Talk:royal family
Latest comment: 5 years ago by New WT User Girl in topic RFD discussion: April–August 2018
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
SOP, the translations look straightforward (except perhaps the Hindi and the Chinese). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand why Japanese 王室 is SOP but Chinese 王室 (wángshì) isn't. They both literally mean "royal room", don't they? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, brain fart. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I mean "Sorry, that was a brain fart." I'm not calling you a "brain fart". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, brain fart. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
And perhaps the Scandinavian translations too: Danish kongehus, Swedish kungahus. Though in that case I'm not convinced (English house ≈ family (sense 8)). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
"Royal house" is used in English as well, totally synonymous with "royal family". That may support what PUC was saying. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)- Is it? I would say the royal house of the UK is the House of Windsor, which is by no means synonymous with the royal family. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I suppose not. All of the instances I was thinking of were, but they were limited. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is it? I would say the royal house of the UK is the House of Windsor, which is by no means synonymous with the royal family. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. konge- (etc.) compounds are derived from king, and can mean royal, not what the inexperienced user would expect. DonnanZ (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Can you call the royal families of Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein kongehus/kungahus even though they don't have kings? (For that matter, can you call them royal families in English?) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as translation target. Wyang (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang, why did you do this? I think my concern about dumping qualifying and non-qualifying translations in the same place is a legitimate one, and I would like more people to see what I'm proposing. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's a Eurocentric split. Wyang (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: I don't understand. If some European language had a "non word-for-word translation" (for lack of a better wording), then I'd put it in the first box; the fact that there's none in this specific instance is completely accidental. The point is definitely not to say "look at how Asia/Africa/Oceania/America does it, and how Europe does it". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- What is a word-for-word translation anyway? It makes no difference- a translation is a translation. The fact is that multiple languages have words that are perfectly valid and includable to refer to "royal family", thus it is a translation target. Sure, in European languages you can have words characteristically thought of as equivalents of English words (e.g. family ~ famille), but most languages don't. Are 皇家, 皇室, 王室, etc. word-for-word translations of 'royal family'? I don't know, because there are no word-to-word correspondences between English and Chinese. The JKV words are borrowed from Chinese, so are they "word-for-word translations"? Wyang (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: As I only speak French and English fluently, I lack the knowledge and cognitive baggage to answer your questions properly.
- You might want to weigh in on the Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs vote (I've voted against the proposal) though. It states that "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: 1) a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term 2) a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". If the distinction is worthless to you, your definition of a translation target is different than most other people's. --Per utramque cavernam 19:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: Thanks for voting. I've opposed in part for the opposite reason than you: the criteria aren't stringent enough to my taste :p. If I understood correctly, you're thinking more along the lines of Widsith's message? --Per utramque cavernam 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, largely. Well, this is what happens when discussions don't happen and votes are used instead to make decisions. Mob ignorance. Wyang (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: Thanks for voting. I've opposed in part for the opposite reason than you: the criteria aren't stringent enough to my taste :p. If I understood correctly, you're thinking more along the lines of Widsith's message? --Per utramque cavernam 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- What is a word-for-word translation anyway? It makes no difference- a translation is a translation. The fact is that multiple languages have words that are perfectly valid and includable to refer to "royal family", thus it is a translation target. Sure, in European languages you can have words characteristically thought of as equivalents of English words (e.g. family ~ famille), but most languages don't. Are 皇家, 皇室, 王室, etc. word-for-word translations of 'royal family'? I don't know, because there are no word-to-word correspondences between English and Chinese. The JKV words are borrowed from Chinese, so are they "word-for-word translations"? Wyang (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang: I don't understand. If some European language had a "non word-for-word translation" (for lack of a better wording), then I'd put it in the first box; the fact that there's none in this specific instance is completely accidental. The point is definitely not to say "look at how Asia/Africa/Oceania/America does it, and how Europe does it". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's a Eurocentric split. Wyang (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wyang, why did you do this? I think my concern about dumping qualifying and non-qualifying translations in the same place is a legitimate one, and I would like more people to see what I'm proposing. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep using the lemming heuristic (WT:LEMMING): in Collins[3] and Macmillan[4]. As for translation hub (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs), I have doubts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)