[sigue – EL HUFFINGTON POST] traducción de Marina Velasco Serrano: Los significados reales de los emojis más misteriosos

Los significados reales de los emojis más misteriosos

EL HUFFINGTON POST  |  Publicado: 04/03/2014 09:27 CET

Cuando consigues escribir una frase completa con emojis, la sensación que te invade es indescriptible. ¿Y cuando eres capaz de contar el argumento de una película o el estribillo completo de una canción? Increíble. En definitiva, los emojis molan.

Pero, seamos sinceros… una buena parte de ellos es totalmente inútil. Porque, ¿con cuánta frecuencia hacemos referencia a los vídeos VHS? ¿Y para qué necesitamos un relojito para cada una de las horas del día? Sin duda, algunos de estos iconos son un misterio absoluto y nos roban parte de un tiempo que podríamos emplear en mandar unicornios, burritos o cualquier otro emoji REALMENTE necesario.

Por tanto, y sin más dilación, aquí tenemos algunas preguntas desesperadas que siempre nos hemos hecho sobre los emojis, junto con las respuestas que nunca pensaste que necesitarías:

Otros misteriosos emoticonos que hemos resuelto:

Uno de los más queridos, la caca sonriente, en realidad se llama “MIERDA DE PERRO”. Increíble.

Lo que probablemente creías que era una “bellota” es una “castaña”.

También puede que hayas usado este emoticono para hablar de “helados”, pero lo cierto es que se trata de un “granizado”.

Y este extraño rectángulo con un lacito no es otra cosa que un marcapáginas. ¿A que no lo sabías?

Lo que todos pensábamos que era una especie de tarta de nata y fresa en realidad es un “pastel de pescado”. Un poco decepcionante, la verdad.

Y aun así, no hay emoticonos de queso ni de burritos, lo cual es fundamental en nuestras vidas. Gracias a Dios que, por lo menos, tenemos el emoji de “batata asada” y de “flan”.

No te sientas mal si ahora ves que el mundo se tambalea bajo tus pies. Ni siquiera los creadores le encuentran el sentido a algunas cosas y por eso les ponen nombres del tipo “vuelta doble”“onda” o “chispa”.

Artículo publicado originalmente en The Huffington Post. Traducción de Marina Velasco Serrano

HUFF POST COMEDY: The Actual Meanings Behind The Most Mysterious and Pointless Emojis

The Actual Meanings Behind The Most Mysterious And Pointless Emojis

Posted: 03/01/2014 12:00 am EST Updated: 03/01/2014 12:00 am EST

There’s no denying the rush you get when you’re able to write an entire sentence in emojis. Better yet, when you can write out a movie plot or an entire song chorus? Amazing. Emojis are awesome.

But let’s be real… a good portion of them are also totally useless. Because how often, REALLY, are we going to reference a VHS tape? And why do we need a clock face depicting every single hour? Without a doubt, some of those icons are total mysteries, and they’re taking up valuable keyboard real estate that could be used for emoji unicorns, burritos or, you know, the other emojis we definitely NEED.

So, without further adieu, here are some burning questions we’ve all had about emojis, and the answers you never knew you needed:

  • 1
    Wrong. It’s a NAME BADGE. We would never have guessed.
  • 2
    For the record, the “H” buildings are not hospitals, (that’s this guy) but a “Hotel” and “Love Hotel.” (Think about that for a minute… There’s actually an emoji for LOVE HOTEL.) The mystery building with the red thing is apparently a Japanese post office, and those really are just a house and a house with a garden. And, much to our dismay, the “BK” building is not a Burger King or Brooklyn, but a bank. A “Blue Bank Building,” to be specific. We should have known.
  • 3
    That little guy is a Japanese rice cracker with seaweed. But for the record, a door on a meatball clearly just leads to more meat.
  • 4
    The official Emoji definitions are “dragon” and “dragon face,” but their relevance to everyday text-life (and the weird horns) remains a mystery. As it turns out, these are actually two different types of camels… the one-humped Dromedary Camel, and the two-humped Bactrian Camel. #MoreYouKnow
  • 5
    So that first one is definitely a normal teary face. But sadly, there are no crying eyebrows here. The second one is apparently just a “disappointed but relieved face.” The next is “face with cold sweat,” and the final smiling situation is “smiling face with open mouth and cold sweat.” Um, okay. If you say so.
  • 6
    We were kind of close: hot springs. And, as it turns out, that grey face is not an Easter Island Statue or Squidward’s house. It’s called a Moyai and it represents this real statue.
  • 7
    This guy turns out to be a construction worker – but still no explanation for his slumber.
  • 8
    The party line is “meat on bone,” but we still think this looks like the thingie in Pebbles Flintstones’ hair.
  • 9
    *deep breath* Here we have “high-speed train,” “high-speed train with bullet nose,” “light rail,” “metro,” “train” (as in plain ‘ole), “tram,” “station,” and “mountain railway.” Not pictured: the absolutely superfluous 9th train variation, “steam locomotive.” With regard to our airborne friends: only the first is an aerial tramway; the other two are “suspension railway” and “mountain cableway,” respectively. So we weren’t TOO far off.
  • 10
    Wow. So, it’s a “moon-viewing ceremony,” for the Japanese Otsukimi harvest celebration. It all makes so much sense now! Color us myopic.
  • 11
    This is a “pine decoration,” popularly displayed for the Japanese New Year, (SEE?!) but we still think it kinda looks like Emerald City.

Some other emoji mysteries we solved:

The beloved smiley poop emoji (which, let’s be honest, is probably the best) is actually called “Dog Dirt.” DOG DIRT.

What you’ve probably been calling an “acorn” is actually a “chestnut.”

Also, you’ve probably been using this emoji to mean “ice cream” but it’s actually “shaved ice.”

This random square with a red ribbon is actually a bookmark. Who knew?!

That white thing with a pink swirl on it, that definitely looks like a dessert, is actually a “fish cake,” which is a total disappointment.

There’s still no cheese emoji or burrito, which are absolutely vital. Thank goodness, though, that we have an emoji for “Roasted Sweet Potato” and custard.

Don’t feel bad if your whole world is crumbling. Even the makers can’t make sense of some of these things because some of them are actually just called “Double Curly Loop,” “Wavy Dash,” and “Sparkle.”

This list is brought to you by the team at HuffPost Partner Studio. Check out some of the sweet content we’ve created in partnership with the world’s top brands, or find us on TwitterFacebookTumblr and Instagram so you don’t miss a thing.

 

[sigue: Traducción de Marina Velasco Serrano “http://huff.to/1hG0Qv4“]

[Repost] A Word, Please: Superstitions of the grammatical kind (by June Casagrande)

A Word, Please: Superstitions of the grammatical kind

By June CasagrandeMarch 4, 2014 | 10:55 a.m.

How time flies.

It seems like just yesterday I was writing a column debunking the myth that it’s wrong to start a sentence with a conjunction.

And it seems like just the day before yesterday that I wrote the same thing. And the day before that, the same thing, going back about 12 years to when I started writing this column, bright-eyed and hopeful that I could make a difference by debunking grammar myths.

Foolish child. Grammar superstitions are a heck of a lot more powerful than I’ll ever be, as evidenced by an email I got recently from a reader named Paul in Venice, Calif. After some introductory matter of an ad hominem nature (“You’re an embarrassment” and the like), Paul proceeded to outline a number of grammar atrocities I committed in a recent column.

I do make mistakes in this column. When I get an e-mail with a subject line like “You’re very disappointing,” I cringe in anticipation of learning that I made an actual, you know, error. Happily, this was not such an instance.

All the mistakes Paul found in my column were his, rooted in a slew of common grammar superstitions. Paul’s biggest beef, judging by the amount of time he dedicated to it, was that I started four sentences with conjunctions.

A conjunction is a joining word that comes in several varieties. The best known are the coordinating conjunctions, the most common of which are “and,” “but,” “or” and “so.” These words coordinate — join — words, phrases or even whole clauses.

A much larger group, subordinating conjunctions, introduce clauses that are subordinate to some other clause in the sentence. For example, “if” is a subordinating conjunction in “If you want me, I’ll be in my room.” The word “if” renders the first clause subordinate, meaning it can’t stand on its own as a complete sentence.

There are other types of conjunctions too. But coordinators are the ones to note because, not only are they the most common, they’re also the subject of a widespread grammar superstition.

Some folks are taught that it’s wrong to start a sentence with one. So the sentence before last, which started with “but,” would be considered an error. So would this one. And this one would too.

Unfortunately for would-be critics too eager to play the “gotcha” game, that’s superstition. But you don’t have to take my word for it.

“There is a widespread belief — one with no historical or grammatical foundation — that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as ‘and,’ ‘but’ or ‘so,'” writes the Chicago Manual of Style.

“‘and,’ A. Beginning sentences with. It is a rank superstition that this coordinating conjunction cannot properly begin a sentence,” notes Garner’s Modern American Usage.

“‘but.’ A. Beginning sentences with. It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with ‘but’ is stylistically slipshod. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, as many stylebooks have said,” Garner’s adds.

“There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with ‘and,’ but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial ‘and’ is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues,” notes Fowler’s Modern English Usage.

I wrote Paul back to thank him, explaining that it’s a treat to open an email about mistakes I made and learn that I made none. I even threw in a little free advice for Paul — advice of the “Maybe do your homework before you fire off emails of the ‘You are an embarrassment’ variety.”

But Paul didn’t write back. And I don’t expect him to anytime soon.

JUNE CASAGRANDE is the author of “It Was the Best of Sentences, It Was the Worst of Sentences.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.

[Reposted from Veronica] Cf. original piece: “http://bit.ly/1hLEZlf

Friends: Traducir comedia no es cosa de chiste.

*TV series addiction mode ON*

La Traducción más allá de las Palabras

Seguro que muchos de vosotros todavía recordáis el opening de la sitcom más famosa que ha dado hasta ahora la televisión norteamericana. Me refiero a ese hombre diciendo “Colegas“, cosa  innecesaria que afortunadamente duró poco en la cabecera de la serie.

Efectivamente una de las cosas más difíciles de traducir es el humor, y el reto se hace todavía mayor en la traducción audiovisual para el doblaje donde es necesaria una sincronización que en ocasiones obligará al traductor a elegir una traducción que no sea literal, como ocurre cuando en Friends Chandler llama a Rachel “loser” deletreando la palabra (L-O-S-E-R), la traducción literal que sería “perdedora” sin embargo tiene cuatro letras más por lo que no encajaría a la hora del doblaje, por lo que se optó por “prima” (P-R-I-M-A) que sí se adapta perfectamente.

En algunos casos los chistes puede ser adaptados literalmente, como cuando Joey…

View original post 720 altre parole

[Repost] 7 Sentences That Sound Crazy But Are Still Grammatical (by Arika Okrent)

7 Sentences That Sound Crazy But Are Still Grammatical

filed under: grammarLists
IMAGE CREDIT:
NATIONALGRAMMARDAY.COM

Martha Brockenbrough, founder of The Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar, started National Grammar Day in 2008. Since then it has been held every year on March 4th, a date that also happens to be a complete sentence (March forth!). It is celebrated in various ways: There is a haiku contest, an anagram unscrambling contest, and even an official song.

That’s all good clean fun. Some people, however, like to use the holiday as an excuse to engage in what Kory Stamper calls “vigilante peeving.” Stamper, a lexicographer at Merriam-Webster who knows from good grammar, dreads the way the holiday seems to encourage the shaming of others for their mistakes, or, as she calls it, “asshattery in the name of grammar.” (Read the whole thing. It’s worth it.)

This Grammar Day, let’s not look at grammar as a cold, harsh mistress. She can also be a fun, kooky aunt. Here are some tricks you can do to make crazy sounding sentences that are still grammatical.

1. ONE MORNING I SHOT AN ELEPHANT IN MY PAJAMAS. HOW HE GOT INTO MY PAJAMAS I’LL NEVER KNOW.

Take advantage of the fact that the same sentence can have two different structures. This famous joke from Groucho Marx assumes that most people expect the structure of the first part to be

One morning [I shot an elephant] [in my pajamas].

But another possible, and perfectly grammatical, reading is

One morning [I shot] [an elephant in my pajamas].

2. THE HORSE RACED PAST THE BARN FELL.

Make a garden path sentence. In this one, we think we’ve reached the main verb when we get to “raced,” but instead we are still inside a reduced relative clause. Reduced relative clauses let us say, “the speech given this morning” instead of “the speech that was given this morning” or, in this case “the horse raced past the barn” instead of “the horse that was raced past the barn.”

3. THE COMPLEX HOUSES MARRIED AND SINGLE SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

Another garden path sentence, this one depends on the fact that “complex,” “houses,” and “married” can serve as different parts of speech. Here, “complex” is a noun (a housing complex) instead of an adjective, “houses” is a verb instead of a noun, and “married” is an adjective instead of the past tense of a verb.

4. THE RAT THE CAT THE DOG CHASED KILLED ATE THE MALT.

Make a sentence with multiple center embeddings. We usually have no problem putting one clause inside another in English. We can take “the rat ate the malt” and stick in more information to make “the rat the cat killed ate the malt.”  But the more clauses we add in, the harder it gets to understand the sentence. In this case, the rat ate the malt. After that it was killed by a cat. That cat had been chased by a dog. The grammar of the sentence is fine. The style, not so good.

5. ANYONE WHO FEELS THAT IF SO MANY MORE STUDENTS WHOM WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY ADMITTED ARE SITTING IN ON THE COURSE THAN ONES WE HAVE THAT THE ROOM HAD TO BE CHANGED, THEN PROBABLY AUDITORS WILL HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED, IS LIKELY TO AGREE THAT THE CURRICULUM NEEDS REVISION.

Another crazy center-embedded sentence. Can you figure it out? Start with “anyone who feels X is likely to agree.” Then go to “anyone who feels if X then Y is likely to agree.” Then fill out the X and Y. You might need a pencil and paper.

6. BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO.

Buffalo! It’s a noun! It’s a city! It’s a verb (meaning “to intimidate”)! We’ve discussed thenotorious buffalo sentence before, but it never stops being fun. It plays on reduced relative clauses, different part-of-speech readings of the same word, and center embedding, all in the same sentence. Stare at it until you get the following meaning: “Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community.”

7. THIS EXCEEDING TRIFLING WITLING, CONSIDERING RANTING CRITICIZING CONCERNING ADOPTING FITTING WORDING BEING EXHIBITING TRANSCENDING LEARNING, WAS DISPLAYING, NOTWITHSTANDING RIDICULING, SURPASSING BOASTING SWELLING REASONING, RESPECTING CORRECTING ERRING WRITING, AND TOUCHING DETECTING DECEIVING ARGUING DURING DEBATING.

This sentence takes advantage of the versatile English –ing. The author of a 19th century grammar guide lamented the fact that one could “run to great excess” in the use of –ing participles “without violating any rule of our common grammars,” and constructed this sentence to prove it. It doesn’t seem so complicated once you realize it means,

“This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate.”

Not only is this a great example of the wonderful crazy things you can do within the bounds of proper English, it’s the perfect response to pull out the next time someone tries to criticize your grammar.

Sources of sentences: 1. Groucho Marx; 2. Bever (1970); 3. Wikipedia; 4. Chomsky & Miller(1963); 5. Chomsky & Miller (1963); 6. William Rapaport; 7. Goold Brown (1851).

Primary image courtesy of NationalGrammarDay.com.

March 4, 2013 – 10:06am