On the other hand, if I explain to him what a search engine is, and then tell him it's literally called a "search engine", that's just unnecessary confusion.
Or is an automobile a "self propelled moving machine"?
Are you going to start calling the Mississippi "big river"?
Words have an origin in other languages, certainly. But it serves no purpose to translate that origin as is. Instead you accept the sound of the word and use it.
And presumably hipster is "person who wears clothing low on the hips".
Just because it's technology doesn't except it from the normal rules of words. All new words start from a meaning. But the meaning is interesting historically, it's not used for everyday speech.
If you want to make the word French you don't translate it literally - it's not actually a motor. Call it a "research-majigy" or something like that.
o 'Automobile' is already short for 'self propelled moving machine,
o 'Mississippi' is a proper noun,
o 'hipster' isn't even a proper word (why don't we all just start posting derogatory slang?)
o and if you think of 'salty mass of food' when you eat pastas then you really are shopping in the wrong places / need to learn to cook better.
o As for your dislike of the use of the term 'engine', it's meaning has evolved somewhat, but in software it's common to refer to a complicated core group of routines which powers the software / service as an 'engine'. eg 'game engine' in computer games.
> 'Automobile' is already short for 'self propelled moving machine,
Yes, I know. That's what I was telling you. Why are you telling it back to me? Are you suggesting that France should call automobiles "self propelled moving machines"?
> 'Mississippi' is a proper noun
So? It still has an origin. And you can either use the word as is, or translate it.
> 'hipster' isn't even a proper word (why don't we all just start posting derogatory slang?)
Derogatory slag? What? Did you think I was calling someone that? It's just an example of a word. And of course it's a word. It might not be a high status word, but it's still a word.
> and if you think of 'salty mass of food' when you eat pastas then you really are shopping in the wrong places / need to learn to cook better.
That's exactly it. I DON'T think that. But that's what the word "pasta" means. (Perhaps you didn't know that.)
So do you suggest that when France adopt a word for pasta they should call it "salty mass of food"?
Of course not. They should ignore the meaning of the word and just call it pasta. It's the same for technological words.
Your reply really confuses me. Did you just read my post and not the whole thread?
"So" I'd already discussed proper nouns.
> Derogatory slag? What? Did you think I was calling someone that? It's just an example of a word. And of course it's a word. It might not be a high status word, but it's still a word.
Made up slang isn't even part of the English language so it seems daft to argue about it's incorporation into other language
> But that's what the word "pasta" means. (Perhaps you didn't know that.)
You're right I didn't know that. And no I don't think France should adopt that term simply because pasta isn't like that these days, we don't think of it like that any longer and arguing that we should readopt medieval terms is the opposite of my point with is that countries should be allowed to adopt their own definitions for modern terms.
Your whole argument in this thread seem to be based on stawman arguments with a minor dash of xenophobia towards foreign languages. You haven't really explained why you think France shouldn't speak their own language aside pointing out some fringe examples and presenting it as evidence that the standard body of modern languages are incomprehensible. Maybe you'd have a better job convincing me if you discussed this from a French perspective as to why French speaking layman's would understand English words better than French word.
*> Your reply really confuses me. Did you just read my post and not the whole thread?
Given a few of your points I'd already addressed earlier in this thread, I don't think you're in a position to be making such comments.
Go see some of the examples in my reply to him. I could type for hours showing you examples. Just because it's technical doesn't make it special.
Do you call it bokeh or do you try to explain it in English? What about schwa? It has a meaning in its original language after all. But instead you just use the sound from that language. (And I deliberately picked obscure examples.)
The English language didn't have any concept for "the out of focus area of a photograph" so you might as well import that one. But when a language already has a closely related concept it is still much easier to analogize that rather than import a word from another language.
The French already had a word for "search", so why should they ignore that? Perhaps they could have called it an "engine de recherche" but that's just silly. Would you also suggest that they just use the entire phrase "Google Book Search" unchanged, rather than translating the individual words?
I don't really get what's so offensive about the French using a more immediately parse-able term when possible.
Jargon is a mental shorthand. Instead of explaining the concept you put it in a "box". Then your mind only has to remember the single concept instead of the whole set of sub-concepts that make up the word.
Since a person has a limited number of things you can hold onto at once, by essentially "compressing" concepts you can increase the power of thought.
So the logical conclusion is that jargon should not be translated. It should be left as is. A search engine is not an engine that searches. It's a single "thing".