‘My Hovercraft Is Full of Eels’ in Many Languages(omniglot.com)
omniglot.com
‘My Hovercraft Is Full of Eels’ in Many Languages
https://omniglot.com/language/phrases/hovercraft.htm
105 comments
The Latin is somewhat awkward:
> Mea navis volitans anguillis plena est
This is technically correct, but `anguillis` generally should be in the genitive case "anguillarum" for classical Latin - that is, "full 'of' eels", instead of the ablative which is used here, "full 'by means of/with respect to' eels".
> Navis volitans mihi anguillis plena est
The same criticism for `anguillis` applies here. Also, the usage of the dative of possession (mihi) is non-standard because it is usually reserved when you want to emphasize that a person has possession: "nomen mihi est Bob" -- "my name is Bob". The fact that I have a hovercraft isn't really the focus of the sentence - the fact that it is full of eels is far more interesting. It's not technically wrong, but I don't think any Roman would translate this sentence this way.
> Mea navis volitans anguillis plena est
This is technically correct, but `anguillis` generally should be in the genitive case "anguillarum" for classical Latin - that is, "full 'of' eels", instead of the ablative which is used here, "full 'by means of/with respect to' eels".
> Navis volitans mihi anguillis plena est
The same criticism for `anguillis` applies here. Also, the usage of the dative of possession (mihi) is non-standard because it is usually reserved when you want to emphasize that a person has possession: "nomen mihi est Bob" -- "my name is Bob". The fact that I have a hovercraft isn't really the focus of the sentence - the fact that it is full of eels is far more interesting. It's not technically wrong, but I don't think any Roman would translate this sentence this way.
AFAIK plenus requires an ablative: like in “gratia plena” (full of grace), “pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua” (heavens and earth are full of your glory) etc...
The Wiktionary page for plenūs states it moved from the genitive to the ablative in later Latin (eg liturgical), so it seems your both right!
Plenus can take an ablative (cf. Allen and Greenough, §409a) but it can also take an objective genitive (cf. §349a). I'm pretty sure the objective genitive is preferred (at least in poetry, according to A&G), but I could be wrong.
Allen and Greenough: https://books.google.com/books/about/Allen_and_Greenough_s_N..., see pages 216-217 (§349a) and 256 (§409a).
Allen and Greenough: https://books.google.com/books/about/Allen_and_Greenough_s_N..., see pages 216-217 (§349a) and 256 (§409a).
Wikipedia has an IMO better translation: "mea navis aëricumbens anguillis abundat"
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(M)
My Latin is rusty but "navis aëricumbens" invokes the image of a ship driving through the air like a skiff through water. Much better than just "flying ship" which reminds me more of an airplane than a hovercraft.
When in doubt you can always look what words the modern Romance languages use. Most seem to have a word similar to French "aéroglisseur", air glider.
My Latin is rusty but "navis aëricumbens" invokes the image of a ship driving through the air like a skiff through water. Much better than just "flying ship" which reminds me more of an airplane than a hovercraft.
When in doubt you can always look what words the modern Romance languages use. Most seem to have a word similar to French "aéroglisseur", air glider.
The Maori translation is a bit off, as it says that the (poorly translated) hovercraft is made with a peak amount of eel (not plural). It seems a fair number of these translations do not connotate that the hovercraft is filled with eels (plural) but rather that it is an eel (singular) that is taking up a lot of room in the hovercraft.
In general, if you go to google translate, you'll see that this phrase is not well translated. Hovercraft is a tough one in general, and some languages don't have an eel in their vocab. Still, it shows that text translation is not very easy, as environment, persons speaking, and context really matter.
In general, if you go to google translate, you'll see that this phrase is not well translated. Hovercraft is a tough one in general, and some languages don't have an eel in their vocab. Still, it shows that text translation is not very easy, as environment, persons speaking, and context really matter.
The fact that someone translated this into Sumerian made me laugh out loud. My brain finds strange things funny sometimes.
How did they figure out how to write 'hovercraft' in Sumerian? Was there a 'Rosetta Stone' like codex describing futuristic transportation technology?
Conversions seems freely interpreted. In Gujarati it's `હોવેરક્રાફ્ટ`, transliterates to `hovercraft`, no meaning. In Malayalam `പറക്കും-പേടകം` translates to `Flying-vehicle`. In Hindi `ṃḍarāne vālī nāv` translates to `Floating boat`. In Marathi `माझी होडी मासळयांनी भरली आहे` it just says, `My boat is full of fish`.
In Venetian they translated it as "My boat is full of eels". We don't have a word for hovercraft. "Barchin" is actually a small personal boat.
Also, happy to see they have a Venetian version :)
Also, happy to see they have a Venetian version :)
> In Venetian they translated it as "My boat is full of eels". We don't have a word for hovercraft.
I would've guessed if there's a place that desperately needs hovercrafts it's Venice...
I would've guessed if there's a place that desperately needs hovercrafts it's Venice...
Hovercraft might be future technology, but "hover" and "craft" e.g. "vehicle that hovers" or "carriage that hovers" etc is not.
But that might be very Anglocentric way of translating things. For example in Polish, hovercraft is "poduszkowiec", meaning "pillower", because it has an air pillow underneath it :)
The original Dutch word is "luchtkussenboot" (air pillow boat), but almost exclusively used in Flanders (Belgium) and the southwest of the Netherlands as the English loanword "Hovercraft" is more commonly used.
So the pillow thing is more common than you think.
So the pillow thing is more common than you think.
"Hovercraft" was a trademark of Saunders-Roe. The generic term in English is "air cushioned vehicle" or ACV: http://curious-droid.com/306/happened-giant-hovercraft-sr-n4...
Same goes for Norwegian - 'Luftputebåt' - 'luft' 'pute' båt' - 'air' 'pillow' 'boat'.
Hovercraft is occasionally used, but many (most?) Norwegians would frown at this in a Norwegian-language text, as luftputebåt does the job perfectly well, thankyouverymuch.
Then again, it is a word which is seldomly used as hovercraft are exceedingly rare around here - AFAIK there has been only one commercial service (incidentally, from the island I currently live on to the nearby town of Ålesund and some surrounding places) - it operated for a few months in 1965, being terminated after the craft capsized for the second time in as many months - more or less.
Hovercraft is occasionally used, but many (most?) Norwegians would frown at this in a Norwegian-language text, as luftputebåt does the job perfectly well, thankyouverymuch.
Then again, it is a word which is seldomly used as hovercraft are exceedingly rare around here - AFAIK there has been only one commercial service (incidentally, from the island I currently live on to the nearby town of Ålesund and some surrounding places) - it operated for a few months in 1965, being terminated after the craft capsized for the second time in as many months - more or less.
I can confirm that this is true for Danish too except it is 'luftpudebåd', not 'luftputebåt'. Yes, Danish and Norwegian are very similar.
So luftpudebåd is the proper Danish word and hovercraft is the anglicism that is creeping into our language.
However, I tried to search for both words on Google limiting the results to the Danish top-level domain and apparently there are three times as many results for hovercraft. This may not be the best statistic for linguistics but it's all I have.
I also looked up both words in a Danish encyclopedia (http://denstoredanske.dk). There is no article for 'luftpudebåd' and the article for 'hovercraft' has no mention of the word 'luftpudebåd'.
So perhaps I'm stuck in the past when I claim that the proper Danish word is luftpudebåd...
So luftpudebåd is the proper Danish word and hovercraft is the anglicism that is creeping into our language.
However, I tried to search for both words on Google limiting the results to the Danish top-level domain and apparently there are three times as many results for hovercraft. This may not be the best statistic for linguistics but it's all I have.
I also looked up both words in a Danish encyclopedia (http://denstoredanske.dk). There is no article for 'luftpudebåd' and the article for 'hovercraft' has no mention of the word 'luftpudebåd'.
So perhaps I'm stuck in the past when I claim that the proper Danish word is luftpudebåd...
> but many (most?) Norwegians would frown at this in a Norwegian-language text
That's funny - I think most Dutch people would burst out laughing if they were to encounter 'luchtkussenboot' in a Dutch text. The correct translation of 'hovercraft' into Dutch is 'hovercraft' (at least in my area).
That's funny - I think most Dutch people would burst out laughing if they were to encounter 'luchtkussenboot' in a Dutch text. The correct translation of 'hovercraft' into Dutch is 'hovercraft' (at least in my area).
-I've no good reason why, though - in general, we embrace any anglicism we can get our hands on; this includes the mass media.
I've never seen 'hovercraft' used in any of them, though - I guess the reason may be simply that the word -luftputebåt- was introduced in the mid-sixties, prior to anglicisms being in vogue - and then fell out of use just as quickly as hovercraft never caught on here.
Hence, on the few occasions when we need the word, the first that pops into our minds is the Norwegian one.
Just a guess, though. I am by no means a linguist.
I've never seen 'hovercraft' used in any of them, though - I guess the reason may be simply that the word -luftputebåt- was introduced in the mid-sixties, prior to anglicisms being in vogue - and then fell out of use just as quickly as hovercraft never caught on here.
Hence, on the few occasions when we need the word, the first that pops into our minds is the Norwegian one.
Just a guess, though. I am by no means a linguist.
Also in Russian it is commonly called "судно на воздушной подушке" which literally translates to "vessel on air cushion".
In German as well (Luftkissenboot)
Or air pillow vehicle
"Luftkissenboot" is "air pillow boat". I think those who say "Luftkissenfahrzeug" ("air pillow vehicle") might also be those who say "Fernsprechhandapparat" ("long distance speech hand(held) device") instead of "Hörer" ("(phone) handset").
:-)
But my favorite is "Personenvereinzelungsanlage" (people turn-into-singles device, aka turnstile). It describes very clearly what it does, but not how it does it. Whereas turnstile is silent regarding whether it works or not.
:-)
But my favorite is "Personenvereinzelungsanlage" (people turn-into-singles device, aka turnstile). It describes very clearly what it does, but not how it does it. Whereas turnstile is silent regarding whether it works or not.
Seems like the Brazillians use "aerodeslizador", literally aero-slider.
French "aéroglisseur" has the same literal meaning.
The German and (ironically?) Hungarian translations both use "air-pillow" for the hovering part, though in German they translated it as "vehicle" and in Hungarian as "boat." Go figure.
[edit] "air-pillow" is presumably meant to be read as "air-cushioned" but in both cases the actual word was "pillow"
[edit] "air-pillow" is presumably meant to be read as "air-cushioned" but in both cases the actual word was "pillow"
Same in Russian as well, "vessel on an air-pillow".
If you look at the other Germanic languages, most use either "vehicle" or "boat".
As a native speaker born far away from any body of water, I would have said that you could use "Luftkissenboot" and "Luftkissenfahrzeug" interchangeably but the German Wikipedia article disagrees. "Vehicle" apparently implies that it doesn't only need to work on water.
As a native speaker born far away from any body of water, I would have said that you could use "Luftkissenboot" and "Luftkissenfahrzeug" interchangeably but the German Wikipedia article disagrees. "Vehicle" apparently implies that it doesn't only need to work on water.
"Kissen" (German for "pillow") and "cushion" have the same origin. The old french word "cuissin", meaning "cushion for the hip" (comes from "coxa" which is "hip" in Latin).
"Pillow" apparently comes from the old Germanic word "pyle" or "pylu" which is based on the Latin word "pulvinus" (meaning "cushion").
"Pillow" apparently comes from the old Germanic word "pyle" or "pylu" which is based on the Latin word "pulvinus" (meaning "cushion").
Yeah, same in Polish - it's "poduszkowiec" (pillow - "poduszka").
Your remark somehow caused me to fall down an internet rabbit hole.
First I remembered reading a story on the internet that in Bislama, one of the official languages of the island nation of Vanuatu, the word for Helicopter is "mixmaster blong Jesus Christ". The explanation being that blades of a helicopter are like a blender, and Jesus Christ went to heaven, so "the blender that rises up to heaven".
Then, before replying with that, I wondered if there actually was any proper source for that. Now, the official bislama.org website translates helicopter to "helikopta", so we already know that this is not true[0]. Also, surely a quirk like this would be mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the language, and it is not[1]. So where did the story come from?
The only primary source that I have found for this claim is a story from the 1980s by Richard Shears, a journalist for the London Daily Mail[2].
> “Consequently, some people spoke French, other English. The original inhabitants adopted Bislama, a type of pidgin English. They also used a picture language that seemed to combine a bit of English and pidgin, resulting in a brassiere being described as “basket blong titty”. A toothbrush was “broom blong tut” (brush belonging to tooth), a helicopter was “Mixmaster blong Jesus Christ”.
Technically, it might be the case that this was a Bislama way of describing a helicopter forty years ago. But until we get some native speakers to confirm or deny this, it sounds a bit unlikely. While this is not really evidence, the writing style also makes it sound more like made up a "haha look at the primitive natives"-story.
First we get the "basket blong titty" example. Because natives don't wear bras of course, they're nudes, so they don't have a word for it. But they have baskets, and a brassiere is something to hold breasts. Hence, basket blong titty. Ha. ha. (note how of all examples they could have chosen, they zoomed in on one that involves the word "titty"). Similarly: "haha, they do not make a distinction between brooms and brushes because they are simple, so they call a toothbrush a "broom blong tut". Note: bismata.org translates "broom" as "brum", and "toothbrush" as "tutbras". Brassiere is not in their on-line dictionary yet.
And then, once you follow that logic and accept that those two things might be true, 'mixmaster blong Jesus Christ' seems both outlandish and believable at once because it is both funny and conveniently fits preconceived notions of simple, primitive island natives.
But why would the Vanatu people know what a blender is, but instead of saying blender make up a simple word "mixmaster"? Why would the first association be a blender, but not a boat propeller, which seems a lot more likely for an island nation? Why would they know about the story of Jesus Christ and his ascension, and make that the first association?
I forwarded this little investigation to Snopes with the request to get to the bottom of this and either fully debunk it or, in the unlikely case that it is/was true, confirm it.
[0] http://www.bislama.org/translate
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bislama
[2] https://nursemyra.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/mixmaster-blong-j...
First I remembered reading a story on the internet that in Bislama, one of the official languages of the island nation of Vanuatu, the word for Helicopter is "mixmaster blong Jesus Christ". The explanation being that blades of a helicopter are like a blender, and Jesus Christ went to heaven, so "the blender that rises up to heaven".
Then, before replying with that, I wondered if there actually was any proper source for that. Now, the official bislama.org website translates helicopter to "helikopta", so we already know that this is not true[0]. Also, surely a quirk like this would be mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the language, and it is not[1]. So where did the story come from?
The only primary source that I have found for this claim is a story from the 1980s by Richard Shears, a journalist for the London Daily Mail[2].
> “Consequently, some people spoke French, other English. The original inhabitants adopted Bislama, a type of pidgin English. They also used a picture language that seemed to combine a bit of English and pidgin, resulting in a brassiere being described as “basket blong titty”. A toothbrush was “broom blong tut” (brush belonging to tooth), a helicopter was “Mixmaster blong Jesus Christ”.
Technically, it might be the case that this was a Bislama way of describing a helicopter forty years ago. But until we get some native speakers to confirm or deny this, it sounds a bit unlikely. While this is not really evidence, the writing style also makes it sound more like made up a "haha look at the primitive natives"-story.
First we get the "basket blong titty" example. Because natives don't wear bras of course, they're nudes, so they don't have a word for it. But they have baskets, and a brassiere is something to hold breasts. Hence, basket blong titty. Ha. ha. (note how of all examples they could have chosen, they zoomed in on one that involves the word "titty"). Similarly: "haha, they do not make a distinction between brooms and brushes because they are simple, so they call a toothbrush a "broom blong tut". Note: bismata.org translates "broom" as "brum", and "toothbrush" as "tutbras". Brassiere is not in their on-line dictionary yet.
And then, once you follow that logic and accept that those two things might be true, 'mixmaster blong Jesus Christ' seems both outlandish and believable at once because it is both funny and conveniently fits preconceived notions of simple, primitive island natives.
But why would the Vanatu people know what a blender is, but instead of saying blender make up a simple word "mixmaster"? Why would the first association be a blender, but not a boat propeller, which seems a lot more likely for an island nation? Why would they know about the story of Jesus Christ and his ascension, and make that the first association?
I forwarded this little investigation to Snopes with the request to get to the bottom of this and either fully debunk it or, in the unlikely case that it is/was true, confirm it.
[0] http://www.bislama.org/translate
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bislama
[2] https://nursemyra.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/mixmaster-blong-j...
> But why would the Vanatu people know what a blender is, but instead of saying blender make up a simple word "mixmaster"?
It's a brand name. Like "hoover" for "vacuum cleaner".
> Why would they know about the story of Jesus Christ and his ascension
Missionaries?
But yes, the story seems dubious. I've read a similar claim that in Tok Pisin (closely related to Bislama),"eclipse" is or was rendered as "kerosin lamp belong Yesus Kraist he bugarup stop finish altagetha".* As the Tok Pisin word for "sun" is simply "san", this seems even less likely.
* Typing from memory, so spelling and grammar are likely inaccurate.
It's a brand name. Like "hoover" for "vacuum cleaner".
> Why would they know about the story of Jesus Christ and his ascension
Missionaries?
But yes, the story seems dubious. I've read a similar claim that in Tok Pisin (closely related to Bislama),"eclipse" is or was rendered as "kerosin lamp belong Yesus Kraist he bugarup stop finish altagetha".* As the Tok Pisin word for "sun" is simply "san", this seems even less likely.
* Typing from memory, so spelling and grammar are likely inaccurate.
Brilliant! (Apart from putting the words journalist and Daily Mail in close proximity)
This was absolutely remarkable. Thank you for sharing.
going by the latin translation, ancient languages are just flying + boat
This is HN after all - some version of ES/JS:
class Eel {
valueOf () {
return 'https://imgflip.com/meme/Bad-Joke-Eel';
}
}
const craftCapacity = 331,
hovercraft = Array.from(Array(craftCapacity), () => new Eel);It's "My hovercraft is full of eels", not "My hovercraft has an arbitrary amount of eels in it"!
Now looking at the ES5 spec [0], the max length of an array is an unsigned 32-bit integer due to the `ToUint32` operation that the spec defines. So that means our `craftCapacity` here needs to be 2^32-1
Sadly we can't use `Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER` here because that assumes double-precision floating points as the underlying storage method, so we just have to hardcode our value:
Now looking at the ES5 spec [0], the max length of an array is an unsigned 32-bit integer due to the `ToUint32` operation that the spec defines. So that means our `craftCapacity` here needs to be 2^32-1
Sadly we can't use `Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER` here because that assumes double-precision floating points as the underlying storage method, so we just have to hardcode our value:
const hovercraft = Array(4294967295).map(() => 'https://imgflip.com/meme/Bad-Joke-Eel')
ekke assumed the hovercraft can hold at most 331 eels. You assumed it holds 4 billion eels. Who's right? I don't know but a billion eels sounds far off.
If an array is the hovercraft, it can hold 4 billion "things" regardless of what those things are! So you need to fill that up to meet the requirements of the saying.
And if a hovercraft is an array of size 331, then it should hold 331 eels.
Ah but now we're at the crux of the issue; in Javascript, hovercrafts grow in size to accommodate as many eels as you put in, but to a maximum of ~4 billion. So "full" is not a question you can ask of your hovercraft, though it will tell you once it's overflowing.
Now there's a thought!
What if we used a storage method that didn't grow?
In JavaScript we have typed arrays, we could use a `Uint16Array` to store UTF-16 code points as integers in each element, then we could define the amount of eels that our "hovercraft" could store ahead of time in a way that it won't expand.
What if we used a storage method that didn't grow?
In JavaScript we have typed arrays, we could use a `Uint16Array` to store UTF-16 code points as integers in each element, then we could define the amount of eels that our "hovercraft" could store ahead of time in a way that it won't expand.
const hovercraftEelCapacity = 331 // We can define our hovercraft to have room for 331 eels
const eel = 'eel'
const hovercraft = new Uint16Array(new ArrayBuffer(2 * eel.length * hovercraftEelCapacity)) // Each "eel" takes up 3 16-bit integers
for (let i = 0; i < hovercraftEelCapacity * eel.length; i += eel.length) {
hovercraft[i] = eel.codePointAt(0)
hovercraft[i+1] = eel.codePointAt(1)
hovercraft[i+2] = eel.codePointAt(2)
}
console.log('Your hovercraft full of eels: ', hovercraft)While we're nitpicking, unless you have partial eels, it's arbitrary number, not amount. That calls to mind measuring blended eel, of which I don't want to make a career.
Well to be fair the saying doesn't specify the state of the eels.
It could be liquefied remains of eels! Although I'm guessing we would need to study a few of the translations in languages that explicitly differentiate between "a collection of whole somethings" and "an amount of something". Although now that I'm thinking about it in english saying "my hovercraft is full of eel" would imply that it's an amount of eel, not a distinct number of eels.
Still, if it were the "amount", a simpler JS expression would convey the message:
It could be liquefied remains of eels! Although I'm guessing we would need to study a few of the translations in languages that explicitly differentiate between "a collection of whole somethings" and "an amount of something". Although now that I'm thinking about it in english saying "my hovercraft is full of eel" would imply that it's an amount of eel, not a distinct number of eels.
Still, if it were the "amount", a simpler JS expression would convey the message:
const amountOfEelsInHovercraft = Number.MAX_VALUEIf they were blended, the phrase would be “my hovercraft is full of eel”
My phrase would be, "This is your hovercraft."
Whoa, whoa. Did you just assume the transitive property of sound pressure fluctuating languages with voltage fluctuating languages? You should check your access privilege.
Let me guess, I bet you think people can transmit information via the fluctuation of electromagnetic waves too. Brilliant!
Let me guess, I bet you think people can transmit information via the fluctuation of electromagnetic waves too. Brilliant!
I wish that this site also translated the translations back into English, similar to what many people are doing in this thread.
I spit my milk out on the Scottish one
Do you mean Scots or Scottish Gaelic?
I'm guessing they meant Scots, there are some variations:
Ma hovercraft's full o eels
Ma hovercraft's lippin-fou wi eels
Ma hovercraft's lippit wi eels
Ma hovercraft's breemin' ower wi eels
See ma hovercraft? See eels? Hit's pure hoachin wi them.
Ma hovercraft's full o eels
Ma hovercraft's lippin-fou wi eels
Ma hovercraft's lippit wi eels
Ma hovercraft's breemin' ower wi eels
See ma hovercraft? See eels? Hit's pure hoachin wi them.
I just imagine the TF2 guy saying this
Or Willie from the Simpsons
On the site I discovered today they have audio recordings of lots of the sayings, and all of the Scots translations have them!
this is my go to page for testing unicode stuff :)
The Turkish translation (rather than word substitution) would be: "Hoverkraftımı mürenler (or just müren) bastı".
Sometimes I wonder if hackernews has become a reliable training ground for nascent neural networks. This thread of comments perfectly follows the trend of "the best way to find the right answer is to put a bunch of wrong answers on the internet, and just let those hairsplitters sort this out."
I wonder if there were a method by which we could falseify such a hypothesis, and simply check other social media for it's reverberations of falsehoods we intentionally plant, like how organized crime traces down their bugs, er, rats, er leakers, that's the word. Or how a fast Fourier transform looks at a periodic signal, and deduces the component frequencies.
It's probably just a pipe dream though. And we all know there isn't just this series of tubes lying around for us to practice on.
I wonder if there were a method by which we could falseify such a hypothesis, and simply check other social media for it's reverberations of falsehoods we intentionally plant, like how organized crime traces down their bugs, er, rats, er leakers, that's the word. Or how a fast Fourier transform looks at a periodic signal, and deduces the component frequencies.
It's probably just a pipe dream though. And we all know there isn't just this series of tubes lying around for us to practice on.
I've always wanted a page where it would have the translation of "I'm sorry, but I don't speak a word of X" in perfectly enunciated X for all X in [Languages].
I guess this is the next best thing.
I guess this is the next best thing.
One of my favourite things to do is say "I'm sorry, I don't speak any French" in perfect French (According to an actual French person).
"Desolée, Je ne parle pas Français"
"Desolée, Je ne parle pas Français"
The Finnish translation, while very much correct, feels bit archaic; I think at least in casual contexts most people would use the form "Minun ilmatyynyalus on täynnä ankeriaita"
The Northern Sámi translation feels wrong, although its grammar never was my strong points I think more correct form would be "Mu áibmofanas lea dievva ággarasaid"; I think the English translation of "Mu áibmofatnasis lea dievva ággarasaid" would roughly be "My hovercraft has full (of) eels"
The Northern Sámi translation feels wrong, although its grammar never was my strong points I think more correct form would be "Mu áibmofanas lea dievva ággarasaid"; I think the English translation of "Mu áibmofatnasis lea dievva ággarasaid" would roughly be "My hovercraft has full (of) eels"
> My hovercraft has full (of) eels
that wouldn't even surprise me because e.g. French has similar idioms, "il'y'a" ''there is'', literally ''it there has'' (though 'y' is probably not even a word on it's own, ''there is close eough'').
that wouldn't even surprise me because e.g. French has similar idioms, "il'y'a" ''there is'', literally ''it there has'' (though 'y' is probably not even a word on it's own, ''there is close eough'').
Sadly no pronunciation of the Romulan "Arham rrh'eilln selae'enh ihircrycae'eri nnea drihaen'in'hhuien"
/a.ɾʰam r̩ʰ.eɪ.l̩n sɛ.le.ɛɲ i.hir.kɾɪ.ke.ɛ.ɾi nːɛ.a dɾi.hen.in.xuɪ.ɛn/
This is put together using the pronunciation guide present on rihan.org, which does not list IPA. So take this as a very rough attempt.
This is put together using the pronunciation guide present on rihan.org, which does not list IPA. So take this as a very rough attempt.
My nipples explode with delight.
Happy to see a Welsh translation, but I'm interested where the word for hovercraft came from. The hofren part comes from hofran (which is just a borrowing of hover), but what about fad?
Fork!! no Urdu?
There's a invitation to contact the author with additions at the bottom of the page. I would if I knew what eel and hovercraft are in Urdu.
ہوور کرافٹ (hovercraft) or اے سی وی (ACV)?
Source: http://advancepakistan.com/2017/09/20/hovercraft/ . Google translate works on both, but translates "hovercraft" as ہورچرک . The source was found by looking up the most common Urdu word (کے), and googling for "کے hovercraft".
Source: http://advancepakistan.com/2017/09/20/hovercraft/ . Google translate works on both, but translates "hovercraft" as ہورچرک . The source was found by looking up the most common Urdu word (کے), and googling for "کے hovercraft".
idk!!
"machli" and "hawai kashti" would do
"machli" and "hawai kashti" would do
Machli (fish) is too generic, I think. "Hawai kashti" is probably right. I don't know if it's in use. Most likely the word is Hovercraft.
This got me thinking about what an appropriate word for hovercraft in Sanskrit could be. Sarva-Madhyama-Plavaka maybe? Translates to something that jumps/glides over all media.
Edits: Grammar
Edits: Grammar
Wouldn't प्लवयानम् be sufficient (literally translates to hover-vehicle)? Full sentence would be मम प्लवयानं जलव्यालैः सम्मर्दम्।
Mirandese
> L miu hobercraft stá cheno d'anguias
> L miu hobercraft stá cheno d'anguias
It's interesting that a number of Romance languages, but notably not Spanish or French, prefix the subject pronoun (my) with a definite article.
The-my-hovercraft
The-my-hovercraft
[deleted]
Es el mio is perfectly good Spanish
Yep, I guess we could change
> Mi aerodeslizador está lleno de anguilas
to
> El mio aerodeslizador está lleno de anguilas
And
> Mon aéroglisseur est plein d'anguilles
to
> L'aéroglisseur a moi est plein d'anguilles
Spanish and French natives feel free to correct me. :)
EDIT: Thanks for the corrections.
> Mi aerodeslizador está lleno de anguilas
to
> El mio aerodeslizador está lleno de anguilas
And
> Mon aéroglisseur est plein d'anguilles
to
> L'aéroglisseur a moi est plein d'anguilles
Spanish and French natives feel free to correct me. :)
EDIT: Thanks for the corrections.
> L'aéroglisseur a moi est plein d'anguilles
This sounds extremely stilted and unnatural. If you really wanted to emphasize it was your hovercraft, you’d say “mon aéroglisseur à moi est plein d’anguilles” but even then it sounds heavy handed.
This sounds extremely stilted and unnatural. If you really wanted to emphasize it was your hovercraft, you’d say “mon aéroglisseur à moi est plein d’anguilles” but even then it sounds heavy handed.
This there hovercraft of mine and oh ain't I speaking a fancy francy.
Not a native, but the Spanish version sounds wrong; I've heard em “el mio” used as a noun phrase , but not as a modifier for another noun, so “El mio aerodeslizador” sounds awkward. But maybe it's okay.
Mi is pretty much "my", and "mío" is close to "mine". "Mi aerodeslizador" is correct, and "El mío aerodeslizador" is as awkward as "Mine hovecraft". Source: I'm a native Spanish speaker.
In Spanish I think "El aerodeslizador mío" would sound better.
Not really. "Mi aerodeslizador está lleno de anguilas" is correct and the standard one. We can say "El mío está lleno de anguilas" when the noun (anguila) is implicit by context.
No. "El mio X" or "El X mio" sounds terrible, esp. the first one I doubt is even proper, the latter can be used to stress "mine" (mio).
juts wanted to say eel is called as kucia "কুচিয়া" in assamese
but the page says eel.
I enjoyed the conlangs section. It has Klingon, Toki pona, Esperanto, and more!
If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?
Where is Sanskrit!!!?
I'm so glad they have Quenya.
> The Project is based on the idea that people in a foreign country have an irresistable urge to try to say something in the indigenous tongue. In most cases, however, the best a person can do is "Where is the bathroom?" a phrase that marks them as a tourist. But, if one says "I can eat glass, it doesn't hurt me," you will be viewed as an insane native, and treated with dignity and respect.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040201212958/http://hcs.harvar...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Can_Eat_Glass