Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

yep, our attempt to render sounds into written characters

Anna wrote: "I think I've shared the "kuusi palaa" thing before?

Yes, here it is."

*heh* Dang. How many times I've seen that and I only just realized it features one of my common peeves: singular conjugation on a verb for plural action.

"Six of them return" should be "Kuusi palaavat".
"Six of them are on fire" should be "Kuusi palavat".

But, that's being pedantry over formal written language. It's perfectly on point in any common speech.

CBRetriever wrote: "yep, our attempt to render sounds into written characters"

Onomatopoeia.

(Something which - once again - Japanese excels at incorporating into expressive communications).

What I've been snickering at at the store recently. Can't say how this appears to native Swedes, but clearly not much thought went into figuring how appealing such a niche seasonal branding might appear to wider markets: Plopp - JuleSkum.



("The sound of a turd dropping into a bowl, now in seasonal scum flavour"... is how my Finnish/English wired mind perceives it).

Which also reminded me, that Sweden has one of the best sparkling/mineral water brands I've encountered - and I've been eagerly awaiting to see them appear in Finnish markets. But, their brand is called "Loka" - which is exactly what we'd call scum/mud in Finnish; "Scum water" might need some rebranding, if we'll ever to get their flavorful drinks over.

Bimbo bread needs some rebranding especially since they sponsor a MLS (soccer team) and the word Bimbo is in big bold letters on the front of their kits. At least it's not a women's team...

LOL!

CBRetriever wrote: "Bimbo bread needs some rebranding especially since they sponsor a MLS (soccer team) and the word Bimbo is in big bold letters on the front of their kits. At least it's not a women's team..."

Along with that, in Japanese, bimbo (Øš·¦) means "poverty".

oooo, that's almost as bad

That reminds me that there is/was a German brand of toilet paper called ¡°Happy End¡±

DivaDiane wrote: "That reminds me that there is/was a German brand of toilet paper called ¡°Happy End¡±"

LOL

DivaDiane wrote: "That reminds me that there is/was a German brand of toilet paper called ¡°Happy End¡±"

One portable toilet company here in the Czech Republic once had a motto, loosely translated, "Your shit, our joy" which they, after some disapproval from their German mother company, changed to "Your shit, our job". So, maybe there's some truth about how the Germans don't mix work and jokes.
Another company in the same field has something like "we're your relief" on their porta-pottys.

On the topic of commas, I've once seen the "Let's eat, grandma" vs. "Let's eat grandma".
A magazine used something with a similarly grim difference for my language, so the translation won't work without flaws, but it was "release, not execute" vs. "release not, execute".
Commas can save lives, or end them :D

Yes, commas! <3 The classic Eats, Shoots & Leaves.

Also compound words, which are very common in Finnish. For example:

Mummon lihapullat = Grandma's meatballs
Mummonlihapullat = Meatballs made out of grandma meat

Some grocery store apparently tried to sell grandma meat, which is why this example popped into my head.

I just remembered a funny conversation I had recently.

I was talking to a friend and wanted to say "it's not an emergency, take your time" in French. But, as sometimes happens when I'm flipping between languages, I chose the homonym instead of the actual word. So I said "pas d'emergence."

Emergence in French means like emerging from underneath, often connected to a baby crowning.

And then my friend did the same thing, picking the word that sounds similar rather than the correct one!


So in English, my friend said "you're giving birth? That sure sounds like a urgency to me."

I then explained that outside a few very specific phrases, if you're discussing urgency, it has a connotation of needing to pee really badly.

And this is how an emergency in French can lead to someone assisting you in finding an obgyn.

I like the name of the French brand of TP = Just-1 which could be the source of Sheryl Crow's much lambasted blog piece on the Huffington post"

Midway through a tour, Crow wrote an instantly controversial blog post for the Huffington Post.
The post offered a few options for anyone looking to reduce their carbon footprint, but it was the one suggestion concerning toilet paper usage that sparked outrage. ¡°Now, I don¡¯t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit,¡± wrote Crow. ¡°Except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.¡±

This stuff is really thick and I usually only used one or two myself.

listing on amazon.co.uk: but it's not available in the US

even the center tube is designed to fall apart in the toilet

This thread is reminding me of a conversation I once had with a colleague from Germany that included the different ways an American and a German could parse a menu item I've seen in Germany and Switzerland: Tageshit. If you break it as "tages/hit", it's the special of the day. Tage/shit, on the other hand, would be days shit.

LOL!! I like the latter interpretation, Colin!

So, idle on a bus I went and clicked on this one cat article Google recs threw at me (), and in a true internet citizen manner, my attention went to something completely else than what was intended in the text: I couldn't get past the wording in the headline.

I know this will go completely into the empty to anyone but Finnish speakers, but I thought it was an interesting example into the mentality of interchangeable pronoun usage, and I need to vent...

The headline reads:
"12-kiloista Kefir-kissaa luullaan koiraksi, sen valtavan kokonsa takia"

Which means to say:
"12-kilo Kefir-cat is thought to be a dog because of its huge size"

(As in 'mistaken for a').

But a quirk hides in the possessive conjugation (which also makes this ridiculous to try and explain in English... yet):

"sen" = "its" (from "it", "se")
"kokonsa" = "their size" (from "size", "koko")

While 'it' (se) is a perfectly regular interchangeable with 'they'(sing.) (h?n) in common speech, it's rare (and grammatically incorrect?) to pair the properly conjugated personal possessive with it. The sentence with this pronoun / possessive conjugation pairing essentially reads as clunky (to me) as it would when literally translated:

"12-kilo Kefir-cat is thought to be a dog because of its their huge size".

"Koon" would be the usual conjugation to turn the word "koko" (size) into the proper form for "its size" here, but it's clear they were thinking "it" in less objective terms (as one would, when speaking of a fellow being). It's just that (to my ear/eye/mind at least), this unusual form just clashes as a completely irregular/nonsensical mix of spoken and 'proper' language. Likely, because it's completely unnecessary; you wouldn't need to use a pronoun at all in this instance; a perfectly common feat in any form of the language is just to disregard any unnecessary pronoun altogether;

if you don't want to say just: "...sen valtavan koon takia" ("...for its huge size") you can say:

"...valtavan kokonsa takia" (...for their(sing.)/its/that's/this' huge size").

which is perfectly formed and understandable in the context of the rest of the sentence, without any pronouns - the concept of "so-and-so's size" being already baked into the word "size" with the "-nsa" -suffix.

But this did got me thinking of other instances where such conjugation/pronoun combo might not seem as out of place, and serve a perfectly valid purpose (that is, in most uses except this direct 'it and theirs' pairing). Ie. a sentence which came to mind first:

"se sen kokonsa kanssa"

"it with its size"

Where 'it' (se) is used to describe both the object(/subject?) and the object's/subject's so-and-so (size, in this instance). And the only thing differentiating which one of those the 'size' refers to is the conjugation of the word; the sentence without personal possessive, "se sen koon kanssa" should/could/would really be interpreted as "it with that size" (but would require a prior mention of what ever 'that size' refers to).

(...now that I think about it, for "it with its size" I would personally likely say: "se sen koonsa kanssa". Which is definitely jargon you should never see in (unquoted) written form. Equivalent to dropping something like "that with 'em size" into an English essay, I suppose *ha*).

Hmm... trying something:

"Kokoisensa" = "of their size" would be perfectly fine in "h?nen kokoisensa" ("of their(sing.) size" *d'uh*), but "sen kokoisensa" (instead of "sen kokoinen", "of its size")? That's just completely unnecessary and silly by itself (something like "of its size of theirs"?). Yet, perfectly okay, if there's something else in the sentence, which requires the size to be attributed to this particular object/subject.

"H?n ja (h?nen) kokoisensa yst?v?t"
- "They(sing.) and (their(sing.)) friends of their size"

Which could also be expressed as:

"Se ja sen kokoiset yst?v?t"
- "It and friends of its size"

or "se ja kokoisensa yst?v?t"
- "it and friends of their size

But "se ja sen kokoisensa yst?v?t"
- "it and its friends of their(sing.) size"???

(I also notice the definitions between plural and singular blur with certain conjugations here... that'd be a whole another dichotomy to explore).


But I shall drop short here... like I said, this is likely for no-one here, and I might not even be thinking of further aspects of this right now, but I just apparently needed to get out this odd 'discovery' I just personally made about an apparent minor exception in the otherwise (quite?) interchangeable it/they(sing.) pronoun relationship in the language.

Long way of saying: I'm pretty dang sure there's a grammatical error in that headline! (Which would definitely not be a singular instance for the tabloid publication :P).



This has been midnight ruminations from your idle Finnish mind. Or, probably for most of you reading: a link to a delightful cat profile.

Holy grammar Jemppu, it¡¯s 8am and you¡¯re making my brain scream! ?

Anna wrote: "Holy grammar Jemppu, it¡¯s 8am and you¡¯re making my brain scream! ?"

But, but... does "sen kokoisensa" sound okay to you (¨s¡ã¡õ¡ã)¨s???

Absolutely not! But it¡¯s Iltalehti *shrug*

Anna wrote: "Absolutely not! But it¡¯s Iltalehti *shrug*"

*whew* that was very much my initial reaction

("No results" for "sen kokoisensa" on google would support this too... yet, the more I kept thinking about it the more I thought I might be missing something *ha*).

...yup, it's Iltalehti *shrug*

(I'm glad I don't wander to the site more often; I suspect one could go quite bonkers... or worst yet? Grow accustomed).

Jemppu, I'm vibing hard with this post. Don't know a lick of Finnish, but could certainly follow along with understood-subject-dropping, and agreement issues.

More than that, there was a Grammar Thing and it Needed to Be Addressed and Explored, and I respect that. ?

Melissa wrote: "...More than that, there was a Grammar Thing and it Needed to Be Addressed and Explored, and I respect that. ?..."

*salutes* ?

ooo this is good, yes. i love things that can be understood but are wrong but for unknown reasons.

in English we have a specific order of adjectives that we all know intuitively but can't explain.

you can have a old, small, charming, blue house.

you can't have a blue old small charming house. idk why but it's wrong and upsetting to see it written that way

Allison wrote: "...in English we have a specific order of adjectives that we all know intuitively but can't explain...."

English also has the peculiarity of "whose"? One of my most regular peeves in the 'person vs thing' logic, yet, it's rare to see anyone acknowledge that this word alone lifts for two, too (rather like 'you', or 'they', if for different purposes).

For a language which likes to act precise about distinguishing addressing persons from things, it's surprising to continue not to see 'whose' come up more in such discussions.

Within the logic of the language, for me it always feels as if an object 'gains personhood' when ever addressed in this particular manner.

"A chair, whose color is blue"
"A child, whose color is blue"

I continue to often instinctively think "which" in place of "whose", only to consciously correct myself - add that odd extra bit of 'humanizing reverence' to an addressed object (switching from 'which' to 'who'), which then confusingly vanishes when ever other options are available.

"A chair, whose color is blue, but which I do not care for"
"A child, whose color is blue, but whom I do not care for"

It's curious to see the distinction of "being vs thing" held to be so strict most elsewhere in the 'rules of the language', while no-one seems to bat an eye that this particular 'exception' just struts all over that without giving a damn.

I love that it does. But not that it has to. And I'd love for it to be recognized for the example it sets.

Well, technically it should be ¡°the chair, the color of which is blue¡±. But that is too convoluted for most people.

Allison wrote: "ooo this is good, yes. i love things that can be understood but are wrong but for unknown reasons.

in English we have a specific order of adjectives that we all know intuitively but can't explain...."

I would have that as a charming, old, small, blue house. But I have no idea why!

DivaDiane wrote: "Well, technically it should be ¡°the chair, the color of which is blue¡±. But that is too convoluted for most people."

It is convoluted for speech but still better in text. Not using whose with an inanimate object was so drummed into me at school I still cringe when I see or hear it.

I was thinking about that, and I think you may be more right. But as I don't know why, I didn't spend too long thinking about it.

Knowing what is proper language and using it are sometimes two separate things. Take collective nouns. If the Philadelphia Eagles are winning, it really should be the Eagles is winning since Eagles is a collective noun for the team. But I'm not about to go around saying the Eagles is winning because I'd sound like a schmuck. (Now if only the Eagles had won...) But this type of incorrect usage doesn't help when going between languages.

Oh don¡¯t get me going on collective nouns. The Brits have all wrong. And it drives me nuts!!

that used to get me between English and French. In English it's the police = plural, but police uses a singular in French

the police are here
la police est l¨¤

in English police is always plural and policeman or policewoman is the singular

as far as team names go, in the US, they're usually plural with Philadelphia Eagles being the aggregate and a Philadelphia Eagle being the singular.

interesting article about List of words known better by UK people than U.S. people, and vice versa:



Note: Judder (I wrote about it in this thread earlier) is listed as a UK term.

Remember: I before E

Except when your foreign neighbor Keith receives eight counterfeited beige sleighs from feisty caffeinated weightlifters.

Andres wrote: "Remember: I before E

Except when your foreign neighbor Keith receives eight counterfeited beige sleighs from feisty caffeinated weightlifters."

Weird.

Michelle wrote: "Knowing what is proper language and using it are sometimes two separate things. Take collective nouns. If the Philadelphia Eagles are winning, it really should be the Eagles is winning since Eagles..."

What's interesting about this to me is in some other languages they have a 'proper' system and 'casual.' So you wouldn't say the Eagles is winning because you fear you'd sound like a schmuck. However, in another language they might think, wow she speaks so properly or eloquently.

I often feel like people try to knock people down in America rather then offer them praise. "Oh that person talks smart. They must think they are better than me." That type of mentality. The reason you'd fear of sounding like a schmuck.

Andres wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Knowing what is proper language and using it are sometimes two separate things. Take collective nouns. If the Philadelphia Eagles are winning, it really should be the Eagles is win..."

You have something there, Andres! I'll never forget the time that I used the word "perhaps" during a conversation with my older cousin. (He's not the most congenial person.) Anyway, I didn't realize that I had said it, and he jumped all over my case. He said, and I quote, "Perhaps? Nobody in this family says perhaps! Who do you think you are?" I was absolutely mortified because this happened in front of the rest of my extended family. In short, I felt like a schmuck :) But by his reaction you would have thought that I dropped the F-bomb.

perchance is worse

But then if you say it ¡°p¡¯raps¡± with a slight twang it¡¯s perfectly acceptable again.

Michelle wrote: "Perhaps? Nobody in this family says perhaps! Who do you think you are?."

Weird? Perhaps is a perfectly cromulent word.

CBRetriever wrote: "perchance is worse"

Mayhap is even worse. But mayhaps is the worst of all.

I wish we could bring back the old expression "Good morrow" for when you say goodnight after midnight. I wouldn't be able to use the word more than once per year, but I still want it to come back.

I had thought perhaps was a normal word. Mayhap was wrong ;)

Oh, wow. I've read most of this really cool, years-spanning discussion, but it's... years long! So I'm jumping to the end here, and will go back and read the last few pages when I have more hours to kill ?.

Ah, so many things. I really do like that everyone's talking about *all the things*. And glad that some translations between the different Englishes are being made... as well as all the other interesting bits.

Isn't the French counting system round-about?! There's a funny video about that, which I might find later for you. I equate it to the old English 'four-and-twenty' and 'threescore and ten'. You always have to think when you're trying to say the upper numbers in French - 'now, what do I need to add together...'

Here's one:
The US pronunciation of 'entrepreneur'. So we, and the French whose word it originally is, end this with an 'ur' sound. But Americans say 'oo-er'. Which sounds awful to my ears! And it is incorrect, as far as the word as said in French is. A bit like the way they reverse the German 'ei'/'ie' pronunciation in names.
On the other hand, Americans say 'renaissance' like the original French pronunciation (stress on 1st syllable), whereas we (Australians) say it with the wrong emphasis (on the 2nd syllable).

And, I just really want to talk about the bread products thing ?.

To introduce, Australian English takes some things from the British (words and pronunciation) and some things from the Americans. And then adds its own. Which makes it very annoying (and this would be the same for any other Commonwealth country) when all the textbooks and translation offers talk only about those two options - as though they're the only two kinds of English, or at least the only two you might need to learn, as an ESL learner.

Anyway, the breads.

A scone is said with a soft, short 'o', and is a type of short bread - as in, a dough made with lots of butter. Not like shortbread biscuits... Let me not confuse things, though ?. You make them with flour, salt, some milk, and lots of butter. The butter gets rubbed into the dry ingredients 'until it resembles breadcrumbs', as the recipes always say. Then you roll it out and cut it with special scone cutters, or a glass, or whatever. Or you can go rustic style and just form them as you like (but always into small, roundish or triangle or similar shapes. I think the trend is to cut them with a knife, as well). Then they get baked. They come out soft, and are amazing with butter melting on. Or the traditional jam and cream. The great Aussie tradition is pumpkin scones, because pumpkin grows very easily, and when times where tough, people always had pumpkins growing - when they still had actual backyards. They're also delicious. You need to eat scones the day of, as they go stale quickly, and don't freeze well (they'll break apart when defrosting).

A biscuit is completely different to a scone, in Australian parlance. Here, it's sweet, hardish, and small - think Arnott's, if you have an Aussie store around, or know of them. Tim Tams come in this category. Also called 'bikkies', if you're talking to a child, sometimes, or are trying to sound ultra-Australian.

A cookie is the same as the US thing - because the name (and thing, probably) came from there.

Pancakes are mostly what they are in the US - pan-cakes. But probably less fluffy here. Pikelets, as someone mentioned, are mini pancakes.

Cr¨ºpes are the French very thin pancakes, made with more egg, and usually rolled or folded into a triangle with a nice fruit sauce and icing sugar, if you're going full-style. But people can use the term differently. If you're familiar with 'real' cr¨ºpes, you'll make them that way (and serve however - Nutella is hugely popular in France, for some reason. We'd find it a bit weird to do that here. I like sugar and lemon juice, maple syrup, or the fruit sauce, freshly made up, that I mentioned); but it's not a hard and fast rule.

I think that was all the bread things?

Oh, and I'm going to make one more comment - really sorry, but I have so many thoughts from all this reading, and I love language and find it fascinating how things came to be. In an alternate world, I studied linguistics...

I want to put up a hand for English as a marvellous and fascinating language, not a crazy one. Its strangenesses come from the huge variety that's gone into its creation, and tell its history. You can mark major events in England's history - and that of its former colonies - by going through the language. Like all the French words and 'strange' spellings or pronunciations which come from it. Or the way we make our nouns and other things that Latin left us. The fact that there are 'high' and 'low' words for things, due to the Norman invasion and the nobility for a couple of hundred years speaking Norman French, while the common people - the English - continued to speak their Saxon... which they got from the Saxon invaders a few centuries earlier.

I think it's a marvellous language, and it can be used skillfully and beautifully, in a way that harnesses all of its possibility.... but so often, we just use the most convenient and un-beautiful, practical forms of it, without exploring its true depths. I think that, if more people truly understood it and used it as it could be used, it wouldn't feel so difficult or strange and as though it doesn't make sense, but an enjoyable challenge to really use your creativity and knowledge. This is an idealistic view, I know; but this is how I feel about language - and not just English, although that's 'my' language, so it's deep in my bones/heart.

Okay, last comment for now. ??¡â??

Tamara wrote: "Oh, and I'm going to make one more comment - really sorry, but I have so many thoughts from all this reading, and I love language and find it fascinating how things came to be. In an alternate worl..."

Tamara, we know that you have at least one more comment to make ?

? Michelle

I always love seeing this thread come up! Thanks for all your wonderful thoughts, Tamara!

(Everyone else has wonderful thoughts, too, but it was nice to see reminders from past conversations as well ^^)

Regarding scones, there's a nice little anonymous poem from last century or so that provides rhyming justification for both pronunciations. ?

I asked the maid in dulcet tone
To order me a buttered scone;
The silly girl has been and gone
And ordered me a buttered scone.

And it shows they're two different things, so a 'skoan' is not the same as a 'skon' ??