[Columbine]

Originally Posted by steven

If you look at wikipedia, プリン will turn into flan when you turn the article into English from Japanese. MANY dictionaries have this wrong-- more so than dictionaries, though, textbooks have this wrong. Teachers also have this wrong. In your example you cite flan as being baked purin, when purin is probably just flan (it has been baked, and then cooled in the convenience store or wherever they have it).

This is my point exactly, because 'flan' in the UK is absolutely in no way, the same thing as purin. This is a flan as far as i'm concerned: http://www3.sympatico.ca/kingpede/Yummy_Fruit_Flan.jpg, and what you call 'flan' we usually call creme caramel. The 'baked' comment was in response to another poster who explained that in her country, flan was baked in an oven, whereas most recipies for Japanese purin i've seen call for steaming in a steamer. Two different cooking processes.

Originally Posted by steven

I would argue that a kabocha is a type of pumpkin-- but it is nonetheless different. They are both some kind of squash, though. I don't even think they have similar flavors.

yes, off-topic, but I think they're similar enough to warrant a cross over. Both are a type of winter squash, and the taste isn't so dissimilar at all; kabocha's just sweeter. The only real difference is size and skin texture; Pumpkin forms a hard shell whereas Kabocha is softer so for me a kabocha is more like a squash than a true pumpkin. They probably call it 'pumpkin' in the dictionaries for ease though; some countries don't bother to differentiate between squash and pumpkin at all- don't forget, not all learners of Japanese have the option to learn it in their native tongue, plenty learn it via English as a third language.

Originally Posted by steven

Yet another one: daikon. Both Japanese people and English speakers studying Japanese call these things radishes on a regular basis. They have a similar taste, but look nothing like each other.

This one you're wrong on. Compare the latin names for 'radish' and 'daikon'. They're both sativas; ie from the same family. A Daikon is a subspecies, but it's still a radish. Think about pears; they come in all shapes, sizes, flavors and textures according to subspecies, but they're all still pears.

Originally Posted by steven

At any rate, I've seen things like "Chinese noodles" instead of "ramen" in text books. Chinese noodles is such a broad sounding term that even if someone has never heard of "ramen" before, they're still not gonna have a clue if you say "chinese noodles". The same thing with things like "buckwheat noodles" and what have you. Just call them by their Japanese names.

I agree; somethings are just completely untranslatable, especially plants and foodstuffs. Then again, sometimes you really do need both. Imagine reading "それから火野君が南蛮漬を食べました" in your textbook with the vocab underneath as 南蛮漬 = nanbanzuke. Ok, sure you can infer that it's a food, but it doesn't tell you at all what it actually is. Even deciphering the kanji doesn't help. And for some people, the word 'ramen' can be just as incomprehensible. At least most people understand the words 'chinese' and 'noodles' and can infer enough meaning from that to gain a basic understanding.