Just because the languages we were borrowing the words from died out doesn't make them not-loanwords. Can you really call all of both the Saxon and the Norman words we speak "originally English"? If you have to pick one, which?
But seriously, you caught me, what I was saying was not literally true but a little bit of hyperbole referring to English's maybe-exceptional history as a melting pot of many different languages. We have so many loanwords in English that some of them come from English.
English also has a lot of words (like cow) which come from old English. I would definitely not call any of those loanwords in any sense.
That said, I also wouldn't call the ones that came from Norman (etc) loanwords, because that's not what people mean by the term. Every language has etymologies, and if we were to decide that any word with ancient foreign etymology is a loan word, then the term would have basically no meaning.
I was studying English philology and was told that - from linguistic point of view - there's no such language as English - it's just German gramatics and French and Latin words (or something like that). I don't want to offend anyone. I just repeat what linguists had told me. And sorry for my bad English, it's not my native.
The 100% is greatly exaggerated, but a huge amount of English words are borrowed. It's related to the colonization of England by Normans/French.
I disagree with the "there's no English linguistically". English is not less a language than the other ones. It's simply a dual source language. The French influence is what makes English so unique. And it's not German, German has nothing to do with English, in the English construction, it's only a sister-language, you mean it's Germanic, not German:, old Saxon. But old Germanic Saxon is the mother of English, like Latin is the mother of French, there's nothing borrowed here, it's natural filiation.
It's the Latin-based (French-based most of the time), that is foreign to English, and entirely borrowed.
Ok, but it's like if you were asked to translate a sentence involving sushi, or dim sum, or linguine. There is no good way to translate those terms, and so you just use the romanization of them.
Breaking it down into parts doesn't work. The "su" in "sushi" is "congratulations" or "best wishes", while the "shi" on its own is used to refer to companies. Dim Sum is made up of "little" and "heart", while "linguine" comes from the Italian for "little tongues". But we don't mean any of that when we use those terms.
The closest cultural equivalent, "grilled meat" doesn't work either, because teriyaki refers specifically to foods that are "broiled or grilled with a glaze of soy sauce, mirin, and sugar". Without the glaze, it's not teriyaki (the teri (照り) part of teriyaki means sunshine or lustre, and is in reference to the shine created by that glaze).
We don't have an equivalent term to refer to this specific concept, and so we just borrow the word wholesale, and this happens on a regular basis.
You are wrong. There are translations for loan words.
If you say "cliché" or. "café", do you speak in English? If I say "Can we meet in a café", am I talking fully in English?
Of course I do, even if "café" is a word that has been borrowed identically from French.
That's the concept of "loan word", they are borrowed and become part of the language. Especially when an alternative didn't exist in the target language.
The reason they used this word is to teach hiragana, not translations here.
The only thing is that they should also accept "grilled meat" if it can be used less spefically to talk about, not the cooking method, but some other grilled meat, not with the Japanese method or sauce. If it's not the case, they're right to accept only teriyaki.
What does barbecue mean? Or shish kebab? Or sushi? An English dictionary would have the answer. And if you want to know more about the Japanese meaning and connotation, you could likewise look at a jisho. But for translation, the words are (basically) the same in both languages.
The Japanese pronunciation of "R" is difficult for me to describe, but I understand it involves curling your tongue backwards to the roof of your mouth, and can indeed sound a bit like "D", but is distinct from it. I recommend turning to Google, because other people have already explained it better.
I wouldn't say we say it wrong in English, because it's a loanword, and those are almost always pronounced differently in their original tongue. By the same token, you wouldn't say they pronounce, for example, 「プール」 wrong in Japanese, even though there's no "u" on the end of "pool". That's just how it's pronounced in Japanese.
Not reeeallly, but, consider it similar to the difference between the roman alphabet as presented in a normal san serif font vs a calligraphic font. The way you're seeing り in those fonts is similar to what would happen if you were writing that character fast with a brush and wet ink; the two strokes get joined together. Same with さ.
There's a nifty article about different typefaces here: http://www.nihongoresources.com/language/writing/typefaces.html
Plain answer: Typing these words look different than writing them.
Longer answer: I simply assume it was because the language does not use letters like English letters like other more common languages. By the time computers came, I think they focused on English letters first, meaning the Japanese lettering is not the same as the writing. I think, at least.
Of course it is a word in English, but because it's a loan word there is no translation. Hence asking someone to translate it is a bad question, especially for beginners. I mean, it's also pretty clear given the huge amount of comments on a one-word answer that something is off here.
I don't understand how that's /not/ a translation. You have to be at least /somewhat/ bilingual to read both.
And how would you translate a sentence that included that word without translating it? Would you just skip it? :)
Basically, loan words have translations. The translation just tends to be easier than for other words. :)
As for length, almost all of the beginning translation questions are one-word translations. It kind of /has/ to be that way at first, since sentences are made up of words. The only other option is launch into translating full sentences, which might be difficult for someone who doesn't know any words yet. :)
So, maybe this is a subtlety that I care about only because I studied linguistics and was a translator for a couple of years. Our product had strict requirements - we could not use a loan word unless it was very well established. Otherwise, we had to translate it. So "teriyaki" would have become "shiny grilling technique" or "grilling food with a sauce made of mirin, soy, and sugar" or something like that. That is what a translation is. Loan words occur because some concepts don't translate well - like "teriyaki". There's no equivalent concept or it's awkward/lengthy to translate, so we just use the original word without translating it.
When "translating" teriyaki, all you're doing is writing it with the English alphabet, but you're not using English words (ignoring that teriyaki has at this point become accepted as an English word with Japanese origin). That's why it's not technically a translation.
Of course, you could quote Google Translate and say you translated that word. But again, all you did was write a Japanese word in English precisely because there is no translation for the Japanese word itself. I fully realize this is a subtlety the average person does not care about, but the field of linguistics does make these distinctions so we can better study and understand language phenomena.
Also, teriyaki is not a good word choice because you didn't learn a new word. You just practiced reading hiragana. Duolingo doesn't even give details about the kanji which could help you learn the real meaning of the word in Japanese, but you already knew that was a Japanese word.
Lastly, the point about having to be somewhat bilingual to read both is shaky at best. I can read Korean phonetically, but don't know what I'm saying. I'm not translating anything by writing the Korean word "yeoboseyo" in English or showing any meaningful bilingualism by being able to read symbols without understanding them. In fact, there's another linguistics term for just writing a word in a different script so you can read it: transliteration.
Thank you for the lovely chance to discuss nerdy linguistics things again.
[snip-quote] "Our product had strict requirements - we could not use a loan word unless it was very well established."
I'd say "Teriyaki" is very well established.
[snip-quote] "When 'translating' teriyaki, all you're doing is writing it with the English alphabet, but you're not using English words (ignoring that teriyaki has at this point become accepted as an English word with Japanese origin). That's why it's not technically a translation."
I see what you're saying, and the origins of "teriyaki" as an English word certainly /started out/ that way (as loan words do); but it's now a commonplace English word of it's own right. Ignoring that fact kind of negates the whole point. :)
[snip-quote] "Of course, you could quote Google Translate and say you translated that word. But again, all you did was write a Japanese word in English precisely because there is no translation for the Japanese word itself."
That's true, until it becomes a well-established English word.
[snip-quote] "Also, teriyaki is not a good word choice because you didn't learn a new word. You just practiced reading hiragana."
But this exercise is in the hiragana section, where we practice reading hiragana. :)
[snip-quote] Lastly, the point about having to be somewhat bilingual to read both is shaky at best. I can read Korean phonetically, but don't know what I'm saying. I'm not translating anything by writing the Korean word "yeoboseyo" in English or showing any meaningful bilingualism by being able to read symbols without understanding them.
Right. But the person who reads "てりやき" and says to themselves, "Oh, that must mean 'Teriyaki'" /is/ demonstrating understanding, providing that they know the English-language word.
[snip-quote] "In fact, there's another linguistics term for just writing a word in a different script so you can read it: transliteration."
Right. And that's certainly how this word came into being. But at some point, "Teriyaki" became a widely used and understood English language word in it's own right; which means it's now not merely a transliteration, but also a translation. But in either case (whether you consider the question a translation exercise or a transliteration exercise), the exercise is useful because "Teriyaki" is a word that most English speakers will recognize, and the fact that it maps very well back to the hiragana they're supposed to be learning is beneficial.
Now, if you want to argue that it's a bad exercise because it's bad Japanese or something, I'm all ears. :)
[snip-quote] "Thank you for the lovely chance to discuss nerdy linguistics things again."
You're certainly welcome. :)
To test that you are able to read the hiragana てりやき by using a word that has been loaned into English that learners may already be familiar with.
If it was a pure translation exercise (like say おちゃ 'tea') getting it right may prove you know what that word means but not necessarily that you know what the pronunciation of the Japanese word is, as learning the shape of the characters is only one step, you also need to know what those characters sound like. Using loan words is a nice bridge to that gap in these lessons for learning the writing system.
It's just a different font.
Duolingo does not use a dedicated font so it will appear as whatever the default your browser/device uses. If you access Duo from a different platform or if the platform you use updates/changes the font may change.
Some fonts show the lift of the calligraphy brush between strokes/around curves, while other fonts show the slight drag.
It is the same as saying that words like karate, judo, taekwondo, café, hijab, etc are not English. They may be exact matches to the original words, notheless that does not prevent from being part of English.
Every language is symbiotic (meaning they are mutually dependent on each other.) with other languages. It is inevitable that every language will incorporate words in other languages as part of its vocabulary. All languages are dynamic because of certain concepts which are only found in other languages and culters.