really colloquial, but a bit archaic in places.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm self-correcting one detail: "Behauptung" probably doesn't translate to "claim", as in most other contexts, but to "control", as in "maintaining military control" of something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I was going to suggest "One shouldn't deceive oneself about the claim to control of the whole Bocche! Surrounded by an unreliable population that leans without intimidation toward Montenegro, our troops in the Bocche will be confined to fortified places and the area that their cannons control the moment Russian ships appear in the Adriatic Sea." "Bocche" here refers to the Bay of Kotor. Marco polo (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, both of you. FYI, it's in relation to this place, which I risked life and limb exploring last Saturday... Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mylar, etc

Etymonline says of Mylar: "proper name for a polyester film, 1954, trademarked by E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A. Like many Du Pont names, it doesn't mean anything, they just liked the sound." I don't have access to oed.com right now, but remember that it says something similar if terser. Kevlar, another Du Pont trademark, gets similar comments, but (meaning aside) the overlap of their second syllables can hardly have been coincidental. Du Pont seems to like family resemblances in its trade names: consider nylon, rayon, orlon and dacron, the rime of whose second syllables is reminiscent of cotton. Does word-final "‑(l)ar" bring to mind anything older and relevant? -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not older, but there is Tedlar. Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, the OED doesn't know either; they say " Origin uncertain: perhaps an arbitrary formation (perhaps compare earlier nylon). Compare later Kevlar". Dbfirs 06:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]