|
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Atkinson... |
 Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:15 pm |
|
|
|
|
James Hogg wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On May 18, 1:41 pm, Dan McGrath <inva... at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
What does an English horn have
to do with either English or horns?
Ha! This very term is one that I had planned on telling Nathan about!
I can remember reading about "English horn" on Wikipedia several
months ago. It seems to be an actual, attested example of "an
attempted calque gone wrong through mistranslation" (Nathan Sanders,
4/1/2008, describing my hypothetical German rendition of "rare steak"
as "seltenes Steak").
Actually it's sort-of half loanword, half calque -- done aurally. "Cor
angle'" is 'angled horn', but "angle'" and "anglais" 'English' are
virtually homonyms.
For that story to be true, there would have to be a French word "anglé",
but there isn't.
As someone has already pointed out, there is indeed a French word[/quote]
"anglé" (bent in an angle). The assertion that there isn't also occurs
in Wikipedia -- and, since it's unlikely Peter looked it up there, I
suspect it's a widespread myth among English-speaking musicians.
[quote]
Another popular but equally unlikely tale derives the
name from a German term meaning "angelic horn" (engellisches Horn),
supposedly corrupted into "englisches Horn".
http://books.google.com/books?id=K6gjXe4NOi4C&pg=PA143&dq=%22cor+angl%C3%A9%22&hl=en&ei=7PvyS9SYJNHu-QadhI2EDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
The term "cor anglais" (so spelled), whatever its etymology, almost[/quote]
certainly did not originate in English, so it is indeed a
straightforward loanword in that language.
It follows that "English horn" is a proper calque, just as "corno
inglés" is in Spanish. (Unless "English horn" was the original, and
"cor anglais" a calque into French, a view which no one seems to profess.)
What do the Germans call them?
John.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2010 04:15:12 GMT, John Atkinson
<johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:kBJIn.25717$pv.19543 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
[...]
[quote]It follows that "English horn" is a proper calque, just as
"corno inglés" is in Spanish. (Unless "English horn"
was the original, and "cor anglais" a calque into
French, a view which no one seems to profess.)
What do the Germans call them?
[/quote]
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englischhorn> has
<Englischhorn> or <Englisch-Horn>.
Brian
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Hogg... |
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:23 pm |
|
|
|
|
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
[quote]James Hogg <Jas.Hogg at (no spam) gOUTmail.com> wrote:
For that story to be true, there would have to be a French word "anglé",
but there isn't.
The French beg to differ.
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/angl%C3%A9
[/quote]
I have read that the word "anglé" was first recorded in print when it
was suggested as the origin of "cor anglais".
--
James
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Christian Weisgerber... |
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:50 am |
|
|
|
|
John Atkinson <johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]It follows that "English horn" is a proper calque, just as "corno
inglés" is in Spanish.
What do the Germans call them?
[/quote]
"Englischhorn", probably calqued from French.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy at (no spam) mips.inka.de
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Christian Weisgerber... |
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:20 am |
|
|
|
|
James Hogg <Jas.Hogg at (no spam) gOUTmail.com> wrote:
[quote]For that story to be true, there would have to be a French word "anglé",
but there isn't.
The French beg to differ.
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/angl%C3%A9
I have read that the word "anglé" was first recorded in print when it
was suggested as the origin of "cor anglais".
[/quote]
"Anglé" is simply the past participle of the verb "angler", which
in turn is a straightforward derivation from "angle".
That said, "anglé" seems to be a sufficiently uncommon word to
render this proposed etymology dubious. Wikipedia-FR favors the
explanation that there was a confusion of German "engelisch" (angelic)
and "englisch" (English); Wikipedia-DE counters by pointing out
that this class of instruments originated in France.
Whatever the origin of the French term "cor anglais", everybody
else has calqued it.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy at (no spam) mips.inka.de
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Evan Kirshenbaum... |
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 6:38 pm |
|
|
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
[quote]On May 18, 1:41 pm, Dan McGrath <inva... at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:18:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
What does an English horn have
to do with either English or horns?
Ha! This very term is one that I had planned on telling Nathan about!
I can remember reading about "English horn" on Wikipedia several
months ago. It seems to be an actual, attested example of "an
attempted calque gone wrong through mistranslation" (Nathan Sanders,
4/1/2008, describing my hypothetical German rendition of "rare steak"
as "seltenes Steak").
Actually it's sort-of half loanword, half calque -- done aurally. "Cor
angle'" is 'angled horn', but "angle'" and "anglais" 'English' are
virtually homonyms.
[/quote]
So was the story my oboe teacher passed on to me. When I looked into
it a few years ago, I found evidence that it was actually named in
Italian for its association with England (actually Wales), e.g.,
Perhaps I may be pardoned here for observing, that one of the most
ancient Welch musical instruments, called the Pib-corn or
Pipe-horn, which is formed of a flute, with a mouth-piece not
unlike that of the clarionet, inserted into a large horn which
forms a trumpet-like termination to it, is still recorded by us in
the favourite popular dance called the Hornpipe; and the sweetness
of its tones have to this day maintained its use in Italy, under
the name of Corno Inglese.
Henry Englefield, _A Walk Through Southampton_, 1805.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |All tax revenue is the result of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |holding a gun to somebody's head.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Not paying taxes is against the law.
|If you don't pay your taxes, you'll
kirshenbaum at (no spam) hpl.hp.com |be fined. If you don't pay the fine,
(650)857-7572 |you'll be jailed. If you try to
|escape from jail, you'll be shot.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 2:43 am |
|
|
|
|
On 2010-04-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Apr 13, 4:02Â pm, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
I have had to caution you about remarks offensive to various groups.
Have you apologized for any of those?
If I ever make one, I might consider doing so.
[/quote]
I've already presented you with a list of the ones I've seen, and you
refuse to accept your history of offensive remarks. Your arrogance is
astounding. Have you ever apologized to anyone for anything?
--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan McGrath... |
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 11:37 am |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:15:41 -0400, Nathan Sanders
<nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
[quote]If you calque a phrase containing a word meaning 'east' to have a
compositional meaning built on the meaning 'east', that makes sense.
In your previous post you had also written: "This is only a problem if
the original phrase happens not to have a compositional meaning."
That's what my "Pacific Ocean" question was in response to. Why did
you snip that sentence?
[snip]
Look, this is what I was trying to ask: You had said, "This [i.e.,
calquing a phrase] is only a problem if the original phrase happens
not to have a compositional meaning". I was simply asking if "Pacific
Ocean" would be an example of that. It certainly seemed like one to
me; it has been calqued into numerous languages around the world, yet
you did say it wasn't compositional.
It has a compositional reading, but that compositional reading does
not correspond to reality (under the supposition that the Pacific
Ocean is not in fact pacific).
So being "compositional" is different from having a "compositional[/quote]
reading"? When would a phrase *not* have a compositional reading?
Where are you getting all this "compositional" and "non-compositional"
stuff from, anyway? I've never seen a linguistics book that made use
of those terms; I know them only from you.
- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
|
In article <h6elv55i0sfbe9cm5i1l5cvc6q5oq7li78 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Dan McGrath <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:15:41 -0400, Nathan Sanders
nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
If you calque a phrase containing a word meaning 'east' to have a
compositional meaning built on the meaning 'east', that makes
sense.
In your previous post you had also written: "This is only a problem if
the original phrase happens not to have a compositional meaning."
That's what my "Pacific Ocean" question was in response to. Why did
you snip that sentence?
[snip]
Look, this is what I was trying to ask: You had said, "This [i.e.,
calquing a phrase] is only a problem if the original phrase happens
not to have a compositional meaning". I was simply asking if "Pacific
Ocean" would be an example of that. It certainly seemed like one to
me; it has been calqued into numerous languages around the world, yet
you did say it wasn't compositional.
It has a compositional reading, but that compositional reading does
not correspond to reality (under the supposition that the Pacific
Ocean is not in fact pacific).
So being "compositional" is different from having a "compositional
reading"?
[/quote]
No. I've just learned that it's better to more precise with my
wording when responding to you.
[quote]When would a phrase *not* have a compositional reading?
[/quote]
When it doesn't have an available reading transparently derived in a
predictable, algorithmic way from its component parts. This could
happen because it doesn't have multiple component parts ("when",
"phrase", "have", etc.), or it could happen because the phrase is
foreign ("au revoir" does not have a compositional reading in
English). Though idioms do usually have both a literal compositional
reading and an idiomatic non-compositional reading, the compositional
reading is usually very heavily suppressed (few people interpret "hold
your horses", "just a second", or "pardon my French" literally).
But of course, the existence of a compositional reading isn't the
point of my statement. The point is that the compositional reading
doesn't match reality.
[quote]Where are you getting all this "compositional" and "non-compositional"
stuff from, anyway? I've never seen a linguistics book that made use
of those terms; I know them only from you.
[/quote]
You're reading the wrong books, then. Any decent introduction to
semantics should cover compositionality. Also, try some Frege.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 2010-05-24, Nathan Sanders wrote:
[quote]In article <h6elv55i0sfbe9cm5i1l5cvc6q5oq7li78 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Dan McGrath <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
Where are you getting all this "compositional" and "non-compositional"
stuff from, anyway? I've never seen a linguistics book that made use
of those terms; I know them only from you.
You're reading the wrong books, then. Any decent introduction to
semantics should cover compositionality. Also, try some Frege.
[/quote]
Books on formal semantics, yes, but the ones aimed at less
mathematically inclined linguists too?
--
I spend almost as much time figuring out what's wrong with my computer
as I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires
frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of
doing routine work. (Stoll 1995)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 10:54 am |
|
|
|
|
On May 25, 4:16 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand... at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
[quote]In article <l00rc7xmif.... at (no spam) news.ducksburg.com>,
Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2010-05-24, Nathan Sanders wrote:
In article <h6elv55i0sfbe9cm5i1l5cvc6q5oq7l... at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Dan McGrath <inva... at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
Where are you getting all this "compositional" and "non-compositional"
stuff from, anyway? I've never seen a linguistics book that made use
of those terms; I know them only from you.
You're reading the wrong books, then. Any decent introduction to
semantics should cover compositionality. Also, try some Frege.
Books on formal semantics, yes, but the ones aimed at less
mathematically inclined linguists too?
If one wants to study semantics to any reasonably useful level beyond
what can be found in the semantics chapter from a typical general
introduction to linguistics, one is going to need some knowledge of
math (at minimum, sentential logic: truth values, conjunction,
disjunction, negation, implication, and the principle of
compositionality).
[/quote]
As an undergraduate, I took Semantics (with Max Black) in the
Philosophy department, and Symbolic Logic in the Math department (the
textbook was Kalish & Montague, as in the Montague who went on to
invent Montague Grammar)..
(Black had Georg Hendrik von Wright address our undergraduate class --
why, I've no idea. He had immense eyebrows.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
|
In article <l00rc7xmif.ln2 at (no spam) news.ducksburg.com>,
Adam Funk <a24061 at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2010-05-24, Nathan Sanders wrote:
In article <h6elv55i0sfbe9cm5i1l5cvc6q5oq7li78 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Dan McGrath <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
Where are you getting all this "compositional" and "non-compositional"
stuff from, anyway? I've never seen a linguistics book that made use
of those terms; I know them only from you.
You're reading the wrong books, then. Any decent introduction to
semantics should cover compositionality. Also, try some Frege.
Books on formal semantics, yes, but the ones aimed at less
mathematically inclined linguists too?
[/quote]
If one wants to study semantics to any reasonably useful level beyond
what can be found in the semantics chapter from a typical general
introduction to linguistics, one is going to need some knowledge of
math (at minimum, sentential logic: truth values, conjunction,
disjunction, negation, implication, and the principle of
compositionality).
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 2010-05-25, Nathan Sanders wrote:
[quote]If one wants to study semantics to any reasonably useful level beyond
what can be found in the semantics chapter from a typical general
introduction to linguistics, one is going to need some knowledge of
math (at minimum, sentential logic: truth values, conjunction,
disjunction, negation, implication, and the principle of
compositionality).
[/quote]
Sounds good to me. I wasn't sure how much of that sort of thing was
covered in a "pure linguistics" curriculum.
--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Evan Kirshenbaum... |
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
|
Adam Funk <a24061 at (no spam) ducksburg.com> writes:
[quote]On 2010-05-25, Nathan Sanders wrote:
If one wants to study semantics to any reasonably useful level beyond
what can be found in the semantics chapter from a typical general
introduction to linguistics, one is going to need some knowledge of
math (at minimum, sentential logic: truth values, conjunction,
disjunction, negation, implication, and the principle of
compositionality).
Sounds good to me. I wasn't sure how much of that sort of thing was
covered in a "pure linguistics" curriculum.
[/quote]
I forget now which class it was for, but one of my linguistics classes
at Stanford in the '80s used as one of its texts McCawley's
_Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know About Logic (but
were ashamed to ask)_. I'm pretty sure that it was one of the
required courses.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |_Bauplan_ is just the German word
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for blueprint. Typically, one
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |switches languages to indicate
|profundity.
kirshenbaum at (no spam) hpl.hp.com | Richard Dawkins
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan McGrath... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:04 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 10 May 2010 14:57:44 -0400, Nathan Sanders
<nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
[quote]It's whether *you* think there's anything wrong with
calquing that I've been trying to figure out.
As Peter said, I'm not making any value judgments on whether it's
"wrong" or not. I'm simply describing the facts.
The trouble is that you *have* been making "value judgments" about[/quote]
such hypothetical expressions as "seltenes Steak" ever since our
discussion of two years ago. If you hadn't described that phrase in
2008 as "an attempted calque gone wrong through mistranslation", I
suppose our argument might have been done with a lot sooner! How do
you feel about "English horn", assuming that this is a mistranslation
(which seems to have been sort of debated in the recent discussion)?
I've been trying to come up with good examples of actual terms that
came from mistranslated attempts at calquing. That might demonstrate
my point better than something that is merely hypothetical. In
addition to Peter's "English horn", I had been thinking of a type of
cubic curve in mathematics known as the "witch of Agnesi". The entry
in MWCD11 suggests that someone translated the Italian word "versiera"
with the wrong meaning -- just like your hypothetical example "Flèche
Novice", which translates English "green" with the wrong meaning.
Now, you've already agreed with me that phrases like "the alcohol" are
perfectly grammatical in English in spite of being etymologically
redundant. I assume, then, that you will tell me that the term "witch
of Agnesi" is equally legitimate. By that logic, you should stop
making value judgments like the ones you did, as with when you said
that "Flèche Verte" was right and "Flèche Novice" was wrong.
- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed May 16, 2012 6:08 pm
|
|
