Obama's tongue slips, POTUS refers to Polish death camps

[Grumman]

And apparently some people think it's kinda ambiguous in English, too

The only way it can be at all ambiguous is by completely ignoring the context. If someone's stupid enough to base their entire understanding of the Holocaust in Poland on a "kinda ambiguous" reading of a single statement, it's not the statement that is at fault.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Why would it even be an issue in Polish? If you're translating something, shouldn't you translate the connoted meaning from context and not the strict denotation of the phrase in a vacuum?

If one translates "Fallschirmjäger" from German into English, one says "paratrooper", not "case-screen hunter" which of course is ridiculous. Trying to nit-pick a literal interpretation of the words used when the party taking offence doesn't even use the original language the words were in strikes me as rather silly. Any sane translation of Obama's words would refer to the Polish equivalent of "death camp located in Poland", because that's what the meaning clearly was.

[Broomstick]

The two sentences sound almost identical, but if what Keevan says is true (that it's an accepted way of referring to a location in English), then they still sound vastly different, because it's most definitely NOT this way in Polish. And apparently some people think it's kinda ambiguous in English, too

Ambiguous in the sense of "someone completely ignorant of history and/or who has a poor understanding of English due to not being fluent in the language".

Seriously, anyone past, say, 12 is going to know about the Holocaust and will think "death camp located in Poland" rather than "death camp built and owned by Poles".

I'll take your word on the two thoughts being expressed in completely different manner in Polish.

Why would it even be an issue in Polish? If you're translating something, shouldn't you translate the connoted meaning from context and not the strict denotation of the phrase in a vacuum?

That's the theory - in practice, it doesn't always happen the way, especially in real-time translation. Such as translating a speech as it occurs.

[Lord Relvenous]

It may be valid, but it's rarely used and can be misleading, which is, you know, the entire point? If I spoke of 2001 American terrorist attacks in New York, and someone who didn't know a whole lot about recent history read that phrase, what would his first thought be?

Except your sentence is not a good analog for the sentence that Obama used. The use of American as well as New York (which already establishes location) implies that the attack was American, as the descriptor has no purpose for establishing location.

If Obama had said, "Polish death camp in Treblinka" that would resemble the sentence you posited. Using Treblinka leaves the reader assuming that "Polish" refers to the party running the camp. If Obama had used such language, I would understand the outrage. As it stands, however, the sentence is only ambiguous if the reader has absolutely no knowledge of the Holocaust. When such "ambiguity" (quotations used sarcastically) can be defeated by 1 second's thought, I find those screaming about it to be quite silly.

[Irbis]

That doesn't work as a comparison because the subject is not a location and has a location also listed for it. Would you object to the term "american factories" to refer to the new plants opened by Toyota in the US?

It's hardly uncommon, while "factories in america" would also be correct, that doesn't invalidate "american factories" which also results in a better flow of the sentence structure.

Except, no, the understanding here is subtly different. When you talk about 'American factories', most people will understand it's factory owned by/tied to Americans. Ford factory in Australia? It would qualify. Toyota in the US? The term would be 'factories in America'. That's the whole problem, the issue stems from the fact people's first thought is, that Obama is accusing Poles of running these factories, nothing more, nothing less.

Why would it even be an issue in Polish? If you're translating something, shouldn't you translate the connoted meaning from context and not the strict denotation of the phrase in a vacuum?

If one translates "Fallschirmjäger" from German into English, one says "paratrooper", not "case-screen hunter" which of course is ridiculous. Trying to nit-pick a literal interpretation of the words used when the party taking offence doesn't even use the original language the words were in strikes me as rather silly. Any sane translation of Obama's words would refer to the Polish equivalent of "death camp located in Poland", because that's what the meaning clearly was.

That is easy when the words can be translated, I.E., they're different and you can look for the equivalent. But what you do when words are the exact same thing, the only difference is the tone public assigns to them?

One example - 'whistleblower'. It denotes someone noble, raising alarm at malpractice. In Polish, however, most equivalents (like 'kapuś' or 'donosiciel') are definitely negative, because in last 100 years, 70% of that time cooperating with state was seen as bad thing, and social pressure for making it bad was too great for a positive one to emerge. What you do then?

Or, to use example easier to get for English audiences, word 'cunt'. Technically means the same in UK and in USA, yet, is light in one and very rude in other. What you do - hire expert sociologist/linguist to find better match in any work you wish to "translate"? Censor it? Rely on audience's intelligence? Use resulting uproar over innocent passage to make your work known?

[Todeswind]

That doesn't work as a comparison because the subject is not a location and has a location also listed for it. Would you object to the term "american factories" to refer to the new plants opened by Toyota in the US?

It's hardly uncommon, while "factories in america" would also be correct, that doesn't invalidate "american factories" which also results in a better flow of the sentence structure.

Except, no, the understanding here is subtly different. When you talk about 'American factories', most people will understand it's factory owned by/tied to Americans. Ford factory in Australia? It would qualify. Toyota in the US? The term would be 'factories in America'. That's the whole problem, the issue stems from the fact people's first thought is, that Obama is accusing Poles of running these factories, nothing more, nothing less.

In English the meaning does not change unless you are A) wildly illiterate B) viewing the sentence in a vacuum without consulting either context or common sense or C) blisteringly pedantic. The fact that the two phrasings can be interpreted so differently in Polish makes it more startling to me that someone translating the words of the freaking President of the United States was not someone capable of making that distinction.

Why would it even be an issue in Polish? If you're translating something, shouldn't you translate the connoted meaning from context and not the strict denotation of the phrase in a vacuum?

If one translates "Fallschirmjäger" from German into English, one says "paratrooper", not "case-screen hunter" which of course is ridiculous. Trying to nit-pick a literal interpretation of the words used when the party taking offence doesn't even use the original language the words were in strikes me as rather silly. Any sane translation of Obama's words would refer to the Polish equivalent of "death camp located in Poland", because that's what the meaning clearly was.

That is easy when the words can be translated, I.E., they're different and you can look for the equivalent. But what you do when words are the exact same thing, the only difference is the tone public assigns to them?

One example - 'whistleblower'. It denotes someone noble, raising alarm at malpractice. In Polish, however, most equivalents (like 'kapuś' or 'donosiciel') are definitely negative, because in last 100 years, 70% of that time cooperating with state was seen as bad thing, and social pressure for making it bad was too great for a positive one to emerge. What you do then?

This isn't an example of that. In order to make the leap of logic required to end up at that it would require an either inexperienced or incompetent translator. This isn't a complex and nuanced obscure bit of the English language, this is one of the most common American phrasings I can possibly imagine. So common, in point of fact, that I initially assumed this article was some sort of posting from the Onion lampooning how petty politicians can be.

If I translate the words "Voy a cogerlo pronto. El bus viene ahorita" from spanish into English I'm not about to the first sentence as "I'm going to fuck it soon." simply because the word for "take" and "fuck" share the same verb just because it "can" be interpreted that way if I translate the first sentence without the context of the second one. Translators are supposed to know better, and fucking up this majorly is the sort of thing that can easily end a career.

Or, to use example easier to get for English audiences, word 'cunt'. Technically means the same in UK and in USA, yet, is light in one and very rude in other. What you do - hire expert sociologist/linguist to find better match in any work you wish to "translate"? Censor it? Rely on audience's intelligence? Use resulting uproar over innocent passage to make your work known?

If you're doing translation work of this type, you either already are an expert linguist / sociologist or you should not have a job as a translator. Bad translations are how wars are started.