The English Language

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

So instead of buying just parts you order the whole kit and caboodle!

Yep, the whole nine yards.

a reply to: pthena

"The whole nine yards." I believe it is from Scotland, indicating the material used to make a kilt. Once can skimp, but using the whole "nine yards" of fabric makes a better one.

a reply to: pthena

"Oh, for crying out loud!"

I think that one is a mannerized version of "for Christ's sake!"

Or "pete's sake" or "heaven's sake".

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm picturing 9 yards here. Seems like a whole wardrobe. Or maybe enough so that the clan can all have the same design. "Yes, that clan seems to all be cut from the same cloth."

a reply to: pthena

Cut from the same cloth! Yes!!

But it takes an entire nine yards of that cloth to make a proper, respectable kilt.
LOL!!!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Quite possible.

I like to think of it as non-specific cry of exclamation.

"Crying out loud !!!" rolls better off the tongue than "Non-specific cry of exclamation !!!"

a reply to: pthena

Oh, it's a great expression, I love it.

Oh, for Crying out loud! I've employed it many, many times right here on ATS!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Oh my sainted aunt!
Christmas!
Great Scott!
Gordon Bennett!

When I was 18, I worked for six weeks in Scotland, and learned that "Christmas" was also slang for "penis".
It was explained to me as follows;
"Christmas" is short for "Christmas hamper".
"Christmas hamper" is rhyming slang for "champer".
"Champer" is short for "championship belt".
"Championship belt" is rhyming slang for "welt".
That was as far as he got, though there are probably a few more stages yet.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah! Those 'rhyming' and then random strings of thought attached to words they use to soften and 'encode' expletives. It's very clever!!

In Norway:

How ‘Texas’ became Norwegian for ‘crazy’

In Norway, when a party goes wild, when a soccer match gets heated, when a rare swordfish shoots out of a fjord with a loud noise and a massive splash, there is only one appropriate response: “Det var helt Texas!”

In English, “That is totally texas!”

Yes, it is a reference to America’s second most populous state, and no, it’s not really a compliment. Possibly unbeknownst in the Lone Star state, Norwegians have been using the term “texas” (always lower case, often accompanied by an exclamation point) to mean “exciting,” “crazy” or “out of control” for roughly half a century.

When I was in England (Penrith, the midlands) we stayed at a perfectly charming B&B, and the hosts had us for a private breakfast on their back terrace....they showed us around the house, and when we came to one area the host said, "This is Irish"....
and then explained to us that it meant it was what we here in the US would call "lame"

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

My Grand daughter picks up some of my speech mannerism.

Along with "Crying out loud !", there's "Oh, give me a break !" I only ever say it, not write it.

"Give me a break" - vs - "Give me a brake" (a whole 'nuther meaning perhaps) "Whoa Nelly! Slow me down!"

Old Charlie stole the handle and
The train won't stop going --
No way to slow down.

- Jethro Tull, "Locomotive Breath"

I got an LOL when the word "vamoose" came up.

Huh? Google it and it means "depart quickly". Yeah, but checked on word origin and it is a corruption of Spanish! The original is "vamos" which is "let's go". Leave it to some witty American to take a Spanish word and mangle it so badly that it now incorporates a large American elk as part of its construct!

Along the same lines (i.e., moose), I tease my friend's dog. I tell her, "Oh look! Moose-ifer" Bark! Bark! My friend tells me "Stop teaching my dog Satanism" and I think he is only half kidding!

Pasta la nachos!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
What about those occasions when a word or phrase is mangled by another language, and gets mangled again when it returns to the first language?
E.g. from the French "boeuf", "roti" if you like, to the English "roast beef", to the French "rosbif".
Then there is "filibuster", deriving indirectly from "freebooter" (or the Dutch equivalent).

a reply to: DISRAELI

With English it gets all crazy! German to English a couple times and nobody knows what the original word means. Then if you go back to Old English you hit a wall where you are not sure where/when words came from or how they sounded. Throw in Latin, what the Vikings spoke, French, German, and Gaelic and you have perfect petri dish to grow a new language!

Then there are words here and there from Persia, India, Chinese, Japanese, now Thai and Vietnamese that are just here! There was a new brewpug open and on the menu, "bahn mi", and the bartender was trying to explain what one was when I asked, "Tofu, meat, or a mixture?" I know that 25 years ago I could not pronounce a Thai word to save my life let alone what a bahn mi is.

That cross-pollination has been going on for a while and probably will continue. It reminds me of Blade Runner where everybody speaks a mish-mash of several languages down on the street level.

GUYS! I made up a great one just now!!!

Debut was just in the Mudpit.....

FRANTUCKINGMEDIATELY

a reply to: DISRAELI

What about those occasions when a word or phrase is mangled by another language, and gets mangled again when it returns to the first language?

Yes! EXACTLY!

See???? That's what I've been saying around here for years!! Translation is automatically suspect. I worked as a translator and interpreter (two different things) as well as a teacher.

The ultimate test of accuracy is to have the language A translated into B, and then have a third party translate B back into A.

If those don't match - the translation is SUSPECT.

Sooooo --- that's the issue I have, you see? When it comes to the Bible especially. Anyway.....glad you know that!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Yes, I knew that already, which is why I'm always open to double-checking with the original language.
The fact that good modern translations are always comparing with the original is the reason why the common claim "The Bible can't be trusted because it's a translation" is an invalid argument.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Wait. Are you calling me "common"? As in, the 'common' claim that.......

"the reason why the common claim" that's what you said.






anyway - even if I give you that leeway, the fact that we are dealing with "dead" languages alongside "living" languages guarantees misconstruing. This is why idioms are so very important.
From region to region.....
the same phrase means amazingly different things.

EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION is subject, by its very nature. The person (or machine) doing the 'translating' may or may not be familiar with the dialect, vernacular, idiomatic, or sarcastic of the potential reader.

What one person finds "heaven sent", another finds "hilariously sarcastic".


There is no escaping it. This is why one must look within for that spark - for that 'self' that is a fractal of the Divine as much as any other thing is.

There are no words.
Buddha said that it was impertinent to ask about the nature of God, because it (the Tao) can not be expressed in words or concepts that humans contrive.


In my opinion, it is music and dance, laughter and tears, that make us part of the Divine......language is great, and has had a huge part also -------
but such precision is required just to get across one's message right here on ATS -

so and so said A

did A say so and so?

something like that

well, where I live that means........

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
"the reason why the common claim" that's what you said.

I was actually trying to transfer to others the blame of offering an "invalid argument". Just in case you were not actually making that claim.

the fact that we are dealing with "dead" languages alongside "living" languages guarantees misconstruing.

But the Greek language never entirely died. It just evolved, like English. A vital factor in the modern use of the Greek New Testament has been the continuity of tradition in Constantinople, through which an understanding of what the language meant could be transmitted to the western world.

You are offering reasons for treating translations with caution. But they don't add up to a reason for not using translations at all. If they did, that conclusion would apply to translations in general, not just the Bible.
As far as I can tell, we agree that Bible translations should be treated with caution.
What exactly is the point of difference between our two viewpoints, that you want to argue with me about?

a reply to: DISRAELI

So, you should have added "exists" or rearranged your sentence to make it more clear.


"the reason why the common claim" seems to me a dangling fragment.........

LOL!!!!

a reply to: DISRAELI

You are offering reasons for treating translations with caution. But they don't add up to a reason for not using translations at all. If they did, that conclusion would apply to translations in general, not just the Bible.
As far as I can tell, we agree that Bible translations should be treated with caution.
What exactly is the point of difference between our two viewpoints, that you want to argue with me about?

whoa.

wut????

And here I thought we were having a laugh about language usage and translation and vernacular and interpretation and communication and precision.

sheesh. never mind then. didn't know you'd get offended.