I've always found the idea of words that can't translate to miss the mark, especially in the context of articles like this that provide a translation. It's really just that we don't have a singular corresponding word, not that they can't be translated.
It's kind of like how people say Eskimos have 50 (or however many words for snow). Any word they have for snow can be described in a corresponding way in English using adjectives, but for them it makes sense to boil down each of those concepts to a common word, since Eskimos have a more frequent need to describe snow than most English speakers.
What's interesting to reflect on is why some cultures need a singular word for something while others don't. It's why I love the word schadenfreude - not for what it means, but for the fact that Germans so readily identify with the idea of taking pleasure from another's misfortune that they coined a word for the term.
After living abroad for 10 years I think one of the biggest things I've learned is that translations don't quite work. The problem is the context and emotional framework in relation to the words.
For example "Viel Glück" can translate to "Good Luck" but what exactly is meant from this and how someone feels about me wishing it to them is quite different from Canada where I grew up.
At home it's a polite and kind of nice way to wish someone luck in what they're doing. Here it's often seen as a little sarcastic or teasing as there's a tiny culture implication that it means they didn't prepare enough.
There are massive amounts of this context or slight shading around the words which can completely change the contextural meaning of an exchange without changing anything about the literal translation.
Also, as to schadenfreude I really don't think German people identify with the idea of taking pleasure from another's misfortune. In fact most of the German speakers that I know would feel quite hurt or offended by the insinuation that they take pleasure from other's misfortune. It's more an acknowledgement that it happens, and a way to bring it into the conversation than something anyone would be proud of or want to do. Interestingly enough it's one of the most common borrowed words in English from German and is helpful to describe many situations. (Edit spelling)
> Here it's often seen as a little sarcastic or teasing as there's a tiny culture implication that it means they didn't prepare enough.
I have always thought the same thing about "Good for you" which I think would commonly be translated as "Schön für dich". You cannot possibly say that without sounding sarcastic.
Regarding "Viel Glück", I usually use "Viel Erfolg" when I'm being sincere.
Yes! That's a great example of words that have different meaning conveying a similar context. ("Viel Erfolg" meaning more like "Lots of success."/"I wish you success"). Even that though I feel has a bit of different subtext. Honestly that's the hardest thing about learning another language. Even after 10 years here I often say something which in meaning is exactly correct but still fails to convey what I wish due to some cultural subtext that I wasn't aware of.
>At home it's a polite and kind of nice way to wish someone luck in what they're doing. Here it's often seen as a little sarcastic or teasing as there's a tiny culture implication that it means they didn't prepare enough.
For what it's worth, "good luck" also has the sarcastic meaning in my mind, depending on context. I'm Canadian and only speak English.
> but for the fact that Germans so readily identify with the idea of taking pleasure from another's misfortune that they coined a word for the term
That was meant as a joke, I suppose?
If not, you might remember that it is very easy in German to coin a word. For example, I have just invented the word "Papierwurst" (paper sausage). A perfectly fine German word. Die Papierwurst (sing.), die Papierwürste (plural), der Papierwurst (sing. dative),...
"It's why I love the word Papierwurst - not for what it means, but for the fact that Germans so readily identify with the idea of having sausages made of paper that they coined a word for the term."
What that poster is trying to tell you is that your example term is just as likely an accident of the structure of German language than some insight into the soul of the German people. The fact that schadenfreude is a German term could very well be that it's easier to make these sorts of terms in German than for any other reason.
Genocide is an English word. Does that mean that Americans in particular "readily identify" with ethnic cleansing?
> Franz Boas did not make quantitative claims[6] but rather pointed out that the Eskimo–Aleut languages have about the same number of distinct word roots referring to snow as English does, but the structure of these languages tends to allow more variety as to how those roots can be modified in forming a single word.[1][note 1][note 2] A good deal of the ongoing debate thus depends on how one defines "word", and perhaps even "word root".
[snip]
> Languages in the Inuit and Yupik language groups add suffixes to words to express the same concepts expressed in English and many other languages by means of compound words, phrases, and even entire sentences. One can create a practically unlimited number of new words in the Eskimoan languages on any topic, not just snow, and these same concepts can be expressed in other languages using combinations of words. In general and especially in this case, it is not necessarily meaningful to compare the number of words between languages that create words in different ways due to different grammatical structures.
My normal English vocabulary includes more than 50 words for snow. So what. Snow is discussed often enough in some climates that it makes sense to have shortcuts to quickly describe the variations. In temperate climates you could get away with having to say "raindrops that have many small individual frozen frozen spots inside the mostly liquid drop." sleet is much shorter (and easier to understand for those who have encountered it.
>It's really just that we don't have a singular corresponding word, not that they can't be translated.
That kinda goes without saying, right? For the converse to be true there would have to be ideas that cannot be expressed in certain languages, as if they weren't "complete" analogously to Turing Completeness.
And yet there are many words in many languages that don't translate well or directly to/from English. French is a great example, where you have the word préciser which is a verb that, translated literally, means "to precise [something]" as in, to specify or to explain, but neither of those really capture the meaning of préciser. There really isn't a direct translation, but of course I can still make the same though understood in English or in French.
It's like with Kolmogorov complexity. The upper bound is translation from "word_x" into "book in your language that teaches you the other language and then says 'word_x'".
But just like Kolmogorov complexity the fact that you can technically translate anything and the change in length is finite - doesn't mean it's irrelevant in practice.
English does have a word for schadenfreude -- "schadenfreude". I'd wager it's more used by english speakers than german ones these days. Once enough people know a "foreign" word and what it means, it's no longer a foreign word.
Every time one of these articles is published that talk about untranslatable concepts in foreign languages, it moves them closer to being loan words, and giving us a word to convey those concepts.
> Any word [Eskimos] have for snow can be described in a corresponding way in English using adjectives.
I can't speak for "Eskimos" and their languages but as a native Icelandic speaker I don't think you're quite grasping how specific jargon about everyday things like "snow" can be and how it can be wildly different from English.
For example, in Icelandic "words for snow" don't just encompass its properties, but also how it got there. E.g. "skafrenningur" is snow that's loose enough that it's being blown about by the wind in a certain manner, but such snow could be either wet or dry.
Of course you can explain concepts like that given sufficient time, but this also what it means for a language to not have a word for something, that its way of thinking about things doesn't align with another language.
> It's really just that we don't have a singular corresponding word, not that they can't be translated.
Not to detract from your conclusion, but I think the current top comment, by jbay808, is a pretty good counterexample.
Of course, as per your point, they are able to offer a literal translation of what the word means. But without the cultural context, I can't actually use it. I'd have to explain what I meant so academically that the emotional weight would be lost to person I was talking to.
It's kind of like how people say Eskimos have 50 (or however many words for snow). Any word they have for snow can be described in a corresponding way in English using adjectives, but for them it makes sense to boil down each of those concepts to a common word, since Eskimos have a more frequent need to describe snow than most English speakers.
What's interesting to reflect on is why some cultures need a singular word for something while others don't. It's why I love the word schadenfreude - not for what it means, but for the fact that Germans so readily identify with the idea of taking pleasure from another's misfortune that they coined a word for the term.