Talk:delay no more

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Sonofcawdrey: I'm not sure I agree with calling this a Hobson-Jobson. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: According to our definition of HJ, this is a good example. And it fits in with the examples of such terms as used by Yule and Burnell in their dictionary in 1886, and with the others added by Crooke in 1903, and also with the examples in the writings of E.E. Morris who coined the phrase "the law of Hobson-Jobson" - see Lambert (2014) "A much tortured expression" in the International Journal of Linguistics (27/1: 54-88) for more details.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That said, there are a number of things labelled HJ in Wiktionary that probably shouldn't be (e.g. dago), and a number of things that should be but that aren't.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sonofcawdrey: Sorry, I'd completely forgotten to reply. What bothers me with calling this a simple Hobson-Jobson is that there's a semantic aspect to it ("delay no more" means something) that's absent from an example like French redingote. redingote doesn't mean anything; it simply sounds French, and in my view that's a true Hobson-Jobson.
In fact, I'd even say that "deliberate Hobson-Jobson" is a contradiction in terms; the law of Hobson-Jobson is by definition an unconscious process. I'd rather speak of homophonic translation in the case of "delay no more". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam Actually, it seems that the phrase "the law of Hobson-Jobson" was never so restrictive as you suggest. According to Lambert (2014: 64)

Another linguistic application of Hobson-Jobson is the noun phrase the law of Hobson-Jobson. This was coined by the Australian lexicographer Edward E. Morris (1898: xv). Morris also employed his new coinage inconsistently. For example, the term forty-skewer, a type of fish, was altered to Fortescue according to ‘the law of Hobson-Jobson’ (1898: 151), though here the adaptation happens within the English language, not with a loanword.

Further, Eric Partridge described as "Hobson-Jobson" the following: Bill Harris for Bilharziasis; Billy Ruffian for Bellerophon; Jolly Polly for Gallipoli; Nasties for Nazis; point blank from vin blanc; trick cyclist for pyschiatrist, and so on. Certainly all these are deliberate. Yule and Burnell, moreover, use Hobson-Jobson to describe summerhead as used for sombrero (i.e. a protection for the head in summer); and cow-itch for Hindustani kewanch, a plant that causes itching. In fact, Y&B claim that the process is a result of "striving after meaning". So, not unconscious. Though they were not consistent:

The term jackass copal, a resin used to make varnish, is labelled a ‘capital specimen of Hobson-Jobson’ (1886: 339, 1903: 444). Here jackass is apparently a corruption of the foreign word chakazi, but there is no semantic reason for using jackass to describe a type of resin. Here the phonetic similarity is dominant, to the exclusion of any striving after meaning. Yule and Burnell seem to want to link Hobson-Jobson (in their linguistic sense) and ‘striving after meaning’ together as part and parcel of the one phenomenon, yet, the examples they give do not always involve both semantic and phonetic aspects. Instead the terms seem to be applied loosely to a range of different borrowing and assimilation situations. (Lambert 2014: 63-64)

So, your idea of a "true" Hobson-Jobson appears to be at odds with the coiners of the term and some of its more famous users. Anyhow, this is why I think "delay no more" is a HJ.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey: It appears you're right. But then I question the value/usefulness of such a vague label... If we went about putting them all in a category, we'd end up with rather different items.
I won't change the entry and bother you further with this, but do you agree that calling this a "homophonic translation" would be appropriate as well? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam Actually, I hadn't ever come across the term "homophonic translation" until this discussion started, and, to be fair, it seems straightforward enough. But for the general public I doubt it is any clearer than "Hobson-Jobson". However, when I did a Google Books search for the term, crikey! What a plethora a nuanced unclear senses! It seems like one of those terms that any academic who writes about it is obliged to explain what they mean by it. Clearly Ezra Pound's "homophonic translation" of Catallus is not the same type of "homophonic translation" we have been discussing for this entry. So, given this, I don't think it is any better than HJ, though, I agree HJ is no prize-winner. What to do in the face of a clear nomenclature to draw on? Anyhow, it's been nice discussing this with you. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Only Hong Kong?[edit]

Wyang (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)