6 ms·

> A voice shouted "Death to the Islamic Republic" This sounds like a source of fear that is likely to motivate people to seek security and stability. I imagine

> A voice shouted "Death to the Islamic Republic" This sounds like a source of fear that is likely to motivate people to seek security and stability. I imagine it would remind people of the threat they've been told their community faces from the countries which created Stuxnet, and the weapons carried by Saddam Hussein's army, and the 1953 coup against Mossadeq. I imagine it would motivate Iranian men to stand together to serve as protectors of the stability of their community and to tolerate the flaws of their leaders. I imagine it would stand in the way of freedom-loving Iranians trying to create an alternate vision of Iranian civic virtue.

wl 4y ago
It's an idiom. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116
- auganov 4y ago
  I'll have to agree with this comment by "Jason": Victor Mair quoting a colleague said: "In 1998 when the reformist president, Mohamad Khatami, came to power he tried to eliminate this slogan from the political scene and he suggested to replace any 'marg bar' slogan with 'zendeh baad my opponent'." Why would he try to do this if "marg bar X " neutrally means "down with X", not "death to X". Similarly: "Alireza is right to try to downplay the slogan — for two reasons: 1) This is an early revolutionary slogan that is quite exaggerated. 2) Not many Iranians actually subscribe to this view…The official government uses this slogan, but not many actually take it seriously." Again, why is your colleague /so concerned to downplay the significance of this slogan/ as "exaggerated" (whatever that means — do they mean "hyperbolic") and "not taken seriously" if it merely means "down with America?" Frankly this piece reads like pure political drivel of the type that's increasingly infecting Language Log of late, when it seems perfectly obvious that: 1) Marg bar Amrika literally means "Death to America" 2) Native Persian speakers are perfectly aware of this fact, or else why try to euphenize/euthemize the expression or downplay how "seriously" Iranians take it? Reza Mirsajadi's effort in sophistry reminds me of David Irving's attempts to prove that "ausrotten" doesn't mean "exterminate". And indeed, given what happened to the Shah, the fact that the phrase originated in the Iranian revolution is the opposite of comforting. Violent metaphors have a long provenance in all langauges, but in the age of terrorism and the twitter soundbite every English speaker has had to learn to avoid them /precisely because/ you can never know if such threatening language is sincere or not. I fail to see why Iranians should get a free pass and a translational obfuscation courtesy of Mirsajadi on such language. Can anyone trust Mirsajadi to translate honestly after this particular effort? You may as well claim "go kill yourself" is an idiom that means "I don't like you". An idiom is when it's nearly impossible to infer the actual meaning based off the literal meaning of the words. A hyperbole or a metaphor does not make an idiom. Death is invoked here exactly because of what it implies. "Death to X country" is not any less metaphorical in English. A country obviously cannot die.
- afarrell 4y ago
  Ah, then CNN could do a better job translating. "death to" and "down with" have pretty different meanings.
  - mc32 4y ago
    I think it’s more nuanced and can mean both, depending on what the speaker wants it to mean. Like two buddies trading insults )it could be banter or of could be a genuine insult). The tone denotes the meaning.
    - unmole 4y ago
      Do you speak Farsi? The Hindustani variant Murdabad is never meant literally.
      - selimthegrim 4y ago
        It’s still considered gauche, i.e. they tell you not to sloganeer with it at Indo-Pak border
      - alephnerd 4y ago
        It used both literally and figuratively in Punjabi, Pahari, and Pashto as well.
  - skissane 4y ago
    The problem they face, is it has become a well-known tradition in American (and Western) journalism, going at least back to the hostage crisis in 1979. If they change the translation now, people will attack them as pro-Iran/pro-regime/etc. It is possibly an even bigger problem when it comes to the use of the phrase against Israel; I wouldn’t be surprised if a change of translation in that context got labelled as anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, even antisemitic. The politically safest course is just to keep on doing what you’ve always done
rjzzleep 4y ago
A lot of Iranians got really upset when the son of the Shah tried to hijack the movement to become "the representative" of the Iranian reforms.
- mighty_donkey 4y ago
  Let's be careful using words like 'hijack'. Reza Pahlavi (i.e. the son of the Shah) has led one of the most consistent and coherent oppositions to the Islamic Regime for the past few decades (has dedicated his life to it), and has clearly stated his only intent is to create a transition/solidarity council to enable an actual, democratic system in Iran. Over 85% of protestors are in favour of such a council, and 33% of them believe Reza Pahlavi should be the representative of such a council (which places him as the most popular representative by far). You can read more here (GAMAAN conducts the most rigorous surveys on public attitudes in Iran): https://gamaan.org/2023/02/04/protests_survey/ https://gamaan.org/2023/02/04/protests_survey/
  - propagandist 4y ago
    Let's also be careful about sampling bias. The Shah regime is still widely despised in the country. If you're suggesting that we treat the revolutionaries as representatives of the people a la Chalabi and his motley crew in 2003, be prepared for disaster.
    - mighty_donkey 4y ago
      Reza Pahlavi =/= Shah's regime Also sorry but equating a bottom-up, grassroots revolution with the US invasion of Iraq is a gross misrepresentation of what's actually happening.
      - propagandist 4y ago
        There was massive grassroots opposition to Saddam too. And there is also precedent of a "grassroots" revolution back in 1953 in this very same country. Sorry that I'm taking this claim with a pinch of salt.
actionfromafar 4y ago
Iran is currently in a position where nothing but violent resistance is likely to have an effect. The people in charge live safely in gated communities or abroad and have no shame, protestor deaths in the streets don't faze them even a little bit.
- afarrell 4y ago
  Why would violent resistance be effective at this point? That seems likely to result in Syria or Libya at best. Speaking uncharitably (and ignoring vast theological differences…), the folks talking about violent overthrow seem pretty naive. ISIS was bad enough when they didn’t have the Zagros mountains to hide behind.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    It would be effective because the current leaders would flee the country. ISIS was created due to a power vacuum (actively, but naively) engineered by the US civil administration in Iraq. With some luck, things will turn out differently in Iran.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

wl 4y ago

It's an idiom. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116

auganov 4y ago
I'll have to agree with this comment by "Jason": Victor Mair quoting a colleague said: "In 1998 when the reformist president, Mohamad Khatami, came to power he tried to eliminate this slogan from the political scene and he suggested to replace any 'marg bar' slogan with 'zendeh baad my opponent'." Why would he try to do this if "marg bar X " neutrally means "down with X", not "death to X". Similarly: "Alireza is right to try to downplay the slogan — for two reasons: 1) This is an early revolutionary slogan that is quite exaggerated. 2) Not many Iranians actually subscribe to this view…The official government uses this slogan, but not many actually take it seriously." Again, why is your colleague /so concerned to downplay the significance of this slogan/ as "exaggerated" (whatever that means — do they mean "hyperbolic") and "not taken seriously" if it merely means "down with America?" Frankly this piece reads like pure political drivel of the type that's increasingly infecting Language Log of late, when it seems perfectly obvious that: 1) Marg bar Amrika literally means "Death to America" 2) Native Persian speakers are perfectly aware of this fact, or else why try to euphenize/euthemize the expression or downplay how "seriously" Iranians take it? Reza Mirsajadi's effort in sophistry reminds me of David Irving's attempts to prove that "ausrotten" doesn't mean "exterminate". And indeed, given what happened to the Shah, the fact that the phrase originated in the Iranian revolution is the opposite of comforting. Violent metaphors have a long provenance in all langauges, but in the age of terrorism and the twitter soundbite every English speaker has had to learn to avoid them /precisely because/ you can never know if such threatening language is sincere or not. I fail to see why Iranians should get a free pass and a translational obfuscation courtesy of Mirsajadi on such language. Can anyone trust Mirsajadi to translate honestly after this particular effort? You may as well claim "go kill yourself" is an idiom that means "I don't like you". An idiom is when it's nearly impossible to infer the actual meaning based off the literal meaning of the words. A hyperbole or a metaphor does not make an idiom. Death is invoked here exactly because of what it implies. "Death to X country" is not any less metaphorical in English. A country obviously cannot die.
afarrell 4y ago
Ah, then CNN could do a better job translating. "death to" and "down with" have pretty different meanings.
- mc32 4y ago
  I think it’s more nuanced and can mean both, depending on what the speaker wants it to mean. Like two buddies trading insults )it could be banter or of could be a genuine insult). The tone denotes the meaning.
  - unmole 4y ago
    Do you speak Farsi? The Hindustani variant Murdabad is never meant literally.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      It’s still considered gauche, i.e. they tell you not to sloganeer with it at Indo-Pak border
    - alephnerd 4y ago
      It used both literally and figuratively in Punjabi, Pahari, and Pashto as well.
- skissane 4y ago
  The problem they face, is it has become a well-known tradition in American (and Western) journalism, going at least back to the hostage crisis in 1979. If they change the translation now, people will attack them as pro-Iran/pro-regime/etc. It is possibly an even bigger problem when it comes to the use of the phrase against Israel; I wouldn’t be surprised if a change of translation in that context got labelled as anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, even antisemitic. The politically safest course is just to keep on doing what you’ve always done

rjzzleep 4y ago

A lot of Iranians got really upset when the son of the Shah tried to hijack the movement to become "the representative" of the Iranian reforms.

mighty_donkey 4y ago
Let's be careful using words like 'hijack'. Reza Pahlavi (i.e. the son of the Shah) has led one of the most consistent and coherent oppositions to the Islamic Regime for the past few decades (has dedicated his life to it), and has clearly stated his only intent is to create a transition/solidarity council to enable an actual, democratic system in Iran. Over 85% of protestors are in favour of such a council, and 33% of them believe Reza Pahlavi should be the representative of such a council (which places him as the most popular representative by far). You can read more here (GAMAAN conducts the most rigorous surveys on public attitudes in Iran): https://gamaan.org/2023/02/04/protests_survey/ https://gamaan.org/2023/02/04/protests_survey/
- propagandist 4y ago
  Let's also be careful about sampling bias. The Shah regime is still widely despised in the country. If you're suggesting that we treat the revolutionaries as representatives of the people a la Chalabi and his motley crew in 2003, be prepared for disaster.
  - mighty_donkey 4y ago
    Reza Pahlavi =/= Shah's regime Also sorry but equating a bottom-up, grassroots revolution with the US invasion of Iraq is a gross misrepresentation of what's actually happening.
    - propagandist 4y ago
      There was massive grassroots opposition to Saddam too. And there is also precedent of a "grassroots" revolution back in 1953 in this very same country. Sorry that I'm taking this claim with a pinch of salt.

actionfromafar 4y ago

Iran is currently in a position where nothing but violent resistance is likely to have an effect. The people in charge live safely in gated communities or abroad and have no shame, protestor deaths in the streets don't faze them even a little bit.

afarrell 4y ago
Why would violent resistance be effective at this point? That seems likely to result in Syria or Libya at best. Speaking uncharitably (and ignoring vast theological differences…), the folks talking about violent overthrow seem pretty naive. ISIS was bad enough when they didn’t have the Zagros mountains to hide behind.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  It would be effective because the current leaders would flee the country. ISIS was created due to a power vacuum (actively, but naively) engineered by the US civil administration in Iraq. With some luck, things will turn out differently in Iran.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]