4 ms·
> the author's personal dislike of how other people use "untranslatable" as a word Language Log isn't a personal blog, it's a group blog run by some fairly dis
by signal11 6y ago
> the author's personal dislike of how other people use "untranslatable" as a word
Language Log isn't a personal blog, it's a group blog run by some fairly distinguished linguists, and their[1] point about bijection is coherently argued and deserves consideration.
> most if not all language teaching that goes on today still does treat translation as bijection
I'm not convinced - beyond beginner-level one quickly realizes that translation is not one-to-one. Is there a citation for this?
[1] 'Their' because "no word for X" is a running joke in LL: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1081 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1081
- ivanbakel 6y ago>I'm not convinced - beyond beginner-level one quickly realizes that translation is not one-to-one. You don't believe the vast majority of language teaching happens at the beginner level? I certainly do, and it would be most people's only first-hand exposure to any kind of translation.
- signal11 6y agoI should clarify that by beginner-level I meant "alphabet book level". A for apple, B for balai, C for conejo, etc. At beginner level language teaching, beyond the first few lessons, you run into words that are difficult to translate bijectively, e.g. ser/estar while learning Spanish from English.