Talk:Ilunga

[Untitled]
What? No Schadenfreude ? Gzuckier 14:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Schadenfreude is possibly not that difficult to translate into Chinese. A very common four-word saying "&#24184;&#28797;&#27138;&#31117;" (enjoys other people's troubles) says it all. The Schadenfreude is the only true joy of Swidish is also pretty easy to translate: "&#21029;&#20154;&#30340;&#22833;&#25943;&#23601;&#26159;&#25105;&#30340;&#24555;&#27138;" (Other people's failure is my happiness). This is a catch phrase of a evil-minded hand puppet in Taiwan. -- Toytoy 14:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Article title?
Interesting and surely Wikipedia-relevant factoids: but is "Illunga" really the best article title for this article? I propose moving it to "Words hardest to translate". -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 14:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll fix it up. -- Toytoy 14:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * On second thought, the word "illunga" is only voted by a small company as the most difficult word to translate. The "Words hardest to translate" article probably has to be very long and contains many other words submitted by other linguists. -- Toytoy 14:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * But nevertheless, nobody expects the article illunga to present hardly translateable words. I hope it is okay that I del "Words hardest to translate", move "Illunga" there and put the actual part about "Illunga" back in. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 19:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Sorry, User:Toytoy, the source for the todays translation is already (again) in Words hardest to translate, so there is no reason to include it into the Illunga article. Calling this vandalism seems a bit problematic to me. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 11:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect
This is about an obscure name whose only claim to fame is that an insignificant translation company mistook it for a common noun and further claimed it was hard to translate (although it isn't). Today Translations is not even important enough to have an article, but some incorrect and insignificant thing they said once is important enough?

The page is not even valid as a disambiguation page for people called Ilunga, given that none of them have articles either.

This needs to be turned into a redirect to Translation. Chameleon 17:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Could we please find some sources suggesting that the translation company was incorrect? I feel uncomfortable that the whole first half of this article frames a controversy that has no supporting evidence.  Webster100 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Chameleon. This is a stupid press release making an unverifiable claim that happened to get picked up by BBC News, which is notorious for passing on idiotic pseudoscientific stories. (I will bet cash money the "linguists" they cite are random people who answered the phone when they called for comment; no actual linguist would make or support such a ridiculous claim.)  And what kind of "source" do you want? There's obviously not going to be a book out there debunking every random claim some self-promoting company makes.  There is no reason for this Wikipedia page to exist, and I hope it will be deleted. Languagehat (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)