False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

[Iyionaku]

to blame
sich blamieren (to make a fool out of oneself)

[GrandPiano]

この辺 konohen "this area; around here" - 这边 zhèbiān (tr. 這邊) "this side; here"
その辺 sonohen "that area; around there" - 那边 nàbiān (tr. 那邊) "that side; over there"

(この and 这/這 both mean "this"; その and 那 both mean "that". 辺 and 边/邊 are variants of the same character.)

[Iyionaku]

Il va venir - He will come
Ell va venir - He came

[All4Ɇn]

Il va venir - He will come
Ell va venir - He came

Similarly

Je veux venir - I want to come
Eu voi veni - I will come

[WeepingElf]

I will come
Ich will kommen 'I want to come'

[Iyionaku]

I will come
Ich will kommen 'I want to come'

Historically, the English verb 'will' seemed to mean exactly 'to want'. This can be seen in the idiom "Will you marry me?", in German exactly "Willst du mich heiraten?"

[CMunk]

I will come
Ich will kommen 'I want to come'

Historically, the English verb 'will' seemed to mean exactly 'to want'. This can be seen in the idiom "Will you marry me?", in German exactly "Willst du mich heiraten?"

Yes, semantically drifting modal verbs are the worst.

Take the Proto-Germanic verbs *maganą "be able", "may" and *mōtaną "be allowed", "may". They are so similar in form and meaning, that they are hard to distinguish from each other. And they drift to mean different things in different languages.

*maganą gives us may, mögen "like", "may", måtte "be allowed", "may" and måtte "must". (Especially the Norwegian and Danish words are false friends).

*mōtaną gives us must, müssen "must", måste "must". This is more consistent, but then comes the negated forms. must not means "be not allowed to", but müssen nicht and måste inte mean "be not obliged to".

Danish has lost the modal verb *mōtaną and uses skulle for the meaning of "must", and skulle ikke means "be not obliged to". For the English meaning of "must not" måtte ikke is used.

German does not use mögen to mean "be allowed", but in stead uses dürfen. In turn dürfen nicht means "be not allowed".

[GrandPiano]

Danish has lost the modal verb *mōtaną and uses skulle for the meaning of "must"

...which I'm assuming is related to shall and should?

[All4Ɇn]

Danish has lost the modal verb *mōtaną and uses skulle for the meaning of "must"

...which I'm assuming is related to shall and should?

Yep

[GrandPiano]

also "so; thus" - also

[Dormouse559]

Historically, the English verb 'will' seemed to mean exactly 'to want'. This can be seen in the idiom "Will you marry me?", in German exactly "Willst du mich heiraten?"

This "want" meaning isn't that uncommon, in fact, even outside idioms. For instance, a Google search found me an article titled "10 Things Smart People Won't Say", with the subtitle "There are some things you simply never want to say at work."

[All4Ɇn]

Historically, the English verb 'will' seemed to mean exactly 'to want'. This can be seen in the idiom "Will you marry me?", in German exactly "Willst du mich heiraten?"

This "want" meaning isn't that uncommon, in fact, even outside idioms. For instance, a Google search found me an article titled "10 Things Smart People Won't Say", with the subtitle "There are some things you simply never want to say at work."

Now you guys have questioning all of my speech! I think a lot of these situations show how close the 2 meanings really are. For me, I'd say in questions will is the polite form of want in all situations.

[Iyionaku]

Historically, the English verb 'will' seemed to mean exactly 'to want'. This can be seen in the idiom "Will you marry me?", in German exactly "Willst du mich heiraten?"

This "want" meaning isn't that uncommon, in fact, even outside idioms. For instance, a Google search found me an article titled "10 Things Smart People Won't Say", with the subtitle "There are some things you simply never want to say at work."

Now you guys have questioning all of my speech! I think a lot of these situations show how close the 2 meanings really are. For me, I'd say in questions will is the polite form of want in all situations.

I thought it's "would like?" The situation Dormouse proposed is indeed closely related. If you don't want to say it, you won't either. I guess in articles it's just nicer and more "catchy" to use "won't".

[Lao Kou]

to blame
sich blamieren (to make a fool out of oneself)

This one actually feels like a false friend.

[Iyionaku]

to blame
sich blamieren (to make a fool out of oneself)

This one actually feels like a false friend.

Especially because it's not that different in usage. If a German wants to say "Ich habe mich blamiert" and translate this wrongly as "I was blamed", I suppose in two of three cases English people might retrieve a meaning that is not so different from what the German actually wanted to say.

(Or is this just because most English people already know which mistakes German make and automatically correct?)

[Lao Kou]

to blame
sich blamieren (to make a fool out of oneself)

This one actually feels like a false friend.

Especially because it's not that different in usage. If a German wants to say "Ich habe mich blamiert" and translate this wrongly as "I was blamed", I suppose in two of three cases English people might retrieve a meaning that is not so different from what the German actually wanted to say.

Well, for me, it's the ones that look close, like "actuellement", "sensible", and here, "blamieren" that are the "real" false friends in that they look like mean the same thing cross-linguistically, so you can just phone it in without appreciating the difference in meaning. I guess I would be the one in three cases of English speakers who, before your pointing it out, would have read "Ich habe mich blamiert." as "I blamed myself." rather than "I've made a fool of myself." and not retrieved the original meaning (for me, these are quite different, and therefore rather deceptive).

[Dormouse559]

The situation Dormouse proposed is indeed closely related. If you don't want to say it, you won't either.

More to the point, "won't" isn't referring specifically to the future. It's describing a general state.

I guess in articles it's just nicer and more "catchy" to use "won't".

The article was just a quick example. Say I want something that another person has, but they refuse to let me have it. I could say, "They won't give it to me." They obviously refused in the past, but I'm using "will" all the same.

If someone were to ask, "Will you help me open this jar?" I think most English speakers would assume they were working on the jar at that moment and were asking to be helped pretty much right then, not in the future.

[Lao Kou]

The future is a messy timeplace.

I've always been tickled that Chinese, a world away before we learned the Earth wasn't flat, uses the word 要 (yào; want) in similar, but not identical ways. It's a way to mark futurity if you (pretend to) believe you have a modicum of control over future events. And check this out, one of the negative imperatives is 不要 (bùyào - bù sandhi'ed to second tone here), Cf. Latin "noli" ) (And when two-year-olds learn how to say "No!" (such a happy time), it's 不要!). It also sometimes covers that sense of "be lacking/in need of" as in "for want of" kindsa stuff.

I guess I shouldn't be so surprised -- humans be humans -- but I am often taken aback when the metaphors cross over culturolinguistically (and shall we talk about "spleen/bile"? )

[GrandPiano]

I think part of the confusion is that there is some overlap between asking someone if they want to do something and asking someone if they're going to do something; after all, if you're asking someone if they want to do something, they probably haven't done it yet, and if you're asking someone if their going to do something, they probably won't say yes unless they want to do it.

[qwed117]

humour vs. bile

Despite both being names for the same bodily fluids, their meaning is vastly different elsewhere. Humour is what we find funny, but bile what we find contemptibly angry