Post by iris89 on Dec 7, 2011 8:26:57 GMT -5
TRANSLATION PROBLEMS CLOUD MEANING
INTRODUCTION:
When reading any translation, the reader if he really wants to understand what the original writer intended when writing in his own language must consider the different shades of meaning between the original language of the writing and the language it has been translated into. Unfortunately, many colleges and other institutions of higher learning fail to equip their students to grasp this reality so they come out of these institutions thinking what they read in their native language is always the true reality, which of course it is NOT.
EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC WORD PROBLEMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:
When reading a translation of anything it is important to consider what the original writer writing in his own language really meant. The quality of a translation depends on how well the translator captured what the original writer intended.
A major problem with translations is often another language does NOT have the exact equivalent word with the same shades of meaning. In this case the translator must either construct a series of words to capture the original meaning in the translation or sloppily use one word in the language being translated into. Doing the latter hides in many cases what the original writer intended when he wrote the original writing.
A good example of sloppy translation is the translating of four different ancient Koine Greek Words for different types of love with one English word that fails utterly falls short of capturing what the original writer intended in his original language. As one Bible dictionary says with respect the four different words for love in ancient Koine Greek that had different meanings when it shows these different meanings,
“The Christian Greek Scriptures mainly employ forms of the words a•ga′pe, phi•li′a, and two words drawn from stor•ge′ (e′ros, love between the sexes, not being used). A•ga′pe appears more frequently than the other terms.
Of the noun a•ga′pe and the verb a•ga•pa′o, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.
Regarding the verb phi•le′o, Vine comments: “[It] is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents tender affection. . . . Again, to love (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord’s reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to love life (agapao) as used in I Pet. 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.”—Vol. 3, pp. 21, 22.
James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, pp. 75, 76), remarks under phi•le′o: “To be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while [a•ga•pa′o] is wider, embracing espec. the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety . . . ).”—See AFFECTION.
A•ga′pe, therefore, carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness. That a•ga′pe may include affection and warmth is evident in many passages. At John 3:35, Jesus said: “The Father loves [a•ga•pai′] the Son.” At John 5:20, he said: “The Father has affection for [phi•lei′] the Son.” Certainly God’s love for Jesus Christ is coupled with much affection. Also Jesus explained: “He that loves [a•ga•pon′] me will be loved [a•ga•pe•the′se•tai] by my Father, and I will love [a•ga•pe′so] him.” (Joh 14:21) This love of the Father and of the Son is accompanied by tender affection for such loving persons. Jehovah’s worshipers must love him and his Son, as well as one another, in the same way.—Joh 21:15-17.
So, although distinguished by respect for principle, a•ga′pe is not unfeeling; otherwise it would not differ from cold justice. But it is not ruled by feeling or sentiment; it never ignores principle. Christians rightly show a•ga′pe toward others for whom they may feel no affection or fondness, doing so for the welfare of those persons. (Ga 6:10) Yet, though not feeling affection, they do feel compassion and sincere concern for such fellow humans, to the limits and in the way that righteous principles allow and direct.
However, while a•ga′pe refers to love governed by principle, there are good and bad principles. A wrong kind of a•ga′pe could be expressed, guided by bad principles. For example, Jesus said: “If you love [a•ga•pa′te] those loving you, of what credit is it to you? For even the sinners love those loving them. And if you do good to those doing good to you, really of what credit is it to you? Even the sinners do the same. Also, if you lend without interest to those from whom you hope to receive, of what credit is it to you? Even sinners lend without interest to sinners that they may get back as much.” (Lu 6:32-34) The principle upon which such ones operate is: ‘Do good to me and I will do good to you.’
The apostle Paul said of one who had worked alongside him: “Demas has forsaken me because he loved [a•ga•pe′sas] the present system of things.” (2Ti 4:10) Demas apparently loved the world on the principle that love of it will bring material benefits. The apostle John says: “Men have loved [e•ga′pe•san] the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.” (Joh 3:19, 20) Because it is a truth or principle that darkness helps cover their wicked deeds, they love it.
Jesus commanded: “Love [a•ga•pa′te] your enemies.” (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: “God recommends his own love [a•ga′pen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Ro 5:8-10) An outstanding instance of such love is God’s dealing with Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul. (Ac 9:1-16; 1Ti 1:15) Loving our enemies, therefore, should be governed by the principle established by God and should be exercised in obedience to his commandments, whether or not such love is accompanied by any warmth or affection.” [source - retrieved from Insight on the Scripture, Vol. II, on 12/7/2011]
As can be readily seen, the English word for love does NOT adequately capture these ancient Koine Greek words so the true meaning of what the original writer is NOT clearly captured.
Another example is with respect ‘rock’ in the English language which fails to capture adequately the two different words in ancient Koine Greek differing in gender which had different meanings [note, gender differences for inanimate objects exist in many modern languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, modern Greek, Slovenian, etc.]. Let’s look at the ancient Koine Greek words and the significance of their gender difference in meaning from a Bible dictionary.
“This translates the Greek word pe′tra (feminine gender), which designates a mass of rock (Mt 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Lu 6:48; 8:6, 13; Re 6:15, 16) and therefore differs from pe′tros (masculine gender and employed as a proper name, Peter), meaning “piece of rock.” This distinction makes it clear that, when saying to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation,” Jesus was not using synonymous terms. (Mt 16:18) Even in the Aramaic (Syriac) version the distinction is apparent from a difference in the gender of the particle preceding the word ki’pha’, used for both “Peter” and “rock.” The masculine verbal pronoun (hu) precedes “Peter,” but “rock” is preceded by the feminine demonstrative adjective (hade’).
That the apostles did not understand Jesus’ statement to signify that Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35; Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph 2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14) Peter himself identified the rock-mass (pe′tra) on which the congregation is built as being Christ Jesus. (1Pe 2:4-8) Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote: “For they [the Israelites] used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” (1Co 10:4) On at least two occasions and in two different locations the Israelites received a miraculous provision of water from a rock-mass. (Ex 17:5-7; Nu 20:1-11) Therefore, the rock-mass as a source of water, in effect, followed them. The rock-mass itself was evidently a pictorial, or symbolic, type of Christ Jesus, who said to the Jews: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.”—Joh 7:37.
It is also of interest that Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually referred to as “Saint Augustine,” at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Mt 16:18, ftn, p. 296) quotes Augustine as saying: “The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, ‘On this rock I will build my church,’ is that Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.” [source - retrieved from Insight on the Scripture, Vol. II, on 12/7/2011]
MARKETING PROBLEMS WITH TRANSLATIONS:
Translating problems and misunderstandings are NOT limited to translating the Bible from ancient Koine Greek, Aramaic, and ancient Hebrew but also cause problems in commerce as shown by the following,
“Translation problems in global marketing
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:13:22 PM
Ok, a bit of copy-pasting. Here's a funny article from 1998, written for Industry Week online, talking about translation problems in global marketing. It is interesting to see the impact of a car's name!
Title: "Bite The Wax Tadpole"
And other translation blunders from the annals of bad global marketing.
By Terri Morrison and Wayne A. Conaway. Columns - Publication Date 12.22.1998.
When businesses begin to market across cultures, they frequently encounter linguistic problems. Translating product and company names can be difficult; translating advertising slogans can be downright impossible. Over the years, some of the largest and most marketing-savvy companies have made some of the biggest translation blunders.
Translating English brand-names or slogans into Asian languages can be particularly difficult. When you chose the closest approximate sound to your brand-name, the resulting word can have an undesirable meaning. In the 1920s, when Coca-Cola was first translated phonetically into Chinese, the resultant phrase meant "bite the wax tadpole." Coke finally marketed its product under an alternate phrase, which sounded less like "Coca-Cola" but carried the more appetizing meaning "can mouth, can happy."
Pepsi too had problems with Chinese when their slogan "Come Alive with the Pepsi Generation" was translated for a Taiwanese billboard as "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead." KFC (formerly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken) found that its "Finger-Lickin' Good" slogan was translated into Chinese as the admonition "Eat Your Fingers Off."
Coca-Cola also had trouble in other markets. A few years ago, the jingle "Have a Coke and a Smile" was translated into French. Although the translation was technically correct, words aren't always heard clearly when they're sung, and the song sounded like "Have a Coke and a Mouse."
Sometimes mistranslations are caused by circumstances beyond anyone's control. Wind caused an unfortunate alteration of a Coke skywriting ad in Cuba. The ad was supposed to read "Tome Coca-Cola" ("Drink Coca-Cola"), but the wind blurred the second letter, making the message "Teme Coca-Cola" ("Fear Coca-Cola").
Even when a translation is accurate, marketing can be undermined by local slang. David A. Ricks' classic book Blunders in International Business (1993, Blackwell Publishing) notes that automobile companies have had lots of trouble in foreign markets. For example, when Ford Motor Co. marketed the Pinto in Brazil, they discovered that "pinto" was Brazilian slang for "small thingy." Naturally, no man wanted to own a "pinto," so Ford blithely changed the car's name to Corcel, which means "horse" in Portuguese. The car reportedly sold well after that. Ford also experienced problems in Mexico, where its Caliente wasn't selling. The company eventually discovered that "caliente" is Mexican slang for "prostitute." Ford's light truck Fiera had a similar problem: in several Spanish-speaking countries, "fiera" is slang for "ugly old woman." The now-defunct American Motors Corp. thought that their Matador would do well in Puerto Rico. They were wrong -- Puerto Rico is not a big bullfighting country, and "matador" is local slang for "killer."
Of course, the classic example of a bad automobile name goes to General Motors Corp., when the Chevy Nova was marketed in Latin America without a name change. Technically, the word "nova" means the same in English and Spanish: an exploding star. But when spoken aloud, it also sounds like the Spanish phrase "no va," which means "it does not go." Sales were poor in Latin America until GM changed the model's name to Caribe.
Sometimes companies get in trouble even when they don't attempt translations. Appliance manufacturer Sunbeam didn't change the name of its Mist-Stick curling iron when it was marketed in German. But "mist" is not a pleasant word in German, and not many German women wanted to use a "dung stick" in their hair!
But translation blunders aren't confined to big businesses. Small businesses also make some bonehead mistakes. When the Pope visited Miami some years ago, an ambitious Anglo entrepreneur wanted to sell T-shirts with the logo "I saw the Pope" in Spanish. But he forgot that the definite article in Spanish has two genders. Instead of printing "El Papa" ("the Pope"), he printed "La Papa" ("the potato"). There wasn't much of a market for selling shirts that proclaimed "I saw the potato."
The lesson from all this? Get a literate native speaker to do your translations -- and double-check them before they go to press.” [source - retrieved from my.opera.com/kitkreuger/blog/2006/11/14/translation-problems-in-global-marketing on 12/7/2011] .
CONCLUSION:
When in doubt, check what word was used in the original document and what its specific shade of meaning is. In doing so, one must pay particular attention to gender designations applied to inanimate objects in many languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, modern Greek, Slovenian, etc. that radically change the meaning of the word.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
INTRODUCTION:
When reading any translation, the reader if he really wants to understand what the original writer intended when writing in his own language must consider the different shades of meaning between the original language of the writing and the language it has been translated into. Unfortunately, many colleges and other institutions of higher learning fail to equip their students to grasp this reality so they come out of these institutions thinking what they read in their native language is always the true reality, which of course it is NOT.
EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC WORD PROBLEMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:
When reading a translation of anything it is important to consider what the original writer writing in his own language really meant. The quality of a translation depends on how well the translator captured what the original writer intended.
A major problem with translations is often another language does NOT have the exact equivalent word with the same shades of meaning. In this case the translator must either construct a series of words to capture the original meaning in the translation or sloppily use one word in the language being translated into. Doing the latter hides in many cases what the original writer intended when he wrote the original writing.
A good example of sloppy translation is the translating of four different ancient Koine Greek Words for different types of love with one English word that fails utterly falls short of capturing what the original writer intended in his original language. As one Bible dictionary says with respect the four different words for love in ancient Koine Greek that had different meanings when it shows these different meanings,
“The Christian Greek Scriptures mainly employ forms of the words a•ga′pe, phi•li′a, and two words drawn from stor•ge′ (e′ros, love between the sexes, not being used). A•ga′pe appears more frequently than the other terms.
Of the noun a•ga′pe and the verb a•ga•pa′o, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.
Regarding the verb phi•le′o, Vine comments: “[It] is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents tender affection. . . . Again, to love (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord’s reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to love life (agapao) as used in I Pet. 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.”—Vol. 3, pp. 21, 22.
James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, pp. 75, 76), remarks under phi•le′o: “To be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while [a•ga•pa′o] is wider, embracing espec. the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety . . . ).”—See AFFECTION.
A•ga′pe, therefore, carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness. That a•ga′pe may include affection and warmth is evident in many passages. At John 3:35, Jesus said: “The Father loves [a•ga•pai′] the Son.” At John 5:20, he said: “The Father has affection for [phi•lei′] the Son.” Certainly God’s love for Jesus Christ is coupled with much affection. Also Jesus explained: “He that loves [a•ga•pon′] me will be loved [a•ga•pe•the′se•tai] by my Father, and I will love [a•ga•pe′so] him.” (Joh 14:21) This love of the Father and of the Son is accompanied by tender affection for such loving persons. Jehovah’s worshipers must love him and his Son, as well as one another, in the same way.—Joh 21:15-17.
So, although distinguished by respect for principle, a•ga′pe is not unfeeling; otherwise it would not differ from cold justice. But it is not ruled by feeling or sentiment; it never ignores principle. Christians rightly show a•ga′pe toward others for whom they may feel no affection or fondness, doing so for the welfare of those persons. (Ga 6:10) Yet, though not feeling affection, they do feel compassion and sincere concern for such fellow humans, to the limits and in the way that righteous principles allow and direct.
However, while a•ga′pe refers to love governed by principle, there are good and bad principles. A wrong kind of a•ga′pe could be expressed, guided by bad principles. For example, Jesus said: “If you love [a•ga•pa′te] those loving you, of what credit is it to you? For even the sinners love those loving them. And if you do good to those doing good to you, really of what credit is it to you? Even the sinners do the same. Also, if you lend without interest to those from whom you hope to receive, of what credit is it to you? Even sinners lend without interest to sinners that they may get back as much.” (Lu 6:32-34) The principle upon which such ones operate is: ‘Do good to me and I will do good to you.’
The apostle Paul said of one who had worked alongside him: “Demas has forsaken me because he loved [a•ga•pe′sas] the present system of things.” (2Ti 4:10) Demas apparently loved the world on the principle that love of it will bring material benefits. The apostle John says: “Men have loved [e•ga′pe•san] the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.” (Joh 3:19, 20) Because it is a truth or principle that darkness helps cover their wicked deeds, they love it.
Jesus commanded: “Love [a•ga•pa′te] your enemies.” (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: “God recommends his own love [a•ga′pen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Ro 5:8-10) An outstanding instance of such love is God’s dealing with Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul. (Ac 9:1-16; 1Ti 1:15) Loving our enemies, therefore, should be governed by the principle established by God and should be exercised in obedience to his commandments, whether or not such love is accompanied by any warmth or affection.” [source - retrieved from Insight on the Scripture, Vol. II, on 12/7/2011]
As can be readily seen, the English word for love does NOT adequately capture these ancient Koine Greek words so the true meaning of what the original writer is NOT clearly captured.
Another example is with respect ‘rock’ in the English language which fails to capture adequately the two different words in ancient Koine Greek differing in gender which had different meanings [note, gender differences for inanimate objects exist in many modern languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, modern Greek, Slovenian, etc.]. Let’s look at the ancient Koine Greek words and the significance of their gender difference in meaning from a Bible dictionary.
“This translates the Greek word pe′tra (feminine gender), which designates a mass of rock (Mt 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Lu 6:48; 8:6, 13; Re 6:15, 16) and therefore differs from pe′tros (masculine gender and employed as a proper name, Peter), meaning “piece of rock.” This distinction makes it clear that, when saying to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation,” Jesus was not using synonymous terms. (Mt 16:18) Even in the Aramaic (Syriac) version the distinction is apparent from a difference in the gender of the particle preceding the word ki’pha’, used for both “Peter” and “rock.” The masculine verbal pronoun (hu) precedes “Peter,” but “rock” is preceded by the feminine demonstrative adjective (hade’).
That the apostles did not understand Jesus’ statement to signify that Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35; Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph 2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14) Peter himself identified the rock-mass (pe′tra) on which the congregation is built as being Christ Jesus. (1Pe 2:4-8) Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote: “For they [the Israelites] used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” (1Co 10:4) On at least two occasions and in two different locations the Israelites received a miraculous provision of water from a rock-mass. (Ex 17:5-7; Nu 20:1-11) Therefore, the rock-mass as a source of water, in effect, followed them. The rock-mass itself was evidently a pictorial, or symbolic, type of Christ Jesus, who said to the Jews: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.”—Joh 7:37.
It is also of interest that Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually referred to as “Saint Augustine,” at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Mt 16:18, ftn, p. 296) quotes Augustine as saying: “The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, ‘On this rock I will build my church,’ is that Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.” [source - retrieved from Insight on the Scripture, Vol. II, on 12/7/2011]
MARKETING PROBLEMS WITH TRANSLATIONS:
Translating problems and misunderstandings are NOT limited to translating the Bible from ancient Koine Greek, Aramaic, and ancient Hebrew but also cause problems in commerce as shown by the following,
“Translation problems in global marketing
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:13:22 PM
Ok, a bit of copy-pasting. Here's a funny article from 1998, written for Industry Week online, talking about translation problems in global marketing. It is interesting to see the impact of a car's name!
Title: "Bite The Wax Tadpole"
And other translation blunders from the annals of bad global marketing.
By Terri Morrison and Wayne A. Conaway. Columns - Publication Date 12.22.1998.
When businesses begin to market across cultures, they frequently encounter linguistic problems. Translating product and company names can be difficult; translating advertising slogans can be downright impossible. Over the years, some of the largest and most marketing-savvy companies have made some of the biggest translation blunders.
Translating English brand-names or slogans into Asian languages can be particularly difficult. When you chose the closest approximate sound to your brand-name, the resulting word can have an undesirable meaning. In the 1920s, when Coca-Cola was first translated phonetically into Chinese, the resultant phrase meant "bite the wax tadpole." Coke finally marketed its product under an alternate phrase, which sounded less like "Coca-Cola" but carried the more appetizing meaning "can mouth, can happy."
Pepsi too had problems with Chinese when their slogan "Come Alive with the Pepsi Generation" was translated for a Taiwanese billboard as "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead." KFC (formerly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken) found that its "Finger-Lickin' Good" slogan was translated into Chinese as the admonition "Eat Your Fingers Off."
Coca-Cola also had trouble in other markets. A few years ago, the jingle "Have a Coke and a Smile" was translated into French. Although the translation was technically correct, words aren't always heard clearly when they're sung, and the song sounded like "Have a Coke and a Mouse."
Sometimes mistranslations are caused by circumstances beyond anyone's control. Wind caused an unfortunate alteration of a Coke skywriting ad in Cuba. The ad was supposed to read "Tome Coca-Cola" ("Drink Coca-Cola"), but the wind blurred the second letter, making the message "Teme Coca-Cola" ("Fear Coca-Cola").
Even when a translation is accurate, marketing can be undermined by local slang. David A. Ricks' classic book Blunders in International Business (1993, Blackwell Publishing) notes that automobile companies have had lots of trouble in foreign markets. For example, when Ford Motor Co. marketed the Pinto in Brazil, they discovered that "pinto" was Brazilian slang for "small thingy." Naturally, no man wanted to own a "pinto," so Ford blithely changed the car's name to Corcel, which means "horse" in Portuguese. The car reportedly sold well after that. Ford also experienced problems in Mexico, where its Caliente wasn't selling. The company eventually discovered that "caliente" is Mexican slang for "prostitute." Ford's light truck Fiera had a similar problem: in several Spanish-speaking countries, "fiera" is slang for "ugly old woman." The now-defunct American Motors Corp. thought that their Matador would do well in Puerto Rico. They were wrong -- Puerto Rico is not a big bullfighting country, and "matador" is local slang for "killer."
Of course, the classic example of a bad automobile name goes to General Motors Corp., when the Chevy Nova was marketed in Latin America without a name change. Technically, the word "nova" means the same in English and Spanish: an exploding star. But when spoken aloud, it also sounds like the Spanish phrase "no va," which means "it does not go." Sales were poor in Latin America until GM changed the model's name to Caribe.
Sometimes companies get in trouble even when they don't attempt translations. Appliance manufacturer Sunbeam didn't change the name of its Mist-Stick curling iron when it was marketed in German. But "mist" is not a pleasant word in German, and not many German women wanted to use a "dung stick" in their hair!
But translation blunders aren't confined to big businesses. Small businesses also make some bonehead mistakes. When the Pope visited Miami some years ago, an ambitious Anglo entrepreneur wanted to sell T-shirts with the logo "I saw the Pope" in Spanish. But he forgot that the definite article in Spanish has two genders. Instead of printing "El Papa" ("the Pope"), he printed "La Papa" ("the potato"). There wasn't much of a market for selling shirts that proclaimed "I saw the potato."
The lesson from all this? Get a literate native speaker to do your translations -- and double-check them before they go to press.” [source - retrieved from my.opera.com/kitkreuger/blog/2006/11/14/translation-problems-in-global-marketing on 12/7/2011] .
CONCLUSION:
When in doubt, check what word was used in the original document and what its specific shade of meaning is. In doing so, one must pay particular attention to gender designations applied to inanimate objects in many languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, modern Greek, Slovenian, etc. that radically change the meaning of the word.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!