On Writing: Foreign languages in an English story

Online translators: Just say no

This happens to be one of my greatest pet peeves. German people speaking in German and then throwing in a phrase like "guten tag." They're speaking German already, it's their native language, so tell us that they said "thank you."

Here's my basic rule: If you don't speak the language, don't use it. Especially if you have to rely on an online translator; those are great for vocabulary, but the cultural context may be completely wrong. For example, I was in a dressing room in France, and tried to tell the next woman in line that I was finished using it. The American English phrase is "I'm done." The direct translation into French is "Je suis fini." When I said this, the woman gave me a funny look, but thanked me and moved into the dressing room. I recounted the incident to my landlady that evening, and she almost fell off her chair, she was laughing so hard. Sure, my grammar and accent were great. However, when the French mean "I'm finished/I'm done," they simply say "Terminé." "Je suis fini," translates as "I'm dead."

I do, however, slip up and use an English word in a French accent if I don't know the proper vocabulary, hoping someone will catch my drift. In a narrative, it might read like this:
I stepped up to the counter, eyeing the pound cake under the glass. I knew how to say cake, but I wanted to make sure it was lemon pound cake and not something disgusting. What was the word for lemon again? "I would like a piece of the cake. Is that cake—" I couldn't remember the word for lemon, so I opted to use a word I knew "—a citron flavor?"

The saleswoman smiled blankly. "Citron?"

"Yes, yes," I nodded emphatically, "Is it citron cake?"

"I'm sorry?" she asked, a polite smile softening the bewilderment in her tone. The customers in line behind me began to chuckle at the stupid fat American trying buy a piece cake.

I gave up. "What is the flavor of that cake?"

"Ah," she smiled broadly. "It is citrus"​

The real experience had me trying to buy lemon coffee cake by saying "lemon" with an exagerrated French accent and wondering why the lady behind the counter was so confused. But you get the picture. The foreign word was an accident, one that only registered once I had been corrected. And if I only knew the word in English, I would describe it as best I could in French with a lot of hand motions involved, then the person I was talking to would usually supply the vocabulary.

Non-native speakers also usually use very formal language, the kind one learns in school. Colloquialisms only come extended exposure (and have to be explained first), so a first time visitor to America will probably ask if you please direct him to a very close public telephone, rather than ask if there's a phone nearby.

Also, "How do you say," and "What is the word for," are two of the phrases everyone learns first. I can even say it in Spanish, and I don't speak any more of that particular language than the Taco Bell dog. Have you ever honestly heard anyone ask, "Eh, how you say…"? That's just insulting.

Moral of the story is to write like it's a native language, but go back and read it like it's the first time you've encountered it. If it doesn't make sense to the reader (for the foreign text to be present, that is), nix it. That's my beef.

P.S. For those of you who want to use France French anyway, nobody hip calls anyone "cher" or "chèrie." It's like saying "my darling." They call each other "chou." I can't speak for les quebeçoise or anyone from Louisiana. Or Haiti. Or the DRC. Or Algeria. Etcetera.
 
Interesting thread this, even if it's been dormant for a couple of years. But so far, nobody has addressed this question:

WHAT IS A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE?

I'm Scots: I speak and think in Scots, and sometimes I use Scots language and phrasing in my writing too, on Lit and elsewhere. (Not to confuse things by pointing out that there are many different dialects in Scots, as there are in English English.)

So there are genres of English: BBC, Geordie, Irish, Scots, Canadian, Australian, South African, Indian, and of course the US English which pervades the world through US films, TV and music. And within most of these genres there are dialects, varying in their distinction.

Who wants all English writing to be some homogenised mid-Atlantic (or mid-Pacific) drawl, which almost nobody actually speaks in real life? Who wants proud distinctive cultures to die?

And by the same token, I reserve the right to use French or other non-English words and phrases. Not I hope incomprehensibly, but in short and simple bites which most reasonably-educated folk can have a stab at understanding from context.

Our world is glorious in its cultural diversity, and our writing should reflect that. The job of the writer is not just to entertain, but to broaden the horizons of readers, make them work a bit, think a bit for their pleasure. Realise that the world is bigger and more diverse than most folks know from growing up in their wee corner of Scotland, or Nebraska, or wherever.
 
I couldn't agree more. Indeed we need many more references to the hand searching out the spaver!

This is the best contribution to the thread so far,
 
Dialects and languages

Just a thought: Scots and Australian, say, English are dialects but I am tempted to think that American is a different language. Two sources support this: Fowler says so dirrectly (in The King's English) and various books on Transformational Syntax. It would appear from the latter that the thing that defines a language are the grammatical (transformation) rules and American owes nearly as much to German as to English is this respect. E.g. the use of 'hopefully' as hoffentlich rather than the English adverb so beloved of Scots like RLS (better to travel hopefully...) This would make American a creole rather than a dialect.

I seem to recall that Chomsky argued for this too but can't find the reference. Can anyone help?

Of course, English was a creole too, up until about Shakespear's day.
 
Um, aye weel. This Evelyn is a well-read lassie, with some knowledge of linguistics, and Scots vocabulary. And especially impressive coming from the cultural desert of Souf London. (Know it, my grandparents were Scots exiles in West Norwood.)

Sorry, I haven't read Chomsky in nearly 40 years, and I don't know your refs to the nature of US English, being a parochial Scot.

But there has been a great debate since the 1920/30s, as to whether Scots is a separate language from English. A bit like Swedish/Norwegian/Danish? Frankly I don't think the semantics matter.

You're absolutely right on one thing. English is one of the bastard languages of the world. At root Franco-German, spiced with P and Q Celtic, maybe Pictish, some Norse depending on where in the UK you are; and words (bungalow) culled from Hindi and other, thankfully temporary, imperial conquests.

I'm not sure how many from non-UK cultures can join this new direction to an old thread....

Oh, and thanks for the compliment re my intervention in the thread... I think it was directed at me? (terribly swollen head)
 
Oh, and thanks for the compliment re my intervention in the thread... I think it was directed at me? (terribly swollen head)

That's all right. We love swollen heads around here.:p

Hopefully you're having no trouble with my American patois. ;)

Hi Mr. Scot. :kiss:
 
Speakin' as an American ex-pat, I would, hopefully, get a chance to pat your ois some time.

Anytime, baby, anytime.

Now ... as an ex-pat American anthropologist, do you think American English is a 'creole'? (Used more specifically as Brits use the term than Yanks generally do.)

And where then, would 'Canadian' fall?;)
 
Last edited:
Anytime, baby, anytime.

Now ... as an ex-pat American anthropologist, do you think American English is a 'creole'? (Used more specifically as Brits use the term than generally do.)

And where then, would 'Canadian' fall?;)
Both are intelligble to other English speakers, save for idoms and some vocabulary. The grammatical structure of any of the Englishes are not far apart. On those bases, they constitutes dialects rather than creoles.
British English itself acquired many French words after 1066 (nul and void, for example, or cherry as aback formation from cerise), but still remains English. Quebec English has acquired many Quebec French terms, yet still is intelligible in the rest of Canada as well as in the U.S., England, and Australia.
The view that they are significantly different and border on being different languages is largely a political and/or social opinion than a linguistic analysis.

(And someday I'll figure out why the CBC subtitles interviews with Newfoundlanders...)
 
Divided by a common language?

Well I just Googled that George Bernard Shaw said England and America were two countries divided by a common language. He failed to mention Scotland but apart from the wit of his comment his point is that it is the same language just - different. As are Scottish and English, or Norwegian and Danish and Swedish. They are dialects, in some cases (the words are different) or in the case of American - English - Scottish they are really mostly accents, i.e. the same words pronounced differently. Having lived in Scandinavia for many years I can understand all three "languages" but they are really dialects. Same grammar and construction just different pronunciation and spelling, and a few totally different words. As Scotsman points out this language has also influenced British dialects.
Well done on reviving the thread it is something I'm pondering at the moment as I work on how to portray some Viking - Saxon interaction! I think some sort of English is to be preferred but with an occasional reminder that the Saxon lass may not understand what the Vikings are saying but knows exactly what they are thinking...
 
Last edited:
Just to get back to the OP, the point of adding the bits of foreign language in an English story with foreigners is to make the story more enjoyable for your fellow English speakers. If you have a French person saying 'Yes', 'Hello', 'Thank You', and 'I love you' too much the story just loses something of credibility, because accenting English in the English language is difficult. Having a French, Spanish, Italian, German speak the little bit that most Americans know makes the story sexier.

It's rare that your English reader is going to know the intricacy of special context and whatever other professorial things you were talking about. The point of a fantasy story is to make it appeal broadly, and saying a simple 'Bonjour' or 'Bonita' or whatever once in a while makes it a better fantasy. Who cares if there's some masters student in the language reading and getting pissed that the context or grammar is incorrect.
 
Just to get back to the OP, the point of adding the bits of foreign language in an English story with foreigners is to make the story more enjoyable for your fellow English speakers. If you have a French person saying 'Yes', 'Hello', 'Thank You', and 'I love you' too much the story just loses something of credibility, because accenting English in the English language is difficult. Having a French, Spanish, Italian, German speak the little bit that most Americans know makes the story sexier.

It's rare that your English reader is going to know the intricacy of special context and whatever other professorial things you were talking about. The point of a fantasy story is to make it appeal broadly, and saying a simple 'Bonjour' or 'Bonita' or whatever once in a while makes it a better fantasy. Who cares if there's some masters student in the language reading and getting pissed that the context or grammar is incorrect.

No one would, would they, except around this place they have a good chance of one-bombing your story and giving you a bad comment. :rolleyes: You'd think someone with a master's degree would be more grown up, but there you have it.
 
Quick question: Here (Scroll to the bottom) I used some grammatically correct and contextual Russian. What I'm seeing in the thread is that it would probably be best to have that transliterated into the Roman alphabet, as it is now, but let's ask the question anyways. When a language is written in a different alphabet, is the preference for transliterated characters or pure Russian, in Cyrillic?

From a technical standpoint - as there are several different encodings for Cyrillic characters, not to mention Korean, Japanese, etc - I would imagine that transliterated sentences are best.
 
Quick question: Here (Scroll to the bottom) I used some grammatically correct and contextual Russian. What I'm seeing in the thread is that it would probably be best to have that transliterated into the Roman alphabet, as it is now, but let's ask the question anyways. When a language is written in a different alphabet, is the preference for transliterated characters or pure Russian, in Cyrillic?

From a technical standpoint - as there are several different encodings for Cyrillic characters, not to mention Korean, Japanese, etc - I would imagine that transliterated sentences are best.

I'm no expert, but personally, I would want it transliterated, which I think is common. That way I can muddle through and get a feel for how it might sound (if an ignorant Yank were attempting it!) The Cyrillic, or even Asian characters, would mean very little to me or other Westerners, I'd imagine.
 
Quick question: Here (Scroll to the bottom) I used some grammatically correct and contextual Russian. What I'm seeing in the thread is that it would probably be best to have that transliterated into the Roman alphabet, as it is now, but let's ask the question anyways. When a language is written in a different alphabet, is the preference for transliterated characters or pure Russian, in Cyrillic?

From a technical standpoint - as there are several different encodings for Cyrillic characters, not to mention Korean, Japanese, etc - I would imagine that transliterated sentences are best.
It is a tricky issue; if you transliterate, you risk losing readers who know the language and if you don't, your English readers may find it impossible to "read" the text.

Almost all slavic languages are done in some version of Cyrillics, and those speakers look on the Romanized (such as Croatian) as not "really" slavic.

Asian characters present a wider problem as they are largely ideographic rather than alphabetical. Japanese has mover towards Romanization, so there are standard transliterations, but Chinese characters are pronounced as the words in whatever language you're reading (you could conceivably even read them directly in English), so which language's pronounciation do you transliterate?

So there you have it, an academic's voice, coming, of course, to no conclusion...

Have fun.
 
I've spent enough time in Moscow in the past to recognise some basic spoken Russian words, and their written form in roman lettering. But my grasp of cyrrilic is such that I've had to spend ages under the chandeliers on Moscow Metro stations, trying to work out which station I'm heading for...

So I'm for transliteration!
 
I've spent enough time in Moscow in the past to recognise some basic spoken Russian words, and their written form in roman lettering. But my grasp of cyrrilic is such that I've had to spend ages under the chandeliers on Moscow Metro stations, trying to work out which station I'm heading for...

So I'm for transliteration!
Funny you should say that; I tend to find Cyrillics easier to decipher than I do Scottish dialect...

Tammy gars me tail toddle...
 
Transliteration rools

Yes, transliteration is usually a good idea. Just a couple of quick remarks.

There are many languages in China not just one; putonghua (Hanyu) is the official language and the other most widely spoken are guangdonghua (Cantonese; kwangdokwa - I think - in its normal romanization) and shanghaihua (Wuyu) There is a standardized (1970s) transliteration for putonghua called Hanyu pinyin. However, it requires tone symbols - which are not on many keyboards; this can be devastatingly dangerous or funny, depending on how you look at it. E.g. 'shui ba' could mean 'have you any water?' or 'would you like to sleep [with me]?' depending on the tone marker on 'shui'.

The traditional English Romanization is Wade-Gilles and it is still (sadly) much used. Peking is a hangover from it. However the Germans and French had different ones; as a matter of curiousity, pinyin is largely based on the German one.

The only case for using Chinese pronunciation is the often sheer beauty of literal translation. How nice (or unbelievable) for a yank to be told that he is meiguoren (beautiful country person) or for me that I am yingguoren (flower country person).

Or you might try to put local colour in. For example:
'What's your name?'
'I'm called Wu.'
'Is that ko tian Wu?'
This refers to the fact that Wu can be written in different ways. Ko tian (mouth/heaven) refers to the way the character is written, a mouth character over the sky character. Any Chinese person will be comfortable with and maybe made a little homesick by this local colour.

Korean does use an alphabet (hangul) and romanization is usually staightforward although there are quirks: e.g. the family name usually transliterated as Lee (Li) is, in fact, pronounced and written as Ee (no ell sound).

Even German gets romanized these days (even by Germans): 'ss' for the gothic beta!

Having said all this I would draw the line short of many modern writers who are too fucking ignorant or lazy to put the acute accents in 'resume', the cedilla in 'facile' or the circumflex in 'role'. It is completely trivial to do this in MS Word or OpenOffice, though not in this here editor perhaps.

BTW, what made Scotsman think I was a 'lassie'? My name is 100% unisex.
 
The diacritical marks are a nice touch, but I think, better reserved for marked words that are newly imported into English. The term "role" in the social sciences, for example, was adopted from Durkheim, and was printed with a circonflex until the 1960s. By then, it had become a well-established English word, and English has no such markings.
 
That's cool that there was an Emile Durkheim reference, but I'm not sure why a foreign alphabet would ever be preferable when writing a story for an audience that most likely has no idea of Cyrillic or even how to pronounce a word with an umlaut in it. If I had a Russian character I'd probably just toss out some 'Da' 'Niet' and 'Prevet, droogs' along the way, just to get a little foreign sounding flavor to make the character a tiny bit more believable. Even if I were a native Russian or Japanese writing in English I'd be limited to English and an English-speaking audience. But it's pretty necessary for me when reading a story with foreign characters, that the non-English character doesn't say everything in straight English.
 
Sounds reasonable, in its way, to me, bflagsst, but then, I grew up downstate, and still would have to inconclusively argue the point...
 
Sorry, Tio mate, but...

The diacritical marks are a nice touch, but I think, better reserved for marked words that are newly imported into English. The term "role" in the social sciences, for example, was adopted from Durkheim, and was printed with a circonflex until the 1960s. By then, it had become a well-established English word, and English has no such markings.

My Chambers lists role uncircumcised; i.e. with it's circumflex. The OED gives both spellings and the earliest use as 1790-1, other spellings (e.g. rowle) go back even further. Durkheim was very young back then methinks.
Cheers
 
Very, very young indeed. I stand educated, then, and thank you, evelyn carroll, for the service. Too often, methinks, we depend on our own experience and neglect what others may have found.
 
Thank you, kind sir.

On the basis of that, I'm off to read your stories now.
If you're in Montreal then French is easy, I would guess.
He he!
 
Continuing to transliterate it is. Though, Tio_Narratore, the Croats are as Slavic as the Serbs and the Serbs are as Slavic as the Czechs who in turn are as Slavic as the Bulgarians. South and West Slav, as opposed to Central and East Slavic, but Slav nonetheless. Those languages, save for Bulgarian, are commonly written in Roman; all Russians (that I have met thus far) have a working knowledge of the Roman alphabet and can and will transliterate at will.

My technique for implementing foreign language is to hint at what I've just had a character say afterwards, or use soemthing obvious to the average English speaker, or even just repeat it in the narrative at some point. In the example I gave, it's literally "[This is] Galinov speaking; she's ours, over", which is close enough to the English text as to make no difference.

Does this go far enough towards the goal of not alienating readers (when executed skilfully) or do I need to dumb it down further?
 
Back
Top