|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-23-2011, 04:17 AM
Just like sarcasm goes over native speakers heads on some occasions, so does (and it often does) Japanese-style indirect speech.
While I know of and appreciate different aspects of different ways of communication there seems to be an unanswered question-- what kinds or styles of communication are most effective? Do you guys think there is a chance that a certain style of communication can make life harder or easier on the speakers/listeners? I know there are all kinds of variables and that it is something that is hard to qualify/quantify... but it is nonetheless interesting to me. If I remember correctly, there was a person who claimed that Japanese was not a good scientific language or something to that degree. Do any of you (experienced Japanese or English speakers) feel that one language is better than the other? Do you feel that one is better or worse than the other in specific cases (like the whole Japanese isn't good for science claim I said above)? By the way, if I remember the whole "Japanese isn't good for science" claim was found to be false by some half-hearted (as is typically the case in a lot of linguistics-statistics that I've seen) survey. When my Japanese was in its embryonic state, so to speak, I was using a very thick mixture of both Japanese and English with study abroad students. Even at that level I felt that there were certain feelings or idea that were easier to convey in Japanese than in English. It's like when you see something or feel something that "words cannot describe"... chances are there is a language-culture out there somewhere that allows its speakers to perfectly convey what they're thinking and feeling in that same "words cannot describe"-it situation. What do you guys think about that? 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-23-2011, 06:30 AM
I'm scared. ~ 怖い
I'm scary. ~ 怖い （same, and same with interesting/interested, boring/bored, and other ed/ing adjectives） I have a dog. ~ 犬飼ってる I have dogs. ~ 犬飼ってる (same) いいよ sometimes means, "that's okay" or sometimes "no thanks" and in most situations it's clear but now and then it's confusing even for native speakers. My friend is so cool, she ... -> in Japanese the she/he is not explicit, so we don't know the gender of the friend, but in English you can explain it passively --- These are some examples off the top of my head where Japanese lacks accuracy and English has it readily available. I'm sure there are heaps more, perhaps someone better at Japanese could think of more. I feel that Japanese is somewhat crude and lacks the proper vocabulary to express simple ideas, but like you said, sometimes Japanese can express things much more easily than English, I just feel it's not an even balance...
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-23-2011, 06:44 AM
Quote:
Please explain a situation where the context would not make whether it clear if the speaker found something scary, or if the speaker was scared. Japanese is crude? Lacks vocabulary? C'mon, I hope this is another bit of sarcasm.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-23-2011, 07:12 AM
Quote:
It`s not an even balance because you can`t speak them evenly. Just because you don`t know the proper vocabulary doesn`t mean it is not there. There is a tendency to feel that the language you are weaker in is a weaker language. It`s not. It`s your own ability. If you have a limited vocabulary, the entire language is going to seem limited. It has nothing to do with the actual qualities of the language. I find that Japanese literature is often more expressive than English. You`ll hit this a lot if you compare translations - You need far more text to convey things that are quite short in Japanese... And often it loses an incredible amount of meaning even then. When it comes to literature, I`ll choose whichever translation (from a third language I do not know) feels better to read - in most cases I find myself choosing the Japanese unless the translation is really poor. But in the end, I`d really say they`re almost entirely equal. My answer to which is better would change based on what it is I`m referring to, the time of day, or my mood.  And, well, if you just say "Scary" in English, it`s not going to be very exact either. It isn`t as if you cannot distinguish between "I`m scared" and "I`m scary" in Japanese - you just don`t have to if it is clear in context. If you want to be explicit in everything you say, while sounding very odd and like overkill, it is entirely possible.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-23-2011, 07:14 AM
Quote:
Maybe the language's characteristic of being too vague or too specific can bog down communication (depending on the situation it can be beneficial or a hindrance). I mean, if I can draw from one of James's examples... (about plurals) "牛だ！" Imagine you're looking out of a car window when you see it/them. This can be interpreted, at a basic level, in two ways. 1. "Look, a cow!" 2. "Look, cows!" But what difference does it make? Is that extra information really needed? Yea, sure, there are times when having a clear understanding of whether something is plural or not helps, but you could argue that it is unneeded information in another situation. In all fairness James, I think that just saying crude is... a (c)rude way to put it. I think the last half of your statement helped balance things a bit... but maybe a little more explanation would help back up your statement.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-23-2011, 07:27 AM
Before I hit the sack, here is a gem to remind of the superiority of English:
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple... English muffins were not invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies, while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write, but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce, and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So, one moose, 2 meese? One index, two indices? Is cheese the plural of choose? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people recite at a play, and play at a recital? Ship by truck, and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? Park on driveways and drive on parkways? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell another? When a house burns up, it burns down. You fill in a form by filling it out, and an alarm clock goes off by going on. When the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible. And why, when I wind up my watch, I start it, but when I wind up this essay, I end it? English is a Funny Language!
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-23-2011, 07:33 AM
Quote:
By the way, after having gotten better at Japanese I can read a translated book and almost translate it exactly back into the original Japanese. While that kind of "transparent" translation may be appreciated by some people, I feel like some of the phrases are stock out of cheap dictionaries. As far as Japanese books being shorter than their translated counterparts goes... I'd like to make a couple of comments. First of all, Japanese uses Kanji, which can express a lot of information in just two "letters" (so to speak). I know this was a big issue for video game translators in the mid 90's. Translating the text into English became a file size issue. Just as an example-- 梅雨 (Tsuyu). It's just two characters. In English, you could roughly interpret that as meaning "the rainy season". That phrase consists of 16 characters (including the spaces). Second of all (and I think this is the most important issue), a Japanese book by a Japanese writer will be conveying Japanese thought... in other words a decidedly Japanese setting. A situation that is that Japanese will obviously benefit from being described in Japanese. The translator thusly has to not only "translate", but will have to re-paint the situation in more universal colors (if that makes sense). In doing so, a simple word or phrase that is understood at face value will suddenly have to be elaborated on in order for it to be appropriately received (with hopefully the same or similar feeling) in the new language. And Nyoroin, I know this is redundant for you so please don't take this as directed at you. It's more of a comment on the idea as a whole.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-23-2011, 07:46 AM
Quote:
I didn`t really mean "shorter" in terms of length, but more expressive for the number of words used. Obviously cultural things will have to be elaborated when unfamiliar, but this isn`t what I meant. Kanji will make a written passage appear shorter, but it won`t have any effect on a spoken sentence. What I often feel is that I can convey the meaning I want with less length and effort in Japanese than in English. Back to the subject of which language is more expressive though... And it really is pretty much a tie in my mind. There are things that I can think of multiple ways to say in Japanese but only one or maybe two in English... And the same the other way around. This is immensely frustrating when translating as there may be five different phrases with similar/identical meanings used for literary effect... But only one way to say it in the other language, so it ends up repeating. I find that I notice it a lot more in Japanese to English, which leads me to lean in the direction of thinking that Japanese can be more expressive in many cases.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-23-2011, 09:15 AM
Okay, I see what you meant now. What you are saying about translated books is very interesting actually. If it were one or two books I'd attribute the phenomenon to the translator(s). It sounds like you've read quite a few though, so I think the idea that it's down to the translator(s) isn't a good one.
I'm wondering Nyororin, do you have any experience with comparing technical documents? Or historical documents or anything else that is less expressive by nature than literature?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-23-2011, 03:48 PM
MMM,was that meant to be saying English was good? You've showed it to us a thousand times! It was even the last time I forgot my key and had to stay here!
You can't have a bad language. No language is superior except I don't have a particular interest in French but that's just my personal preference.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
