Du ju spik ingliš?

[Ulmawen]

Eh, setih se jedne engleske brzalice, nije loša za vežbanje dikcije.

How much wood would woodchuck chuck if woodchuck would and could chuck wood?

Dakle, treba je izgovoriti što brže, kao onu našu "čokanjčićem ću te, čokanjčićem ćeš me".

[zoran845]

Za lomljenje jezika ima i ono:

Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.

[hacker_aca]

Ne zaboravite i ovo:

Three witches watch three Swatch watches. Which witch watches which Swatch watch?

[Shlaymara]

Ulmawen kaže:

Eh, setih se jedne engleske brzalice, nije loša za vežbanje dikcije.

How much wood would woodchuck chuck if woodchuck would and could chuck wood?

Ova brzalica se spominje i u jednoj od igara iz Monkey Island serijala.

Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge kaže:

Guybrush Threepwood: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Woodchuck: A woodchuck could chuck no amount of wood since a woodchuck couldn't chuck wood.
Guybrush Threepwood: But if a woodchuck could chuck and would chuck some amount of wood, what amount of wood would a woodchuck chuck?
Woodchuck: Even if a woodchuck could chuck wood, and even if a woodchuck would chuck wood, should a woodchuck chuck wood?
Guybrush Threepwood: A woodchuck should chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood, as long as a woodchuck would chuck wood.
Woodchuck: Oh, shut up!

[zoran845]

@ nighthawk, SirDuck91, caine, steve89

Pošto reč "window" ima isto slovo/glas na početku i kraju, mislim da bi trebalo izgovarati ili "vindov" ili "uindou", zavisno od afiniteta. Ja kažem ono drugo.

Isto važi i za uzvik "wow". Ne moze "vau" (to je u srpskom onomatopeja laveža, kao "av"), nego ili "uau" (ja tako kažem) ili "vav".

[zoran845]

Pošto smo krenuli sa "jezikolomilicama", samo da kažem da je jedan od najtežih jezika za izgovor verovatno poljski. Naš lingvista Ivan Klajn je rekao da "poljski voli što duže i tvrđe reči, koje krckaju u ustima kao kora hleba".

Vidite samo ovo (pišem kako se izgovara):

Hšonšč bžmi f tšćinje.

Rečenica znači "buba zuji u trščaku/trstiku", a pazite samo kako se piše:

Chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie. ()

Imaju Poljaci i druge reči za slamanje jezika. Evo kratkog izvoda iz njihovog rečnika (opet pisano fonetski):

fšistko = sve
pjerfši = prvi
bžoskfinja = breskva
spravjedljivošć = pravda
nhebespječenjstfo = opasnost

Baš bi voleo da ovo izgovori neki Englez. Jedva su skapirali kako se kaže "Milošević"!

[4th Dimension]

To ti je Slovenski jezik meets NJemački.

[zoran845]

Evo primera "briljantnog" prevoda. Naslov filma "Scrooged" maštoviti "vršilac dužnosti prevodioca" je preveo kao "*ebada" (umesto "*" ide "J", naravno). Zašto? Zato što je najčešći oblik (površnog, ofrlje) prevođenja - "prevođenje po sluhu". Prevodiocu je negde u podsvesti bilo da glagol "screw" znači i "raditi ono", pa je "logično" zaključio da je "scrooged" tako nešto (pridev/imenica - nema veze).

Ni na pamet mu nije palo (verovatno) da naziv filma potiče od prezimena glavnog junaka Dikensove novele "A Christmas Carol" [stanovitog Ebenezera Skrudža (Ebenezer Scrooge)], kojom su (novelom) bili inspirisani tvorci filma.

Ovaj film i sjajni prevod video sam (pre više godina) na jednoj od lokalnih niških televizija, ali ima toga i u "major league" ("Pink", "RTS", "B92",...).

[Covenant]

Iako "po angliski" stojim prilicno dobro,kada god mogu koristim ipak tekstove "po srpski"
Zasto?
Lenj sam brate,pa to je

[Ulmawen]

Najinteresantnije je kod tih laičkih prevoda (a i malo profesionalnijih, čak), kako ljudi prevode dijaloge vezane za tabu teme. Da li pojma nemaju sleng, ili naprosto ne znaju kako da se kulturno izraze o "pipljivoj" temi, tek kombinacija koja se dobije je stvarno smehotresna. Da ne pominjem da se iz dotičnog titla uopšte ne da raspoznati o čemu se radi...

[zoran845]

Ulmawen kaže:

Da ne pominjem da se iz dotičnog titla uopšte ne da raspoznati o čemu se radi...

U filmu "Scrooged" nema ni "h" od "hopa-cupa", kako bi se po prevodu "Hebada" dalo pretpostaviti. U pitanju je lagana komedija.

[Ulmawen]

zoran845 kaže:

U filmu "Scrooged" nema ni "h" od "hopa-cupa", kako bi se po prevodu "Hebada" dalo pretpostaviti. U pitanju je lagana komedija.

Čini mi se da je u pitanju lagana "zahebada".

[nighthawk]

gearbox = kutija sa opremom
dumpers (amortizeri) = demferi - gluvi idiot nije znao sta to znaci pa je ostavio neprevedeno.

two thousands = 10 000
platoon = vojnik (samo jedan vojnik)

Toliko ima debilnih prevoda da se skoro svaki put trudim da ne citam prevod.

[NjegovaWisost]

Tja, davno u osnovnoj, nisam znao da izgovorim slovo "L". I onda na moju nesreću, učimo brzalicu iz engleskog "Lovle Little Lucy Is Licking A Large Lolypop"
Moje muke

[zoran845]

NjegovaWisost kaže:

"Lovle Little Lucy Is Licking A Large Lolypop"

Hej, rekli smo "bez pornografije"!

BTW, mislio si "lovely" i "lollypop/"lollipop"?

[nighthawk]

Jos malo bisera nasih prevodioca:

Brus Dikinson u kokpitu konkorda kaze "Checkout the Mach meter", a prevod je "Pogledajte Mekove mere

[Sun Tzu]

Ti prevodi na discovery-ju i history-ju i uopste na kablovskoj nista nevaljaju.
Najbolje ih je negledati(mislim na titl ne na kanale)

[caine]

Uuu, ima svakakvih gluposti u prevodima, narocito u naslovima filmova... npr:

-Doom Generation - Dum generacija
-The Faculty - Fakultet straha (desava se u srednjoj skoli)...

[zoran845]

Evo teksta iz nepoznatog udžbenika engleskog jezika u formi pisma koje jedan Englez piše svom prijatelju Špancu.

Tekst je privukao moju pažnju iz bar dva razloga:
1. Govori šta i kako treba čitati uopšte (na bilo kom jeziku).
2. Objašnjava kako treba čitati literaturu na stranim jezicima.

Zbog prvog razloga, tekst je mogao biti objavljen i u temi "Knjige", ali drugi razlog (i činjenica da je najveći deo teksta tome posvećen) opravdava njegovo pojavljivanje baš u ovoj temi.

Autor je odlično izrekao neke stavove koje i sam delim, pa budući da mu se nema ni šta dodati ni oduzeti, prenosim tekst (iako malo duži) u celini.

On Reading

Dear Francisko,

I'm glad to know you enjoyed the books I sent you for Christmas. Your letter of thanks was very well written and I congratulate you on being able to write so correctly.
You ask me for advice on reading. That's a very difficult question. I always hesitate to advise my friends on what to read. How can I possibly know what will interest other people? And you don't say in your letter whether you want to read fiction, or drama, or essays, or books on travel.
What you do say is that you're very fond of reading, and I'm delighted by that. Do you know the essays of Francis Bacon, who lived about the same time as Shakespeare? They're full of good things about reading. Here are some of them, from the essay "Of Studies".
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested."
"Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse: but to weigh and consider."
I can't give you advice better than that. The first quotation tells you how to read books of different kinds. I suppose most travel books are "to be tasted"; it's enough to dip into them and read bits here and there. If you're fond of crime stories (Agatha Christie, Simenon, and the rest of the modern favourites), you will, if you're like me, read them quickly; you'll "swallow" them. And then there are books that you'll read slowly and carefully. If a book's on an important subject, and a subject you're interested in, you'll want to chew and digest it. And you'll want to weigh what the author says, and consider his ideas and arguments.

[zoran845]

If the book's in English, that may mean slow progress for you. But I don't advise you to read too slowly. When I was living in Tokyo (it was many years ago), I used to go to Kanda, where the second-hand bookshops are (just as in London, when you were here last year, you used to spend hours in Charing Cross Road). The shelves were full of English books. The first twenty or thirty pages of many of them had their margins filled with pencilled notes and there were dozens of words and phrases underlined. The owners, probably earnest university students, had started out very seriously, determined to master the books. Then, as I turned the pages over, I found clean white margins, with not a single note. In some cases the books had uncut sheets, like modern French novels, and it was clear that the reader had given up the attempt in despair.
I suppose that's a common experience in many countries with books in a foreign language. The reader starts out, full of hope and determination. Then the need to turn to a dictionary or a reference book, perhaps ten or even twenty times a page, tires him out. There are two or three answers to this problem. The first is a negative one. Don't start reading a book unless you see, from the first few pages, that it's one you can read with ease and understanding. Don't try to run before you can walk. There are plenty of books that have been rewritten in simple language - and shortened, too, if necessary. I know there are good reasons against simplified texts. We don't feel that we're getting the real thing if we read a book that has been "made simple". There are some authors whose style is fairly easy, of course. I used to wonder why Oscar Wilde's books were so popular in European schools and colleges. Wilde seemed to be more famous in Europe than in England. Then I realized that in his short stories he writes in a very simple style.
My second answer to this question of difficult vocabulary is, I think, a much better one. Don't stop every time you come to a word or phrase you don't know. Read the whole chapter quickly. Quite often you'll find the unknown word comes again, perhaps several times, and by the end of the chapter you'll have guessed its meaning. That's how we learn the meanings of words in our own language, isn't it? When we're children, I mean. When I'm telling a story to children, they seldom stop to ask what a word means. Even when they read, they don't run for the dictionary every time they see an unknown word.