|
|
Post by mitten on Apr 6, 2021 15:09:34 GMT
Regarding Paz - I think it's important to keep in mind that we judge fictional characters a little differently than real people, or at least I know I do. Were Paz a real person whom I knew in real life, I might or might not believe her contrition here, and there would be all sorts of tiny details influencing me, including some that reflect my own personality. When it comes to fictional characters, it's all a matter of what impression the author is trying to create, and whether that comes across successfully or not. I suspect (though may of course be wrong) that the intention here is to still keep things a bit ambiguous for now. The reason I believe this is that if Tom wanted it to be crystal clear that Paz is truly regretful and realizes how bad a thing she said, he could either give us access to her internal monologue, or else show us an act of contrition as opposed to merely saying she is sorry when put on the spot about it by Jones. Show, don't tell, as it were. If we compare to another polarizing character, Anthony, we have been shown he feels regret about at least some of his past actions by showing him in a vulnerable moment alone with Donny. So, even though I don't think that excuses everything he's done, I do believe he feels regret. In a fictional story, I tend to be suspicious if a character states something but doesn't reflect it in their actions, and wonder if the author is setting up a twist for later, so there's my own personal bias. We all have those, and that's why these discussions can sometimes become heated, so I'm glad we can all respect our different interpretations.  Also, I rather like the idea of two internal Annies remaining! That could well explain that she might think and say she's 'fine' but still not want to let the truth out to Jones. |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbot on Apr 6, 2021 16:24:18 GMT
I am reminded that Surma could not stand Jones even though she was ok with Anthony even before she fell in love with him. I suspect Surma didn't like Jones because she felt threatened by Jones' friendship/influence with Eglamore while Surma was romantically involved with him. I think this is supported by Tom's comment " Surma is pretty insecure" on the previous page to Donald's comment. Apologies if all of this was thoroughly analyzed in the forum years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 6, 2021 16:49:59 GMT
I am reminded that Surma could not stand Jones even though she was ok with Anthony even before she fell in love with him. I suspect Surma didn't like Jones because she felt threatened by Jones' friendship/influence with Eglamore while Surma was romantically involved with him. I think this is supported by Tom's comment " Surma is pretty insecure" on the previous page to Donald's comment. Apologies if all of this was thoroughly analyzed in the forum years ago. Were they already a couple back then, though? At least to me "Ties" never felt like they were.
Don't worry about it. I'm sure my posts are less polite on average as well. Basically everyone I know is more irritable than usual, which is to be blamed onto this ongoing pandemic situation. I'm really happy to have this forum here, it is like one of the few gemuetlich outside places I can still visit anytime. BTW, I don't know if you have been reading the forum when "The Tree" was the current chapter. Now there was some actual vitriolic hate bubbling up in the discussion threads and, boy, do I not miss it. extra points for use of "gemuetlich"... (but raises a question: how can you get umlauts on the forum?) Well, I'm German, and I think there is just no "native" English word which has the same meaning as "gemütlich", at least not when talking about a place (for clothes, "comfortable" is adequate). I don't know if there is a special BBCode trick to write umlauts if you don't have them on your keyboard. I would suggest just copy+pasting them from somewhere else. I just refrained from using it now because in my experience many English speakers do not realize that ä, ö, ü are actually different phonemes than a, o, u. Using ae, oe, ue makes it clearer that a different pronounciation than the standard vowels is in order here.  |
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on Apr 6, 2021 17:38:48 GMT
I suspect Surma didn't like Jones because she felt threatened by Jones' friendship/influence with Eglamore while Surma was romantically involved with him. I think this is supported by Tom's comment " Surma is pretty insecure" on the previous page to Donald's comment. Apologies if all of this was thoroughly analyzed in the forum years ago. Were they already a couple back then, though? At least to me "Ties" never felt like they were.
extra points for use of "gemuetlich"... (but raises a question: how can you get umlauts on the forum?) Well, I'm German, and I think there is just no "native" English word which has the same meaning as "gemütlich", at least not when talking about a place (for clothes, "comfortable" is adequate). I don't know if there is a special BBCode trick to write umlauts if you don't have them on your keyboard. I would suggest just copy+pasting them from somewhere else. I just refrained from using it now because in my experience many English speakers do not realize that ä, ö, ü are actually different phonemes than a, o, u. Using ae, oe, ue makes it clearer that a different pronounciation than the standard vowels is in order here. Yeah, English uses dipthongs for its vowels. In Bulgarian we use monophthongs for our vowels so we do the same things when we want to make a dipthong sound by putting multiple vowels next to each other. It's easier to read if nothing else. As far as Surma, I think it doesn't matter for lurkerbot's point whether or not she and Jimmy are dating at that point. All the situation needs is for Surma to have a crush on Jimmy, and the jealousy for Jones will naturally follow. That tracks for me anyway in regards to Surma's personality. |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 6, 2021 18:05:07 GMT
extra points for use of "gemuetlich"... (but raises a question: how can you get umlauts on the forum?) Well, I'm German, and I think there is just no "native" English word which has the same meaning as "gemütlich", at least not when talking about a place (for clothes, "comfortable" is adequate). I don't know if there is a special BBCode trick to write umlauts if you don't have them on your keyboard. I would suggest just copy+pasting them from somewhere else. I just refrained from using it now because in my experience many English speakers do not realize that ä, ö, ü are actually different phonemes than a, o, u. Using ae, oe, ue makes it clearer that a different pronounciation than the standard vowels is in order here. Ah, I didn't realize you were Deutsch! German is good that way; it has a number of meaty words that capture in a single unit what would take a whole sentence in English. Weltschmerz. Schadenfreude. Vorfreude. Fernweh. Treppenwitz. Sehnsucht. (We even use the first two with some regularity...) (hope I spelled those all correctly!) |
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Apr 6, 2021 18:12:30 GMT
Oh, right. The primary reason I'm no longer thinking this is all a Zimmyscape is Jones. She has stated she can't interact with the Ether or something along those lines. I doubt very much she could get sucked into one of Zimmy's things. She's a magical null. So what we are seeing is real, in some sense. Or totally in Annie's head, of course, but then why would Tom be showing us all this stuff that is happening out of her view? Has to be real...ish. Jones can still turn up in Zimmyscape as an illusion, go read "Divine" again. But yes, it's highly unlikely all these scenes would be shown if this were not the real Jones. When Jones showed up there, it was an NPC. Just an object of affection, not someone walking around interviewing people or the like. Point taken, though. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 6, 2021 20:02:31 GMT
(but raises a question: how can you get umlauts on the forum?) It isn't a function of the forum, it's a function of getting your computer to feed the desired Unicode codes to the forum. If you have a method of typing them, or a character map that you can choose characters from, or anything like that, ťĥėń ȉŧ ȋșǹ'ţ ĥăřď. |
|
|
|
Post by Gotolei on Apr 7, 2021 14:15:35 GMT
(but raises a question: how can you get umlauts on the forum?) It isn't a function of the forum, it's a function of getting your computer to feed the desired Unicode codes to the forum. If you have a method of typing them, or a character map that you can choose characters from, or anything like that, ťĥėń ȉŧ ȋșǹ'ţ ĥăřď. Basically this, I don't even really speak any languages other than English but I still have a compose key set up (dunno the equivalent on Windows, but I think many non-US keyboards come with an altgr key that does somewhat similar things) so all I need to remember to put in → is ->, ° from oo, ≠ from /= , ™ ① ¾ ¢ ♫ etc. Would definitely recommend looking into. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 7, 2021 17:44:20 GMT
Ah, I didn't realize you were Deutsch! German is good that way; it has a number of meaty words that capture in a single unit what would take a whole sentence in English. Weltschmerz. Schadenfreude. Vorfreude. Fernweh. Treppenwitz. Sehnsucht. (We even use the first two with some regularity...) (hope I spelled those all correctly!) All spelled correctly. I think Ohrwurm is another word fitting for this list, although it seems some English speakers have adopted the word earworm as a literal translation. Fun fact: Every single time I hear or read the word Treppenwitz I have to ask or look it up. I can never remember what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 7, 2021 21:18:26 GMT
There is an exact, single-word English translation of schadenfreude, despite the many clickbait sites putting it on lists of "untranslatable" words. The word in question is epicaricacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 7, 2021 22:25:14 GMT
There is an exact, single-word English translation of schadenfreude, despite the many clickbait sites putting it on lists of "untranslatable" words. The word in question is epicaricacy.a new word! never heard of it before.... thanx! |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 7, 2021 23:18:15 GMT
English is an absorptive language. IMHO the correct English translation for the German word "schadenfreude" is the English word "schadenfreude".
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 8, 2021 0:13:24 GMT
There is an exact, single-word English translation of schadenfreude, despite the many clickbait sites putting it on lists of "untranslatable" words. The word in question is epicaricacy.Well, I wouldn't blame those sites. I don't even find this word in the online dictionaries I use, and Google Translate doesn't translate it as "Schadenfreude" into German, but as "Epikarikabilität" (which I also have never heard before).
Wiktionary knows "epicaricacy", but adds this note: "The word is mentioned in some early dictionaries, but there is little or no evidence of actual usage until it was picked up by various "interesting word" websites around the turn of the twenty-first century."
By the way, I don't see anything wrong with using a two- or even three-word translation in English for a German single-word expression... Not every language can be like ours and allow to create words by infinitely stacking nouns and adjectives into one single word. Like Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitanskajütendeckenlampenschirmmuster (pattern on the lampshade of the ceiling lamp in the cabin of a captain from a Danube-based steamboat company). And yet, "malicious joy/glee" still doesn't carry the same meaning as Schadenfreude, or, apparently, epicaricacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 8, 2021 0:41:51 GMT
Ah, I didn't realize you were Deutsch! German is good that way; it has a number of meaty words that capture in a single unit what would take a whole sentence in English. Weltschmerz. Schadenfreude. Vorfreude. Fernweh. Treppenwitz. Sehnsucht. (We even use the first two with some regularity...) (hope I spelled those all correctly!) All spelled correctly. I think Ohrwurm is another word fitting for this list, although it seems some English speakers have adopted the word earworm as a literal translation. Fun fact: Every single time I hear or read the word Treppenwitz I have to ask or look it up. I can never remember what it is. I didn't even know German had Ohrwurm! Agreed, another good pithy one. English has had earworm for a long time, its fairly common... my mother used it when I was young, so English either picked it up a long time ago (~50 years), or it was a parallel evolution maybe.... |
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Apr 8, 2021 1:32:51 GMT
I had a few years of German a long time ago. As I recall, it is pretty customary to string together words to get the meaning you want, and it is fine to include words from other languages in the compound word. That's how they end up with words like Telefongespräch, which is telephone conversation. I'm fairly sure that telephone was English first? Could be wrong but I remember learning that in a class. Anyway, where I'm heading with this is that Schadenfreude is just such a compound word: Schade and Schaden and the like typically translate to words meaning "bad", approximately. Google translate says this: schad -> shame, schade -> what a shame, schaden -> damage, harm, or hurt. It's been many years and I no longer remember how to tell which of these is the real root word. Freude is a bit easier, translating to joy, pleasure, delight, that sort of thing. So you can see where the resulting noun, Schadenfreude, ends up being translated to "malicious joy", meaning taking joy in harm to another. Gloating and spitefulness are suggested as alternate meaning but I feel like "malicious joy" best captures the spirit of the word. It's... close, I'd say, just that it's more like "taking joy in the misfortune of another", which is more nuanced. Sorry for the huge linguistic digression. The native German speakers may now tear apart my argument. I await correction. |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 8, 2021 1:39:33 GMT
English is an absorptive language. IMHO the correct English translation for the German word "schadenfreude" is the English word "schadenfreude". Indeed, the German word here is so perfect for its purpose, we just stole it! PS. (sorry everyone for this extended linguistic digression on how useful German words can be....) |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 8, 2021 2:16:27 GMT
English is an absorptive language. IMHO the correct English translation for the German word "schadenfreude" is the English word "schadenfreude". Indeed, the German word here is so perfect for its purpose, we just stole it! PS. (sorry everyone for this extended linguistic digression on how useful German words can be....) English is also a language in which words (even previously unknown words) can be drafted into service in a matter of hours (look up the history of "quiz" sometime), and "epicaricacy" happens to be a word already known to the literate. |
|
|
|
Post by blazingstar on Apr 8, 2021 3:24:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 8, 2021 11:12:20 GMT
I had a few years of German a long time ago. As I recall, it is pretty customary to string together words to get the meaning you want, and it is fine to include words from other languages in the compound word. That's how they end up with words like Telefongespräch, which is telephone conversation. I'm fairly sure that telephone was English first? Could be wrong but I remember learning that in a class. Anyway, where I'm heading with this is that Schadenfreude is just such a compound word: Schade and Schaden and the like typically translate to words meaning "bad", approximately. Google translate says this: schad -> shame, schade -> what a shame, schaden -> damage, harm, or hurt. It's been many years and I no longer remember how to tell which of these is the real root word. Freude is a bit easier, translating to joy, pleasure, delight, that sort of thing. So you can see where the resulting noun, Schadenfreude, ends up being translated to "malicious joy", meaning taking joy in harm to another. Gloating and spitefulness are suggested as alternate meaning but I feel like "malicious joy" best captures the spirit of the word. It's... close, I'd say, just that it's more like "taking joy in the misfortune of another", which is more nuanced. Sorry for the huge linguistic digression. The native German speakers may now tear apart my argument. I await correction. Well, Telephon is actually a made-up word out of ancient Greek ( τῆλε (tēle, far) and φωνή (phōnē, voice)), and it was first used by the German inventor Johan Philip Reis (it had been used for other devices before, but Reis was first to use it for a device that converted sound into electrical impulses and back): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reis_telephoneI know many others are credited with inventing the telephone as well (A.G. Bell for example), but the truth is that many people contributed to its development and built upon each other's work over several decades.
And "schad" on its own is not a word. Don't let Google Translate fool you, it often writes words into the translation field just by guessing what you are going to write into the original text field. "shame" is "Scham" in German. |
|
|
|
Post by Polyhymnia on Apr 8, 2021 12:30:54 GMT
It’s also worth noting that schadenfreude is listed in my dictionary app (free Merrimam-Webster), while epicaricacy isn’t (and my phone doesn’t recognize the latter and is suggesting it’s a misspelling). English has more or less swallowed schadenfreude, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on Apr 8, 2021 16:36:47 GMT
Indeed, the German word here is so perfect for its purpose, we just stole it! PS. (sorry everyone for this extended linguistic digression on how useful German words can be....) English is also a language in which words (even previously unknown words) can be drafted into service in a matter of hours (look up the history of "quiz" sometime), and "epicaricacy" happens to be a word already known to the literate. Do you mean the story about the guy in 1791 who made quiz into a word within 24 hours? Wikipedia says there is no evidence to suggest that story is true and it was in use before 1791. And as far as epicaricacy being a word already known to the literate, wouldn't the same argument apply to schadenfreude, except more people know it? Even my Chrome dictionary recognizes schadenfreude but not epicaricacy. I'm not even sure what that means, by the way, "the literate". Is that suggesting that for those us who don't know it that we are illiterate? What? |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 8, 2021 22:48:55 GMT
English is also a language in which words (even previously unknown words) can be drafted into service in a matter of hours (look up the history of "quiz" sometime), and "epicaricacy" happens to be a word already known to the literate. Do you mean the story about the guy in 1791 who made quiz into a word within 24 hours? Wikipedia says there is no evidence to suggest that story is true and it was in use before 1791. And as far as epicaricacy being a word already known to the literate, wouldn't the same argument apply to schadenfreude, except more people know it? Even my Chrome dictionary recognizes schadenfreude but not epicaricacy. I'm not even sure what that means, by the way, "the literate". Is that suggesting that for those us who don't know it that we are illiterate? What? No. It means that especially literate people were aware of it from, you know, literature. Kindly pick a fight in a different direction; I'm not interested in fighting. |
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Apr 9, 2021 4:01:38 GMT
I had a few years of German a long time ago. As I recall, it is pretty customary to string together words to get the meaning you want, and it is fine to include words from other languages in the compound word. That's how they end up with words like Telefongespräch, which is telephone conversation. I'm fairly sure that telephone was English first? Could be wrong but I remember learning that in a class. Anyway, where I'm heading with this is that Schadenfreude is just such a compound word: Schade and Schaden and the like typically translate to words meaning "bad", approximately. Google translate says this: schad -> shame, schade -> what a shame, schaden -> damage, harm, or hurt. It's been many years and I no longer remember how to tell which of these is the real root word. Freude is a bit easier, translating to joy, pleasure, delight, that sort of thing. So you can see where the resulting noun, Schadenfreude, ends up being translated to "malicious joy", meaning taking joy in harm to another. Gloating and spitefulness are suggested as alternate meaning but I feel like "malicious joy" best captures the spirit of the word. It's... close, I'd say, just that it's more like "taking joy in the misfortune of another", which is more nuanced. Sorry for the huge linguistic digression. The native German speakers may now tear apart my argument. I await correction. Well, Telephon is actually a made-up word out of ancient Greek ( τῆλε (tēle, far) and φωνή (phōnē, voice)), and it was first used by the German inventor Johan Philip Reis (it had been used for other devices before, but Reis was first to use it for a device that converted sound into electrical impulses and back): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reis_telephoneI know many others are credited with inventing the telephone as well (A.G. Bell for example), but the truth is that many people contributed to its development and built upon each other's work over several decades.
And "schad" on its own is not a word. Don't let Google Translate fool you, it often writes words into the translation field just by guessing what you are going to write into the original text field. "shame" is "Scham" in German. Hmmm. Did I do something to offend you, Pyradonis? I've noticed that you have been making a point to criticize just about every post I make, and that you aren't doing it to others. What's up with that? This one isn't so bad, but I can produce several examples of testiness if I must. I'd really rather not - I have no issues with you at all, I've just noticed...
As for the telephone, I made no claims for who invented it, I merely parroted what my German IV teacher said. I guess she was incorrect. This did lead me to research the etymology of the word. An excerpt from the Online Entomology Dictionary: So the word was actually devised by a Frenchman quite a bit earlier. I really thought I remembered my German instructor saying the word was adopted from English but either I misremember or she was incorrect. Reis appears to be getting more credit as the inventor of the modern form of the device these days but he certainly didn't create the word, nor was he the first to use it. Sorry. I really didn't dream any controversy could arise from this part of my little linguistic digression! And of course, the German word is Telefon, but I'm sure you knew that. The Germanized spelling is one of the reasons I never thought to question my teacher's claim - adopted words with ph usually get an f, just as words with a hard c sound usually get a k (e.g., electronics -> Elektronik).
As for Google Translate, fair enough. I checked into schad, schade, and schaden a bit more. It appears you are correct that schad on it's own is not a word - I'm not sure if it's the stem of the others and don't care enough to research further. Langenscheidt has definitions for schade and schaden and they basically match what Google Translate claimed. But, I will certainly treat their results with a bit more skepticism in the future. I knew they weren't so great with Japanese but I thought they did well with the common European languages. Perhaps not as well as I thought.  |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 10, 2021 12:06:58 GMT
Well, Telephon is actually a made-up word out of ancient Greek ( τῆλε (tēle, far) and φωνή (phōnē, voice)), and it was first used by the German inventor Johan Philip Reis (it had been used for other devices before, but Reis was first to use it for a device that converted sound into electrical impulses and back): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reis_telephoneI know many others are credited with inventing the telephone as well (A.G. Bell for example), but the truth is that many people contributed to its development and built upon each other's work over several decades.
And "schad" on its own is not a word. Don't let Google Translate fool you, it often writes words into the translation field just by guessing what you are going to write into the original text field. "shame" is "Scham" in German. Hmmm. Did I do something to offend you, Pyradonis? I've noticed that you have been making a point to criticize just about every post I make, and that you aren't doing it to others. What's up with that? This one isn't so bad, but I can produce several examples of testiness if I must. I'd really rather not - I have no issues with you at all, I've just noticed...
As for the telephone, I made no claims for who invented it, I merely parroted what my German IV teacher said. I guess she was incorrect. This did lead me to research the etymology of the word. An excerpt from the Online Entomology Dictionary: So the word was actually devised by a Frenchman quite a bit earlier. I really thought I remembered my German instructor saying the word was adopted from English but either I misremember or she was incorrect. Reis appears to be getting more credit as the inventor of the modern form of the device these days but he certainly didn't create the word, nor was he the first to use it. Sorry. I really didn't dream any controversy could arise from this part of my little linguistic digression! And of course, the German word is Telefon, but I'm sure you knew that. The Germanized spelling is one of the reasons I never thought to question my teacher's claim - adopted words with ph usually get an f, just as words with a hard c sound usually get a k (e.g., electronics -> Elektronik).
As for Google Translate, fair enough. I checked into schad, schade, and schaden a bit more. It appears you are correct that schad on it's own is not a word - I'm not sure if it's the stem of the others and don't care enough to research further. Langenscheidt has definitions for schade and schaden and they basically match what Google Translate claimed. But, I will certainly treat their results with a bit more skepticism in the future. I knew they weren't so great with Japanese but I thought they did well with the common European languages. Perhaps not as well as I thought.
First of all, I am really sorry if I accidentally made you feel bad, I assure you that it was not my intention. About this post, I am not sure where you see me criticizing you there... You ended your post with "I await correction." directed at the native German speakers, so I corrected what in my opinion needed correction. I added the part about the inventors not because of anything you said, but merely to elaborate. In my experience, many people in the English-speaking world have never heard of Mr. Reis and are quick to answer "Wait, I thought Bell invented the telephone!" So I just preventively added this, and it has nothing to do with you.
About other posts. I assume you have not read each of the 1773 posts I have made on this board but only the ones since you are a member here. Believe me that when I do criticize a post I do not care who wrote it. Maybe in the past few weeks I really disproportionally often did that with posts you had written, but even if that is the case, it is just a coincidence. It might also be that you perceive my way of writing answers as very critical? I know I do not start every single reply with "In my humble opinion..." or end it with a friendly looking smiley. I am probably not as polite and warm as saardvark, but stating one's differing opinion should not be mistaken for criticizing the other person. Discussions would also be pretty boring if everyone was of the same opinion or if only the first opinion uttered counted. Again, if my way of writing replies to posts makde you feel uncomfortable, I am sorry, but as far as I know no one has had a problem with it before. If there are particular points where you felt unfairly attacked, please point them out to me.
I admit I used an "ironic echo" in the reply about Eglamore & Annie, and maybe I sounded particularly annoyed in that post. Again, it has nothing to do with you. It's the topic that annoys me, for many, many years longer than you have been a member of this forum, so I might sound more testy than usual when it comes to this.
Okay. I hope I have cleared everything up.
About the capabilities of Google Translate: it is course better with languages of the same family. It also is generally better at translating into English than from English, which is due to the simplified grammar English has relative to most other languages (I'll spare everyone the examples unless someone asks). Also, one can very easily confuse GT with things like typos, words that do not exist (where GT then often guesses what you are about to spell out), words that can have more than one meaning when translated, or leaving off punctuation marks (again, examples will be provided if asked for). I suggest taking everything GT spits out with more than just one grain of salt. I once translated a navigation app for freshwater vessels from German into Italian. The developer said he had already put all the text fields through GT, so surely one would only have to fix a few mistakes and be done in an hour. Boy, was he wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gemminie on Apr 10, 2021 13:04:47 GMT
And "schad" on its own is not a word. Don't let Google Translate fool you, it often writes words into the translation field just by guessing what you are going to write into the original text field. "shame" is "Scham" in German. But "schade" is a word. It means pity, shame, or loss, although in some idiomatic expressions it can also mean good. There's also the verb " schaden," which means to hurt or harm when used transitively, or to do harm when used intransitively. Caveat: I am not a fluent German speaker, but I did take two semesters of college German. I'd always read "schadenfreude" as an interesting double-entendre: shame + pleasure but also harm + pleasure, therefore taking pleasure from harm coming to another while also feeling shame for doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by DonDueed on Apr 10, 2021 15:44:51 GMT
And "schad" on its own is not a word. Don't let Google Translate fool you, it often writes words into the translation field just by guessing what you are going to write into the original text field. "shame" is "Scham" in German. But "schade" is a word. It means pity, shame, or loss, although in some idiomatic expressions it can also mean good. There's also the verb " schaden," which means to hurt or harm when used transitively, or to do harm when used intransitively. Caveat: I am not a fluent German speaker, but I did take two semesters of college German. I'd always read "schadenfreude" as an interesting double-entendre: shame + pleasure but also harm + pleasure, therefore taking pleasure from harm coming to another while also feeling shame for doing so. Interesting! I've always thought that 'schadenfreude' implied that the pleasure taken from another's troubles was spicy precisely because it was felt without any sense of shame. Perhaps I've misinterpreted, or maybe I'm just an evil person  . Or maybe the 'shame' sense of 'schade' doesn't really apply in this context? |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 10, 2021 17:25:36 GMT
And "schad" on its own is not a word. Don't let Google Translate fool you, it often writes words into the translation field just by guessing what you are going to write into the original text field. "shame" is "Scham" in German. But "schade" is a word. It means pity, shame, or loss, although in some idiomatic expressions it can also mean good. There's also the verb " schaden," which means to hurt or harm when used transitively, or to do harm when used intransitively. Caveat: I am not a fluent German speaker, but I did take two semesters of college German. I'd always read "schadenfreude" as an interesting double-entendre: shame + pleasure but also harm + pleasure, therefore taking pleasure from harm coming to another while also feeling shame for doing so. Yes, but no. Look, it's complicated. Of course "schade" is a word ("schad" is not, except if in colloquial speech someone leaves off the last letter of schade), but it does not really mean "good", or "shame". This misunderstanding comes about because of the way sentences containing schade are translated. For example something like "X ist zu schade für Y." is translated as "X is too good for Y.", but try out to translate it back in GT and you will get the much more literal translation "X ist zu gut für Y." "X ist zu schade für Y." carries a slightly different, more specific meaning. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schade#German explains it as "too good to be wasted" which I think is the best English equivalent. Sentences like "Wie schade!" are translated as "What a shame!" or "What a pity". I would choose the latter. schade does not have anything to do with feeling shame over what has happened. What you feel is more along the lines of pity or sadness. When you say that it is schade that X happened, you mean it is unfortunate or regrettable that X happened.
So, no, Schadenfreude does not have anything to do with feeling shame either. Of course, you can still feel ashamed because of your Schadenfreude, but this is something that happens after the situation. True Schadenfreude is felt without shame or remorse in the moment you are feeling it.
I think I would put the final blame onto the English expression "What a shame!", which I feel out of place among all other uses of the word shame.
But "schade" is a word. It means pity, shame, or loss, although in some idiomatic expressions it can also mean good. There's also the verb " schaden," which means to hurt or harm when used transitively, or to do harm when used intransitively. Caveat: I am not a fluent German speaker, but I did take two semesters of college German. I'd always read "schadenfreude" as an interesting double-entendre: shame + pleasure but also harm + pleasure, therefore taking pleasure from harm coming to another while also feeling shame for doing so. Interesting! I've always thought that 'schadenfreude' implied that the pleasure taken from another's troubles was spicy precisely because it was felt without any sense of shame. Perhaps I've misinterpreted, or maybe I'm just an evil person . Or maybe the 'shame' sense of 'schade' doesn't really apply in this context? You have not misinterpreted anything, see above. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 11, 2021 6:04:54 GMT
Dutch, another Germanic language, also has Schade as a word. It is less multilayered and means more like "damage". It also does nothing with the concept of shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Apr 13, 2021 0:57:20 GMT
Pyradonis, I am glad to hear there isn't anything going on there. I was worried. Also quite startled when you attacked my example (Telefongesprach) instead of my dissection of schadenfreude! No worries, it's done as far as I'm concerned. I did expect feedback on the entomology thing, but was quite surprised to get an unneeded history lesson instead. /shrug I will gladly assume it was a coincidence. One thing though - I've read a huge portion of the messages here, many thousands and many hours of browsing. I certainly haven't read them all, but I try to search for related material before I post one of my theories (such as the robot thing), to make sure I'm not rehashing old arguments and such. Actually, I read for months before deciding to create an account, also. That's one of the reasons I was worried - your name is one of the ones I pay a tiny bit more attention to because I think you usually say insightful things. So I really didn't want there to be a problem! I'm going to drop out of the linguistic argument here. Not worth stressing over. Others can use the "Online Entomology Dictionary" and "Langenscheidt" as well as I can. I'm still not a huge Kat fan but I only really posted my feelings about her once, which is a lot less than the number of posts I've seen from people criticizing people who dare to have negative feelings about her (or any other character). I mention this because it's another topic I similarly decided to avoid, even though I think her information leakage is going to cause big problems at some point. I will say, I'm not sure why my feelings about the characters are automatically less important or less valid than those of others, though. |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 13, 2021 4:25:42 GMT
Pyradonis, I am glad to hear there isn't anything going on there. I was worried. Also quite startled when you attacked my example (Telefongesprach) instead of my dissection of schadenfreude! No worries, it's done as far as I'm concerned. I did expect feedback on the entomology thing, but was quite surprised to get an unneeded history lesson instead. /shrug I will gladly assume it was a coincidence. One thing though - I've read a huge portion of the messages here, many thousands and many hours of browsing. I certainly haven't read them all, but I try to search for related material before I post one of my theories (such as the robot thing), to make sure I'm not rehashing old arguments and such. Actually, I read for months before deciding to create an account, also. That's one of the reasons I was worried - your name is one of the ones I pay a tiny bit more attention to because I think you usually say insightful things. So I really didn't want there to be a problem! I'm going to drop out of the linguistic argument here. Not worth stressing over. Others can use the "Online Entomology Dictionary" and "Langenscheidt" as well as I can. I'm still not a huge Kat fan but I only really posted my feelings about her once, which is a lot less than the number of posts I've seen from people criticizing people who dare to have negative feelings about her (or any other character). I mention this because it's another topic I similarly decided to avoid, even though I think her information leakage is going to cause big problems at some point. I will say, I'm not sure why my feelings about the characters are automatically less important or less valid than those of others, though. one of the wonderful things about GC is that all the major characters are imperfect (some more than others). They all have flaws and blind spots. They are HUMAN. It is all so gloriously REAL. |
|
. Or maybe the 'shame' sense of 'schade' doesn't really apply in this context?