I know nothing about Japanese, but isn't it very easy for an English speaker to pronounce when Romanized? Like, there's plenty of languages where just writing the word wouldn't help with pronunciation - English itself could fit in there - but isn't Japanese pretty straight forward? Like Spanish is, for instance.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
hilarious english guides to other languages
- Thread starter Dio
- Start date
- Status
I'd say Japanese is a little harder to pronounce than Spanish, but easier than something like Chinese or Vietnamese. That's just the pronunciation, though. The grammar and registers are where Japanese gets tough.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Japanese is actually extremely straight forward for pronunciation. It is completely phonetic, and by far easier than English with all its silly exceptions to the rule. You are right tho, the grammar and the registers (along with the different levels of formality) are what makes it difficult. Also, business language, especially engineers tend to forego grammar and turn Japanese into long strings of kanji which can become a nightmare to translate or comprehend. I'm basically fluent but when you start getting into the specialized "slang" vocabulary that happens in different companies I get lost sometimes.
Also regional dialects can be a pain in the ass. The further from Tokyo you get the more difficult the language can be if you only know standard Japanese - Tokyo dialect. I work with a bunch of people from Miyazaki and they sometimes are speaking a foreign language compared to what you learn in school.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It means: "塩梅悪いあります？"
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
That stuff is pretty hilarious(ly bad).
It's not like there weren't any foreigners who could speak Japanese at that time, either.
It's not like there weren't any foreigners who could speak Japanese at that time, either.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That's because their culture is based on honor and shame. I'm an expert.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
"Cow" is how you phonetically say "to buy" in Japanese.
Yeah I saw in the actual book it was the other way round.
That makes a little more sense.
Chuckie
Member
There were already Japanese-Dutch dictionaries in the early 1800s.
The Portuguese and the Dutch also already traded (and were present) in Japan since the 1500s, to the isolation is relative. (They were only allowed in Dejima I think?)
Thelonelykoopa
Member
Yeah, Dutch continued contact with Japan over the course of the Tokugawa shogunate. It was the reason Perry brought a dutchman(And a Chinese speaker I believe) to translate for him on their journey to Japan. (Also since this is about older documents about japan if you ever get a chance I would suggesting finding the Artwork made by one of Perry's crew during the journey it shows a very realistic depiction of Tokugawa Japan. The photos they took though sadly got burned in a fire)
You are right though that the Dutch was limited to Dejima though their products travelled further like I believe the famous ukiyo-e painter Hokusai had some Dutch painting and art booklets.
Pidgins aren't nonsense.
reminds me of
T N S L P P B N T S O
T N S L P P B N T S O
if you say these letters out loud (in english) you are phonetically saying
"Tienes el pipi bien tieso" in spanish, which translates to "you dick is pretty damn hard"
is a bit forced cause pipi would need the femenine "la" instead of "el" but yeah
"Tienes el pipi bien tieso" in spanish, which translates to "you dick is pretty damn hard"
is a bit forced cause pipi would need the femenine "la" instead of "el" but yeah
AppleSeason
Member
From spanish to english:
show me your skeleton
Member
and i already have persona 5 for that.
That guide looks a bit off, but then again, as an English speaker I find Romanji just as unnatural in trying to pronounce Japanese words, and phrases.
I wish that they would swap over the ee sound, for example and I wish romanji being used for songs would follow the sounds and not the words collectively - as in any event there is no need to stick to a rigid word if the vowel sounds get drawn out.
I wish that they would swap over the ee sound, for example and I wish romanji being used for songs would follow the sounds and not the words collectively - as in any event there is no need to stick to a rigid word if the vowel sounds get drawn out.
To add another picture to this thread:
That's how the porcupine is named in spanish too, hahaha.
I always was baffled that "Guinea Pig" is "Indian Rabbit" in spanish tho!
zer0blivion
Member
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think this is an example of pidgin. It's just written by someone with a very very poor understanding of Japanese.
Thelonelykoopa
Member
We are not quite sure there is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokohama_Pidgin_Japanese
Which is what the paper referring to but other than that we don't have much info on it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It is. Maybe a poor understanding of actual Japanese, but a function understanding of Yokohama pidgin.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I stand corrected! It was the first time hearing about this.
After doing a bit more research, it looks like this was used primarily to facilitate communication between English speakers and Chinese speakers using a rudimentary form of Japanese as described in this pamphlet. In later years, this manner of speech seems to have become more associated with Chinese people and led to the stereotype that Chinese people always attach the verb "aru" to the end of an affirmative sentence.
After doing a bit more research, it looks like this was used primarily to facilitate communication between English speakers and Chinese speakers using a rudimentary form of Japanese as described in this pamphlet. In later years, this manner of speech seems to have become more associated with Chinese people and led to the stereotype that Chinese people always attach the verb "aru" to the end of an affirmative sentence.
Go back and read the thread. (Edit: Ah I see you did) There was a link to an academic article discussing this as our only source for a specific pidgin. Moreover the date plus the fact that it is a specific dialect at play here, which were included in the OP, means that there was always a good chance that it isn't a question of "poor understanding of Japanese". Let's take off our prescriptivist hats.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I sure would love to read more about and if it was actually used as described in the book, because a lot of the stuff is complete nonsense.
The article mentions this is our only source. Again pidgin's aren't nonsense.
Let's change the context to make that obvious. You wouldn't call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah nonsense just because it doesn't sound similar to "standard" American English right? Edit:unfortunately I just realized that page doesn't directly talk about the language but the context should be sufficient.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Pidgin's are not nonsense. They work by their own rules.
I see some from the page in the OP. "Arimas" (or "arimasu") is used in generally in place of "desu" to express an affirmative sentence. "Nigh" (or "nai") is used to express negative. That stuff makes sense even if it's not how Japanese works.
However, stuff like "Nanny sto arimasu, Watark-shee arimasen" (or written with modern Romaji rules: "nani hito arimasu, watakushi arimasen" simply cannot mean what the author claims it means ("Who called when I was out?").
For one, there is no word in the sentence that means or implies "when." A word for word translation would result in "what person have, I have not" which requires a huge leap to get to "who called when I was out?" The same page even illustrates that the concept of time and "when" exists.
Anyway, this is pretty fascinating. I'm going to see if I can't find the rest of the pamphlet.
I see some from the page in the OP. "Arimas" (or "arimasu") is used in generally in place of "desu" to express an affirmative sentence. "Nigh" (or "nai") is used to express negative. That stuff makes sense even if it's not how Japanese works.
However, stuff like "Nanny sto arimasu, Watark-shee arimasen" (or written with modern Romaji rules: "nani hito arimasu, watakushi arimasen" simply cannot mean what the author claims it means ("Who called when I was out?").
For one, there is no word in the sentence that means or implies "when." A word for word translation would result in "what person have, I have not" which requires a huge leap to get to "who called when I was out?" The same page even illustrates that the concept of time and "when" exists.
Anyway, this is pretty fascinating. I'm going to see if I can't find the rest of the pamphlet.
But how can you possibly know the bolded without knowing the pidgin? Pidgins are more than just using words from multiple languages.
Marky Mark
Member
I had to Google because i thought you were talking about chandler bing.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Not in the modern sense, but it probably did in the historical pidgin sense. Even standard contemporary Japanese has "de-aru" (i.e. de-arimasu, de-gozaimasu) as a derived variant of "da" or "desu". The "de-aru" form is more of a literary style nowadays, but it was spoken more a long time ago, as how some written forms of Japanese sound overly formal, academic, or old fashioned if spoken out loud in a conversational context. See also samurai-era copulas e.g. de-gozaru.
You're line of thinking is too one dimensional. Language means whatever the participants deem it means. Even if it doesn't make sense to you, it could totally make sense to two traders in Yokohama bay 150 years ago.
You don't need a word to imply "when". Especially when it's not "when" in a directly temporal sense, but "when" as in a contextualizing conjunctive phrase that is needed because proper English can't omit words like that in order to be grammatical.
It's basically: What person was here, I was out. All necessary context is provided by the two participants, much like how many Japanese phrases can be said in much fewer syllables than their English equivalents due to English's strict necessity of explicit subjects, objects, and certain prepositions/conjunctions.
:lol
eot
Banned
That's because English spellings are fucked
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
After reading the links you provided (thanks for those), I still disagree that this sentence can mean what the author claims it means. Just about everything else outlined has a clear logic to it, but I'm not able to wrap my head around this one. If that was an agreed upon phrase that made sense to everyone, then there's nothing left to be said, but I personally am skeptical is all.
That's what language is. The reason you're running into a problem here seems to be that you're trying to make sense of the pidgin by turning it into Japanese. That doesn't necessarily work.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not trying to make sense by turning it into Japanese. Just about all of it is complete nonsense in that context. I'm taking the rules laid out by the author (as I understand them) from the limited amount of material available.
I have a feeling there is still a degree of your knowledge of Japanese involved in this. If I posted an equivalent amount of Irish do you think you could extrapolate enough about how the language works to determine whether or not a sentence was nonsense? If not why do you think this case is different?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Particle omission is a thing in modern Japanese, so it's plausible that it also happened in Yokohama pidgin too; especially since particle/preposition omission is a feature sometimes observed in the transition from a standard language to its pidgin variant.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
You may be right! I think my Japanese knowledge really only helps recognize certain vocabulary, but it's hard to say definitively. Would be interesting to compare if some similar pamphlet existed for another language.
It's certainly not the lack of particles that is throwing me off, but the lack of any time indicator, which I believe is integral to achieving the meaning of "did someone come by when I was out?" Otherwise, how would you differentiate between stuff like "is someone here? I was out" or "is someone here? I'm going out" or any combination of tenses. Again, if it was an agreed upon phrase then there's not much more to say, but it feels like the other stuff has a somewhat clear logic even within the grossly simple grammar.
Kind of back on the main topic, I really love their word for light house:
"fooney high kin serampan nigh rosokoo"
fixed to modern romaji:
"fune haiken serampan nai roosoku"
Apparently "serampan" comes from the Malay word "serampang" maybe, and is used here to mean "break."
Anyway it comes out to: "boat see break no candle" or "candle that spots boats and stops them from breaking." Quite the description!
cpp_is_king
Member
Guess I'll deliver on the OP's request for more languages. Here's some Vietnamese ones I just threw together
I like you - Ant hit M
I want to buy something - toy moon mood, oh
Let's go see a movie - Decoy film
Do you want to eat? - Igloo?
It's kinda hot - Nom nom
Can do more if people want - Eye moon tea toy lamb teep
I like you - Ant hit M
I want to buy something - toy moon mood, oh
Let's go see a movie - Decoy film
Do you want to eat? - Igloo?
It's kinda hot - Nom nom
Can do more if people want - Eye moon tea toy lamb teep
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I'm saying that the differentiation you require would be made clear with the inclusion of the proper particles as it would appear in proper Japanese. However, this example phrase, like such that has occurred in the pidginization of other languages too, features a lack of particles. Therefore, the nuance would be implied via the context in which the conversation that would occur.
Just as you know how in modern Japanese how the omission of subjects and objects in a sentence is fairly common, but the meaning is perfectly understood between the participants of the conversation.
This feels almost obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YvARTRxolE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YvARTRxolE
- Status