The Innovative Usage Thread
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
As someone whose damn job pretty much is translation, I would go a bit further. First of all wtf with the slashes? That's just weird to me. I say don't write out three different translations for the same word. Just pick one and move on. (I suggest "going through." Though granted, offering three different translations may make sense for the purpose of training someone for the job, to basically say "oh look, you can pick this translation or this one or this one").
And for the part you underlined, I'd instead suggest "has even been at an all-time high for a few months." (I think the problem is with "reached." IINM, in our dialects at least, you don't "reach" something for a few months; you reach it once and then stay there).
(Excessively) literal translation tends not to help get messages across.
And for the part you underlined, I'd instead suggest "has even been at an all-time high for a few months." (I think the problem is with "reached." IINM, in our dialects at least, you don't "reach" something for a few months; you reach it once and then stay there).
(Excessively) literal translation tends not to help get messages across.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Aha.Vijay wrote:As someone whose damn job pretty much is translation, I would go a bit further. First of all wtf with the slashes? That's just weird to me. I say don't write out three different translations for the same word. Just pick one and move on. (I suggest "going through." Though granted, offering three different translations may make sense for the purpose of training someone for the job, to basically say "oh look, you can pick this translation or this one or this one").
And for the part you underlined, I'd instead suggest "has even been at an all-time high for a few months." (I think the problem is with "reached." IINM, in our dialects at least, you don't "reach" something for a few months; you reach it once and then stay there).
(Excessively) literal translation tends not to help get messages across.
No that's my copy of what I copied out of the book. They put the slashes so when you're with the students you remember what options there are.
- alynnidalar
- Avisaru
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:35 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
This isn't really innovative usage, just an interesting allophonic thing. I realized this morning that I've been mishearing a coworker for a few months now--he's doing some work with software from a company named TIBCO. I'd never actually seen it spelled out before, and this entire time, I thought he was saying TIPCO! Presumably this is because of the unvoiced /k/ that he always enunciates, but it was interesting to note how the allophony led me astray.
I'm going to have to listen closer now and try to figure out if he really is putting /b/ in there, or if it's an unaspirated /p/ as my ears were convinced it was.
I'm going to have to listen closer now and try to figure out if he really is putting /b/ in there, or if it's an unaspirated /p/ as my ears were convinced it was.
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
To me the main factors that would allow me to tell the two apart are vowel length and preglottalization; TIBCO would be [ˈtʰɘːpko(ː)] while TIPCO would be [ˈtʰɘʔpko(ː)]. I definitely could be confused here if the speaker does not have clear vowel length allophony or preglottalization of coda fortis plosives.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I was wondering today whether "Britisher" is a term that's only used in India. Apparently, it is. Wiktionary claims that it's usually used in a jocular manner now; I instead tend to encounter it in a historical context.
Another term I've only seen Indians use is "updation" instead of the noun "update." Apparently, some Indians think "update" can only be a verb, so they've back-formed "updation" from that.
And today, my parents and I were watching Wheel of Fortune, and the theme was "Big Money." My dad says he's only ever seen the term "big money" on that show. Hmm.
Another term I've only seen Indians use is "updation" instead of the noun "update." Apparently, some Indians think "update" can only be a verb, so they've back-formed "updation" from that.
And today, my parents and I were watching Wheel of Fortune, and the theme was "Big Money." My dad says he's only ever seen the term "big money" on that show. Hmm.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I had an Indian coworker who used that. In addition to being a backformation I assumed it was formed by analogy with related words like deletion and creation, since those concepts often go together in software development. Another word I remember her using that turned out to be an "Indianism" was weightage.Vijay wrote:Another term I've only seen Indians use is "updation" instead of the noun "update." Apparently, some Indians think "update" can only be a verb, so they've back-formed "updation" from that.
- alynnidalar
- Avisaru
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:35 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Here's one from me this morning. I was writing notes on a discussion with a coworker, and happened to write "Function/subfunction individually isn't necessary." (meaning, listing an employee's function and subfunction wasn't necessary in a particular context) I rewrote the sentence and realized the following:
Function/subfunction individually isn't necessary. <-- totally fine
Function/subfunction individually aren't necessary. <-- also fine
We determined function/subfunction individually isn't necessary. <-- WILDLY UNGRAMMATICAL
We determined function/subfunction individually aren't necessary. <-- totally fine
"Wildly" may be pushing it, but that particular sentence did strike me as distinctly off, while the other three possibilities were totally fine.
How does that strike other people?
Function/subfunction individually isn't necessary. <-- totally fine
Function/subfunction individually aren't necessary. <-- also fine
We determined function/subfunction individually isn't necessary. <-- WILDLY UNGRAMMATICAL
We determined function/subfunction individually aren't necessary. <-- totally fine
"Wildly" may be pushing it, but that particular sentence did strike me as distinctly off, while the other three possibilities were totally fine.
How does that strike other people?
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
- Frislander
- Avisaru
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
- Location: The North
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I don't even understand what you're trying to say with those sentences.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Programming jargon?
- alynnidalar
- Avisaru
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:35 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Tried to give a bit of context, but evidently not enough!
Basically, we were discussing whether or not we needed an employee's function/department (e.g. "Marketing", "Sales", etc.) in a particular web application we're working on, which is used to determine some security access. We decided we didn't need actually need the functions directly in the application, we just need to know whether or not they have access. So my note was a reminder that we no longer needed to be concerned with the individual department a user works for.
Basically, we were discussing whether or not we needed an employee's function/department (e.g. "Marketing", "Sales", etc.) in a particular web application we're working on, which is used to determine some security access. We decided we didn't need actually need the functions directly in the application, we just need to know whether or not they have access. So my note was a reminder that we no longer needed to be concerned with the individual department a user works for.
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
To me, that honestly still sounds so jargon-y I have no idea how to tell what's grammatical and what isn't. None of those sounds even close to a note I'd actually write myself.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Even after what you said in the last post, I still don't get it. It sounds like I would summarize it as "Putting each individual's function in the application isn't necessary." But I don't understand how we get from this to "Function/subfunction individually isn't necessary" or "Function/subfunction individually aren't necessary." What is the role of the slash and the word "subfunction"?
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Has anyone for a weird reason used Arabic ت/<tā'> as an emoticon, a la ツ/<tsu> of katakana? Cause I have.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I haven't, but I've always thought those would make great smiley faces, and I've seen some people use them that way. Also ث, シ, etc.
- Frislander
- Avisaru
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
- Location: The North
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I think I've seen what I think are a couple of Malayalam characters being used to denote a sideways glance.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
How?
I have the Illustrated Classics version of The Count of Monte Cristo, in which the classic is adapted into a cartoon, and only upper-case letters (never lowercase ones) are used in it. At one point, Baron Danglars begs his captors for water, and someone gives him some while saying what is written as "50,000 LIRE, SIGNOR." But when I first read this (as a teenager, I think), I thought it said, "SO,OOO LIRE, SIGNOR" (in my mind, I imagined this being said more like "so! Oooooh LIRE signor!!!").
It also just so happens that the letter for /ʈa/ in Malayalam is ട and the letter for /ʈʰa/ is ഠ, so (around the same time, maybe a bit earlier) I also used to imagine making a comic strip in Malayalam featuring a magician doing the classic trick of pulling a rabbit out of a top hat but saying "ടഠ!" at the end instead of "ta-da!" That way, an English-speaker who couldn't read Malayalam (but could read English) would think he was saying "SO!" instead. Then I sort of put both of these jokes together and reasoned that "50,000" could also be misread via Malayalam script as /ʈaʈʰa/, /ʈʰaʈʰaʈʰa/.
I have the Illustrated Classics version of The Count of Monte Cristo, in which the classic is adapted into a cartoon, and only upper-case letters (never lowercase ones) are used in it. At one point, Baron Danglars begs his captors for water, and someone gives him some while saying what is written as "50,000 LIRE, SIGNOR." But when I first read this (as a teenager, I think), I thought it said, "SO,OOO LIRE, SIGNOR" (in my mind, I imagined this being said more like "so! Oooooh LIRE signor!!!").
It also just so happens that the letter for /ʈa/ in Malayalam is ട and the letter for /ʈʰa/ is ഠ, so (around the same time, maybe a bit earlier) I also used to imagine making a comic strip in Malayalam featuring a magician doing the classic trick of pulling a rabbit out of a top hat but saying "ടഠ!" at the end instead of "ta-da!" That way, an English-speaker who couldn't read Malayalam (but could read English) would think he was saying "SO!" instead. Then I sort of put both of these jokes together and reasoned that "50,000" could also be misread via Malayalam script as /ʈaʈʰa/, /ʈʰaʈʰaʈʰa/.
- Frislander
- Avisaru
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
- Location: The North
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Actually now I think about it I think the characters were actuallt Telugu. I think the țh character looks awfully like an eye.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Ah, yes. The eye with a check mark on top.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
üVijay wrote:I haven't, but I've always thought those would make great smiley faces, and I've seen some people use them that way. Also ث, シ, etc.
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Gagh, it looks like a spider's face. Kill it, kill it!!! >_< Great, now I'm going to see a spider's face everytime I use ü...Pole, the wrote:üVijay wrote:I haven't, but I've always thought those would make great smiley faces, and I've seen some people use them that way. Also ث, シ, etc.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Spider would be more like this: ⣿) Or if it's a cute jumping spider, this: ¨˚◯◯˚¨Zaarin wrote:Gagh, it looks like a spider's face. Kill it, kill it!!! >_< Great, now I'm going to see a spider's face everytime I use ü...Pole, the wrote:üVijay wrote:I haven't, but I've always thought those would make great smiley faces, and I've seen some people use them that way. Also ث, シ, etc.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Yeah, it looks like one of those abominable jumping spiders. >_< Of all the species that have gone extinct, why couldn't it be spiders? >_<Sumelic wrote:Spider would be more like this: ⣿) Or if it's a cute jumping spider, this: ¨˚◯◯˚¨Zaarin wrote:Gagh, it looks like a spider's face. Kill it, kill it!!! >_< Great, now I'm going to see a spider's face everytime I use ü...Pole, the wrote:üVijay wrote:I haven't, but I've always thought those would make great smiley faces, and I've seen some people use them that way. Also ث, シ, etc.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Flies are much more gross-looking, and mosquitos are much more annoying. (And both are more unsanitary). Spiders eat flies and mosquitos! It would be a tragedy if they went extinct.Zaarin wrote:Yeah, it looks like one of those abominable jumping spiders. >_< Of all the species that have gone extinct, why couldn't it be spiders? >_<Sumelic wrote:Spider would be more like this: ⣿) Or if it's a cute jumping spider, this: ¨˚◯◯˚¨Zaarin wrote:Gagh, it looks like a spider's face. Kill it, kill it!!! >_< Great, now I'm going to see a spider's face everytime I use ü...Pole, the wrote:üVijay wrote:I haven't, but I've always thought those would make great smiley faces, and I've seen some people use them that way. Also ث, シ, etc.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Also, many species of spiders *have* gone extinct. It's just that there are about 35k (named) species still remaining.