Unit speech in all languages: does someone have the transcripts?

[Windsor]

I thought I had done the Vikings earlier, but here's the full Viking-list:

VikingOrder-000
Som du ønsker = As you wish (Fern was incorrect. They don't use polite form)

VikingOrder-001
Flytt ut = move out. This one is incredibly hard. Without hearing it multiple times most norwegian would not get what he's actually saying

VikingOrder-002
Selvfølgelig = of course (Selvfølge consist of Selv = self and følge = follow)

VikingOrder-003
Vi er på saken = we are on it. Or more literally "we(vi) er(are) på(on) saken(the case)

VikingOrder-004
Ikke noget problem = "No problem"

VikingOrder-005
Anse det som fullført = Consider it as completed

VikingOrder-006
Greit = Ok

VikingOrder-007
Vi er på vej = "We are on our way"

VikingOrder-008
La oss komme avgårde = let us get moving

VikingOrder-009
De kan regne med os = "You can count on us"

VikingSelect-000
Alle er til stede og opptelt = All are present("til stede" / in place) and counted

VikingSelect-001
Til din tjeneste = "At your service" (this time they chose not to use the politer and more old fasioned version: "Til Deres tjeneste")

VikingSelect-002
Fortæl mig hvad jeg skal gøre = "Tell me what I should do" (this sentence is a bit harsh, as if you are ordering the leader to give you orders )

VikingSelect-003
Venter på dine ordre = "Waiting for your orders" (politer version: "Venter på Deres ordre")

VikingSelect-004
Klar for aktion = "Ready for action"

VikingSelect-005
Hvad er planen = "What's the plan"

VikingSelect-006
Ja = "Yes"

VikingSelect-007
Dine ordre = "Your orders"

VikingSelect-008
Hva trenger de? = What do You need?

 

[theskibum]

True. One of my favourite peeves with English ( and French ) is that the language does not make diference between transient and permanent qualities of a item in terms of verbs. For a example, saying that X is red might mean that being red is a permanent feature of X ( it can't be X if it isn't red ... say , like the English ( not UK ) flag cross )or that X is now red, but it can be not red ( a ripe tomato , for a example, in comparison with the non-ripe state ) and the same applies to French... you can only know the diference by contextual analysis. OTOH in portuguese we have one verb for the first situation ( ser ) and another for the second ( estar ), so our language is far more precise than the English in this area ( a side effect is that a Portuguese has to actually think if a English ( or a French ) speaker means a permanent or transient quality when it uses a form of the verb to be ( or the french être ) ... quite frustrating at times )

I knew it!! The Portuguese can read minds!!!

As a native English speaker, I see these differences between transitive descriptors and permanent descriptors as confusing

If we want to say something is black we say "that car is black". We don't even think about if that is a passing or permanent state, it just is (very existentialist I know )

I found these "double verbs" as I came to call them (I took Portuguese, French and Japanese classes) confusing, because its not native to me. Don't even get me started on the unpronounced letters in French or the slight inflection changes that can totally change the meaning of a word (a la Japanese or Mandarin).

Languages are a complex thing, especially when there is so much culture basis behind them. English, as spoken in the USA especially, doesn't suffer from formality overkill like latin based languages and eastern asian languages. I think particularly in the USA English has become simplistic because of the type of people driving the language. Not saying we are simple people, but we tend to be a hell of a lot more direct than "Old Worlders" (stereotypically of course)!

In ways I am glad English is the international language of choice...means I can be lazy!!

This is a great thread. Glad it was resurrected.

 

[s.bernbaum]

@r_rolo1: You find English and French a bit confusing because there is only one state of being verb - "to be". You must love Russian then, where there is no state of being verb. Even the present/past/future must be inferred from context.

 

[phoenix_sprite]

True. One of my favourite peeves with English ( and French ) is that the language does not make diference between transient and permanent qualities of a item in terms of verbs. For a example, saying that X is red might mean that being red is a permanent feature of X ( it can't be X if it isn't red ... say , like the English ( not UK ) flag cross )or that X is now red, but it can be not red ( a ripe tomato , for a example, in comparison with the non-ripe state ) and the same applies to French... you can only know the diference by contextual analysis. OTOH in portuguese we have one verb for the first situation ( ser ) and another for the second ( estar ), so our language is far more precise than the English in this area ( a side effect is that a Portuguese has to actually think if a English ( or a French ) speaker means a permanent or transient quality when it uses a form of the verb to be ( or the french être ) ... quite frustrating at times )

Interesting, considering I'm fluent in both French and English, . I've never looked into Portuguese really so the idea of having two verbs to indicate transient or permanent states seems a bit...unnecessary.

So if I asked a Portuguese what time it is, what would they answer me?

 

[r_rolo1]

@r_rolo1: You find English and French a bit confusing because there is only one state of being verb - "to be". You must love Russian then, where there is no state of being verb. Even the present/past/future must be inferred from context.

I'm still debating with Japanese Maybe later I'll try russian , but let's say I'm not exactly atracted by the feature you are describing

Interesting, considering I'm fluent in both French and English, . I've never looked into Portuguese really so the idea of having two verbs to indicate transient or permanent states seems a bit...unnecessary.

So if I asked a Portuguese what time it is, what would they answer me?

We would say "São *insert time*" that is the permanent indicating verb. It looks paradoxical at first glance, but if you think it right to a certain moment it corresponds a certain hour and only that hour ... making it a permanent feature of that moment

 

[thecaesar]

True. One of my favourite peeves with English ( and French ) is that the language does not make diference between transient and permanent qualities of a item in terms of verbs. For a example, saying that X is red might mean that being red is a permanent feature of X ( it can't be X if it isn't red ... say , like the English ( not UK ) flag cross )or that X is now red, but it can be not red ( a ripe tomato , for a example, in comparison with the non-ripe state ) and the same applies to French... you can only know the diference by contextual analysis. OTOH in portuguese we have one verb for the first situation ( ser ) and another for the second ( estar ), so our language is far more precise than the English in this area ( a side effect is that a Portuguese has to actually think if a English ( or a French ) speaker means a permanent or transient quality when it uses a form of the verb to be ( or the french être ) ... quite frustrating at times )

I knew it!! The Portuguese can read minds!!!

As a native English speaker, I see these differences between transitive descriptors and permanent descriptors as confusing

If we want to say something is black we say "that car is black". We don't even think about if that is a passing or permanent state, it just is (very existentialist I know )

I found these "double verbs" as I came to call them (I took Portuguese, French and Japanese classes) confusing, because its not native to me. Don't even get me started on the unpronounced letters in French or the slight inflection changes that can totally change the meaning of a word (a la Japanese or Mandarin).

I am just ending my first year of spanish class (Yes I love it because I'm a nerd and nerds rule!) and I think that these "double verbs", as you call them, make a lot more sense than english. I mean, if you say in english "He is mad", then how is anyone to know whether you mean he is angry right now, or always angry, or even crazy? It may be more complicated, but other countries probably have less misunderstandings, eh?

As for the inflections changing the meaning of words, that sounds scary and also like it would cause a LOT of misunderstandings, but hey, some of those languages are older than english, so it clearly works...

(PS: I can't wait to become fluent in spanish! )

 

[theskibum]

Yes I love it because I'm a nerd and nerds rule!
As for the inflections changing the meaning of words, that sounds scary and also like it would cause a LOT of misunderstandings, but hey, some of those languages are older than english, so it clearly works...

Nerds rock!

Mandarin is the worst offender for inflection changes completely changing the meaning of a word. Not really a problem for native speakers I believe, but for westerners in particular it presents a challenge, particularly if you go to China or Japan on business and you want to say simple things like "take me to the airport".

A cabbie gave me a funny look in Taipei once when I thought I said "take me to the airport", I actually said something more along the lines of "make love to me while travelling to the airport"...luckily he saw I was as pale milk and laughed it off. Got m to the airport in record time!

 

[nfw]

I asked before but didn't get an answer, what languages do Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian units speak? Some versions of Arabic, or their native language?

 

[Kid R]

Great thread

I'd like to contribute but don't have the languages. The Celts sound like they're speaking Gaelic though and I bet there are some brits on here who speak that.

RomeOrder-000: Ut lubebis - not sure about this one

Bit of googling and it seems like "lub..." is a kind of alternative to "lib..." in the sense of desire (same root as "libido"). Wikipedia conjugation table then suggests "lubebis" could be the indicative imperfect of whatever verb it is, so literally "as you were desiring". Perhaps indeed the most accurate tense for this context ("as you wish").

Re. transient/permanent "to be". I always thought arguments that the distinction was necessary were a bit desperate. Ser/estar and the like are in those languages, fine, but like genders on nouns I see them as a bit of "local flavour" (patronising aren't I ) - I don't believe they're essential to meaning. Without them it is always easily discernable from context IMO.

 

[Psyringe]

I asked before but didn't get an answer, what languages do Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian units speak? Some versions of Arabic, or their native language?

The Egyptian units speak Arabic. Ancient Egyptian wasn't an option because no one knows how the language was actually pronounced. (That's the reason why they are often very different modern spellings of the same name, like Akhenaten / Echnaton, or Nefertiti / Nofretete).

 

[r_rolo1]

I believe that the babilonians speak some sort of Aramaic , but I'm not exactly fluent

 

[Grassland Farm]

Seems that the French sounds have not be done:

FranceOrder-000: Comme vous voulez : As you wish
FranceOrder-001: Allons-y! : Let's go! / Let's do it!
FranceOrder-002: Certainement! : Certainly / For sure!
FranceOrder-003: Nous y travaillons! : We're working on it / We'll do it
FranceOrder-004: Aucun problème : No problem.
FranceOrder-005: Considérez ce travail accompli : Consider this job done
FranceOrder-006: Très bien! : Very well / Allright
FranceOrder-007: Nous sommes en route : We're en route / We're on it
FranceOrder-008: Same as 001
FranceOrder-009: Vous pouvez compter sur nous! : You can count on us /rely on us

FranceSelect-000: Prêt pour l'assignation : Ready for orders / ready for duty
FranceSelect-001: A votre service! : At your service / At yours orders
FranceSelect-002: Dites-moi ce que je dois faire : Tell me what to do
FranceSelect-003: Nous attendons vos ordres : Awaiting your orders
FranceSelect-004: Prêt à l'action! Ready for action
FranceSelect-005: Quel est le plan? : What's the plan?
FranceSelect-006: Oui? : Yes?
FranceSelect-007: Vos ordres? : Your orders?
FranceSelect-008: De quoi avez-vous besoin? : What do you need?
FranceSelect-009: Tous présents et dénombrés : All present and accounted (Kinda the military form)


In some lines the voice is really fluent, like select002, which is "Dites moi c'que j'dois faire", I think even some students in french tongue might have trouble

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

I would use "A vos ordres" rather than "A votre service" since it's clearly a military unit speaking.
And also " Quels sont les ordres?" rather than "Vos ordres?" but I am nitpicking obviously

@Rolo: what is not transient anyway? No need for a tense/word difference!
(seriously you raise an excellent point since learning the present perfect tense for a french is a real nightmare. we just don't think this way and need some brain gymnastic before getting it... I still haven't got it myself )

 

[theskibum]

we just don't think this way and need some brain gymnastic before getting it... I still haven't got it myself )

brain gymnastics...do you do your montage set to "Eye of the Tiger"

 

[r_rolo1]

@Rolo: what is not transient anyway? No need for a tense/word difference!
(seriously you raise an excellent point since learning the present perfect tense for a french is a real nightmare. we just don't think this way and need some brain gymnastic before getting it... I still haven't got it myself )

And because some lazy bums that speak a latin based creoule ( oh and the ones that speak that germanic based one that live in a foggy island ) are lazy, we need to have extra work to try to understand what you mean if a people is mad ... Simply not fair

Well, trying to unwrap the quite peculiar ( of my point of view ) Japanese phrase construction is far worse ... if you can pass the Kanji barrier, that is

 

[theskibum]

... oh and the ones that speak that germanic based one that live in a foggy island are lazy...

Are you speaking of Americans my good sir? If so, I will have you know we are not lazy...oh who am I kidding we are lazy!

 

[r_rolo1]

No , I was talking of the brits, but as you speak their language ( well, mostly ), I think you are included ... but you atleast can say that weren't americans that invented that lazy language

 

[theskibum]

No , I was talking of the brits, but as you speak their language ( well, mostly ), I think you are included ... but you atleast can say that weren't americans that invented that lazy language

True, but we did make it a hell of a lot lazier (unless you count cockney)

Would slavic languages with no state of being verb, such as Russian, be even lazier yet?

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, it wasn't me who said it ....

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

brain gymnastics...do you do your montage set to "Eye of the Tiger"

On sunday only