607
I can't believe it (lemmy.today)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 days ago (5 children)

Because it is better to learn that way

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Is it though? I am trying to learn the language and the nuance is important. I do not want to learn to translate the language. I don't want every conversation to bounce off my head saying "what is that in English, ok, then I would reply this, and what would that be in Spanish?"

    I just want to learn it like it's its own language, because it is.

    I don't want to see "Manzana" and think "Apple", I want to see "manzana" and think "fruta redonda y roja".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    What you wrote about a direct translation is what kind of loses the nuance though.

    Imo it's good to be aware of both, but ultimately language is a tool to convey meaning. In some cases it's also kind of impossible to have it both direct and keep the meaning, e.g. english says "on the bus/train" while german says "im bus/zug". German does have a direct translation for "on", which is "auf", but in this case it uses "im", which itself has the direct english translation of "in the" in english. I don't think any dictionary would list "in" as a translation for "on", it's just an etymological quirk that a different preposition is used.

    Or more extremely, something like japanese to english, 公園で会いましょう, let's meet in the park, would have to be more literally translated as "using the park as the location, let's meet". (And I don't even know if that japanese sentence is completely correct, just tried to come up with something for locative で).

    It's just not practical to always include. Speaking a language means to be able to take a meaning and express it. Translation is deriving the meaning and reexpressing it.

    I think the more direct versions can be very useful for learning though. And while nuance does get lost sometimes, it's often unavoidable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    I think your last part probably is more my point. The more direct version is more useful for learning, especially the structure.

    Just keeping on Spanish and Duo, which I have done more of, it often does things like, moves the word "always" or "never" to the end of a sentence in English, instead of translating it at the start of the sentence. And it's regularly both requiring "that" and omitting "that" in translations. Like "Quiro que", just becomes "I want" instead of "I want that". The "want that" is a little awkward in English, but it better emphasizes the structure of the original language so it's easier to learn the structure.

    Also, personally, I kind of like some of the oddity of the more direct translation because it sounds a bit poetic in some places, and it sort of helps emphasize the overall connected nature of languages and how one may have branched off from another, losing or adding little flourishes, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    That happens naturally after reading and writing for a couple of years(depending on how intensive is the practice of the language). Eventually the brain just merges Manzana, Apple, リンゴ or whatever with the concept of that fruit without needing to do mental translations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent