12 Most Embarrasing Mistranslations in History

“I desire the Poles carnally” : Jimmy Carter to the Polish people
'I desire the Poles carnally” : Jimmy Carter to the Polish people

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter was in Poland for a state visit. While seeking a translator for his time there, the State department hired Steven Seymour, a freelance linguist known for his expertise in translating written Polish.

Carter’s opening speech originally said: “I have come to learn your opinions and understand your desires for the future.” However, Seymour translated the phrase into Polish as “I desire the Poles carnally.”

That one mistake would have been bad enough, but Seymour’s bad translation didn’t end there. When carter stated how happy he was to be in Poland, it was translated as he was happy to grasp Poland’s private parts. When he spoke about his departure from the U.S. it was translated to “when I left the United States never to return…” Lastly, when Carter went praised the Polish constitution of 1791 as one of three great documents in the struggle for human rights, Seymour told the Poles that their constitution was being ridiculed.

Reasonably enough, the Polish people were left angry and confused at the the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world after hearing of his desire to fondle them and mock their constitution (Source)

“I fok horses” : The Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs to John F. Kennedy
'I fok horses' : The Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs to John F. Kennedy

While some claim it’s an urban legend, on April 10, 1961, John F. Kennedy met Joseph Luns, the former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs. When JFK asked Luns about his hobbies, he answered: “I fok horses.” (The Dutch verb “fokken” means “to breed,” which is basically what he was trying to say. 

When Kennedy replied, “Pardon?” Luns responded enthusiastically, “Yes, paarden!” (“Paarden” means “horses” in Dutch.) (Source)

3
“Excuse me, I’m constipated” : A Spanish delegate to the French
“Excuse me, I'm constipated” : A Spanish delegate to the French

According to John Coleman-Holmes’s book, “Mâcher du Coton,” a Spaniah delegate turned on his microphone in a meeting with the French and said, “Estoy constipado, perdónadme,” meaning, “Please excuse me, I have a cold.” 

The French interpreter who was not paying much attention, rendered his words as, “Excuse me, I’m constipated.”

The French delegation collapsed into fits of laughter, which caused a stir in the room and aroused the curiosity of all attending. The embarrassed interpreter attempted to explain, but to no avail. (Source)

“To kill with silence” : Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki to the U.S. Government
'To kill with silence' : Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki to the U.S. Government

On July 27, 1945, the U.S. issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding Japan’s surrender. 

Prime Minister Suzuki responded by using the word “mokusatsu,” which literally means “to kill with silence.” Depending on the context, that can mean anything from “no comment” to “Ignore with contempt.” 

The U.S. government went with the latter translation influencing President Harry S. Truman’s decision to order the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Source)

5
“Compromising a woman’s morality”: General Kurt Waldheim to the Iranian people
“Compromising a woman's morality”: General Kurt Waldheim to the Iranian people

In 1980, United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim visited Iran to negotiate the release of the American hostages. When Waldheim arrived in Tehran, he announced: “I have come as a mediator to work out a compromise.” 

It turns out, however, that the Persian word for “compromise” has a negative connotation, referring to a sellout, as in “our principles were compromised.” Also, the Persian word for “mediator” implies a “meddler” rather than a helpful envoy. In other words, the meaning of the translation was “compromising a woman’s morality,” with an intention to humiliate Iran. 

Within an hour of Waldheim’s announcement, angry Iranians threw stones at his car. (Source)

6
“The new U.S. administration wanted to reset ties with Russia after years of friction.” : Hillary Clinton to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
 'The new U.S. administration wanted to reset ties with Russia after years of friction.' : Hillary Clinton to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

Relations between Washington and Moscow have cooled in recent years over Russia’s role in the Georgian conflict, America’s support for the entry of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO, and the planned U.S. missile shield base located in central Europe.

Efforts to heal the rift got off to an awkward start in March 2009 when Hillary Clinton gave Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a mock “reset” button, symbolising the country’s hope of mending ties with Moscow. But the word the Americans chose, “peregruzka,” meant “overloaded” or “overcharged,”rather than “reset.”

Despite the embarrassment, Clinton and Lavrov made light of the moment in front of the cameras and pushed the button together to signify a shared hope for better relations. (Source)

7
“We will bury you” : Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev to Western ambassadors
'We will bury you' : Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev to Western ambassadors

In 1956, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev was interpreted as saying “We will bury you!” to Western ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow. 

The phrase was plastered across magazine covers and newspaper headlines, further cooling relations between the Soviet Union and the West.

Yet, when in context, Khruschev’s words were closer to meaning “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in.” Khruschev was stating that Communism would outlast capitalism, which would destroy itself from within, referring to a passage in Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto that argued “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.” 

While not the most calming phrase he could have uttered, it was not the sabre-rattling threat that inflamed anti-Communists and raised the spectre of a nuclear attack in the minds of Americans. (Source)

8
“The French government’s demands” : The French government to U.S. President Andrew Jackson
'The French government's demands' : The French government to U.S. President Andrew Jackson

Countless are the number of political or diplomatic incidents provoked by the English translation of the French verb “demander” (to ask), given its strong resemblance to the English verb “to demand.”

Around 1830, Paris and Washington entered into heated talks over an indemnity, and Jackson proposed extraordinary measures to Congress. A message sent to the White House by France began as follows: “Le gouvernement français demand” which a secretary translated as “The French Government demands.” Jackson swiftly and forcefully replied that if the French government dared to “demand” anything whatsoever from the United States, it would obtain nothing. 

Luckily, calm was restored once the translation had been corrected. (Source)

9
“Merely giving permission for the British to use their land” : (A British missionary to Māori chiefs)
'Merely giving permission for the British to use their land' : (A British missionary to Māori chiefs)

As immigrants settled permanently in New Zealand, they weren’t always fair in their dealings with Māori native over land, so a number of Māori chiefs sought protection from the King of England and recognition of their special trade and missionary contacts with Britain.

The British Government negotiated a formal agreement with Māori chiefs which recognised Māori ownership of their land and other properties, and gave the Māori the rights of British subjects. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed on February 6, 1840, at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands. Over 500 Māori chiefs signed the treaty, which was drawn up in English then translated into Māori.

In the English version, the Māori were to “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty.” In the Māori translation, composed by a British missionary, they were merely giving permission for the British to use their land. In order words, they thought they were getting a legal system, but keeping their right to rule themselves.

It is worth mentioning that according to some it wasn’t a mistranslation, but rather a deliberate deception done by the British in order to steal land. (Source)

1
“Canals on Mars” : (Percival Lowell’s first book)
'Canals on Mars' : (Percival Lowell's first book)

In 1877, Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli, director of the Brera Observatory in Milan, began mapping and naming areas on Mars. He named the Martian “seas” and “continents” (dark and light areas) with names from historic and mythological sources. 

He saw channels on Mars and called them “canali.” “Canali” means “channels,” but it was mistranslated into “canals” – implying large-scale artificial structures had been discovered on Mars.

Percival Lowell, a wealthy astronomer from Boston, made his first observations of Mars from a private observatory that he built in Flagstaff, Arizona (Lowell Observatory). He decided that the canals were real and ultimately mapped hundreds of them. He believed that the straight lines were artificial canals created by intelligent Martians and were built to carry water from the polar caps to the equatorial regions. 

In 1895, he published his first book about Mars with many illustrations and, over the next two decades, published two more popular books advancing his ideas. (Source)

11
“When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai his head had horns” : St. Jerome’s translation
“When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai his head had horns” : St. Jerome's translation

St. Jerome, the patron saint of translators, studied Hebrew so he could translate the Old Testament into Latin, instead of translating from the 3rd century Greek version that everyone else had used. The resulting Latin version, which became the basis for hundreds of subsequent translations, contained a famous mistake. 

When Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, his head had “radiance” or, in Hebrew, “karan.” But Hebrew is written without the vowels, and St. Jerome had read “karan” as “keren,” or “horned.” From this error came centuries of paintings and sculptures of Moses with horns and the odd offensive stereotype of the horned Jew. (Source)

12
“Eventual qualification of the Belgian national football team” :Belgian football association to the Scottish team
'Eventual qualification of the Belgian national football team' : Belgian football association to the Scottish team

The word “eventueel” in Dutch means “potentially” and not “eventually,” which is “uiteindelijk” in that language. This mistake caused a row between the Scottish and Belgian football associations when the Belgian football association invited delegates from various associations over for the “eventual qualification of the Belgian national football team” before the play-offs against Scotland started. 

While the Scottish federation accused the Belgians of sheer arrogance, the Belgian association had meant to hold the drink after a “possible qualification.” (Source)

Original article published here: Oddee

Just how effective are language learning apps?


Around 70 million people – including Bill Gates – have signed up for the language learning app Duolingo. The app has received plenty of media attention, and its creators claim that it can help anyone with a smart phone learn a new language.

The app is free, and promises all kinds of cutting edge features, such as adaptive algorithms to suit users’ learning speed, as well as gamification to boost motivation. They also claim that this app can provide members of poorer communities with access to language learning that would otherwise be denied them; a worthy aim indeed.

For those who haven’t tried it, Duolingo works as follows. The user is introduced to some vocabulary, and then every day they spend a few minutes doing language exercises, such as translating sentences.

There is a level of adaptivity: words that you get wrong come up again and again, while words that you get right come up less often – although they do still appear. This recycling and repetition is a core element of the app – it is what the creators hope will eventually lead to acquisition of new vocabulary. As users complete the exercises successfully, they can move up through the “levels”, and unlock bonus lessons on “flirting” and “idioms”.

Language learning in theory

As experienced language teachers, we wanted to think about whether or not this technology is really cutting edge. Clearly the delivery mechanism is new, and textbook writers would be amazed at selling 70 million copies. But in a field filled with spirited – and sometimes acrimonious – academic theorising about language learning, it’s worth investigating where Duolingo fits in.

The earliest modern language instruction was called “grammar translation”. It focused on translating sentences and learning the rules of the grammar as the primary goal. This type of rote learning is how many people learned Latin – including Monty Python’s Brian. It is also the method used by the teachers of generations of happy English tourists to France, who ended up knowing how to conjugate a verb, but utterly unable to make themselves understood without shouting in a strange type of pidgin English with a French accent.

After World War II, a method called “audiolingualism” took over. This was based partly on the idea that positive rewards reinforce behaviour, and that rules and patterns form the primary systems of language. The drill – where students repeated sentences over and over – became the main learning activity. The American Army claimed great success with one form of audiolingualism, which become known as the “Army Method”. But it has been suggested that the motivation was more important than the method; and a soldier’s motivation is radically different to a school child’s.

In the context of the classroom, generations of school children sat in rows, chanting grammatically correct sentences after their teacher. But when they went to France, they could say little more than “la plume de ma tante est sur la table” (“my aunt’s pen is on the table”). This didn’t help in restaurants.

Through the 60s and 70s a number of new methods started to come to the fore, often based on a holistic, humanistic philosophy. From a contemporary point of view, these range from the charmingly eccentric “silent way” – where this teacher is forbidden from speaking – to the clearly charlatan “suggestopedia” approach, where students and teachers are encouraged to have a parent-child relationship, and read out long dialogues to musical accompaniment. Some students objected to being psycho-analysed in class, and others were still unable to order their meal in a restaurant.

Communication is key

Over time, a lot of ideas coalesced into what is generally known as the “communicative approach”. This catch-all label refers to methods which prioritise the function of language as communication, not structure. The idea is that, if you are speaking to someone, it’s good to get the grammar right, but it’s OK if you don’t: if you do get the grammar right, but your pronunciation is so bad that the person can’t understand what you are saying, that’s much worse. It’s equally bad if you are so worried about getting the grammar completely correct that you are too hesitant to take part in a conversation.

The great beauty of the communicative approach, or some would say its great failing, is its ability, like language itself, to adapt and adopt new ideas. It brings in ideas and techniques from all the history of language teaching, and as long as they help the students communicate effectively, they are accepted.

So where does Duolingo fit in with this theoretical background? Well, when using the app to learn, say, Italian as a beginner, you are drilled on sentences like “I am the child”, or “I have a bowl”. This is audio-lingual drilling: there is no communication happening. Instead of basic communication, the users are drilled again and again in decontextualised, effectively meaningless sentences.

Unlocking language skills?https://www.duolingo.com/

But there are two things that no theorist would deny about learning a language: the importance of learning a lot of words, and the need for constant effort. And this is where an app like Duolingo really comes into its own: it reminds you every day to practise, and reinforce the words you have learnt, while encouraging you with virtual rewards (if that’s your thing). Since the chunks of time needed are so small, it can be done in the coffee queue, allowing the users to learn without sacrificing other things in their lives.

We believe that apps like Duolingo can be a useful supplement when you are learning a language – but not a substitute. It can help you learn some words, and some basic constructions, but it isn’t going to allow you to leap into a conversation in a new language. It’s better than nothing, but there are plenty of more effective options out there.

But perhaps we are missing the point. Language plays an incredibly powerful gatekeeping role in many societies. Speaking the right language, in the right way, provides a huge number of opportunities: so we maybe shouldn’t be thinking whether this app will help comfortably–off European tourists to better enjoy their holidays. Perhaps the creators are right, and we should be thinking about whether apps like these can provide any opportunities for those in the world who otherwise have none. If these apps can be used to tackle issues such as global literacy, then the aims of their creators can only be applauded.

Original article published here: The Conversation

Think your world view is fixed? Learn another language and you’ll think differently

Many language dictionaries on a shelf

Bilinguals get all the perks. Better job prospects, a cognitive boost, and even protection against dementia. Now new research shows that they can also view the world in different ways depending on the language they are operating in.
In the past 15 years there has been an overwhelming amount of research on the bilingual mind, with the majority of the evidence pointing to the tangible advantages of using more than one language. Going back and forth between languages appears to be a kind of brain training, pushing your brain to be flexible.

Just as regular exercise gives your body some biological benefits, mentally controlling two or more languages gives your brain cognitive benefits. This mental flexibility pays big dividends especially later in life: the typical signs of cognitive ageing occur later in bilinguals – and the onset of age-related degenerative disorders such as dementia or Alzheimer’s are delayed in bilinguals by up to five years.

In research we recently published in Psychological Science, we studied German-English bilinguals and monolinguals to find out how different language patterns affected how they reacted in experiments.

We showed German-English bilinguals video clips of events with a motion in them, such as a woman walking towards a car or a man cycling towards the supermarket and then asked them to describe the scenes.

When you give a scene like that to a monolingual German speaker they will tend to describe the action but also the goal of the action. So they would tend to say, “A woman walks towards her car,” or “A man cycles towards the supermarket.” English monolingual speakers would simply describe those scenes as “A woman is walking,” or “a man is cycling,” without mentioning the goal of the action.

The worldview assumed by German speakers is a holistic one – they tend to look at the event as a whole – whereas English speakers tend to zoom in on the event and focus only on the action.
The linguistic basis of this tendency appears to be rooted in the way different grammatical toolkits situate actions in time. English requires its speakers to grammatically mark events that are ongoing, by obligatorily applying the –ing morpheme: “I am playing the piano and I cannot come to the phone,” or “I was playing the piano when the phone rang.” German doesn’t have this feature.

Research with second language users shows a relationship between linguistic proficiency in such grammatical constructions and the frequency with which speakers mention the goals of events.

In our study we also found that these cross-linguistic differences extend beyond language usage itself, to nonverbal categorisation of events. We asked English and German monolinguals to watch a series of video clips that showed people walking, cycling, running or driving. In each set of three videos, we asked subjects to decide whether a scene with an ambiguous goal (a woman walks down a road toward a parked car) was more similar to a clearly goal-oriented scene (a woman walks into a building) or a scene with no goal (a woman walks down a country lane).

German monolinguals matched ambiguous scenes with goal-oriented scenes more frequently than English monolinguals did. This difference mirrors the one found for language usage: German speakers are more likely to focus on possible outcomes of people’s actions, but English speakers pay more attention to the action itself.

When it came to bilingual speakers, they seemed to switch between these perspectives based on the language context they were given the task in. We found that Germans fluent in English were just as goal-focused as any other native speaker when tested in German in their home country. But a similar group of German-English bilinguals tested in English in the United Kingdom were just as action-focused as native English speakers.

In another group of German-English bilinguals, we kept one language in the forefront of their minds during the video-matching task by making participants repeat strings of numbers out loud in either English or German. Distracting one language seemed to automatically bring the influence of the other language to the fore.

When we “blocked” English, the bilinguals acted like typical Germans and saw ambiguous videos as more goal-oriented. With German blocked, bilingual subjects acted like English speakers and matched ambiguous and open-ended scenes. When we surprised subjects by switching the language of the distracting numbers halfway through the experiment, the subjects’ focus on goals versus process switched right along with it.

These findings are in line with other research showing distinct behaviour in bilinguals depending on the language of operation. Israeli Arabs are more likely to associate Arab names such as Ahmed and Samir with positive words in an Arabic language context than in a Hebrew one, for example.

People self-report that they feel like a different person when using their different languages and that expressing certain emotions carries different emotional resonance depending on the language they are using.

When judging risk, bilinguals also tend to make more rational, economic decisions in a second language. In contrast to one’s first language, it tends to lack the deep-seated, misleading affective biases that unduly influence how risks and benefits are perceived. So the language you speak in reality can affect the way you think.

Original article published here: The Guardian