Talk:Engrish

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Engrish

---

'Engrish' is NOT a "pun"!!!!

Babel Fish: refers to the tower of, or to the HHGG type
Babelfish: refers to the altavista service

---

Stevertigo's added paragraph seems to be about something completely different from the rest of the article (although I don't understand what it is about), and it makes the article sound incoherent. (Sorry, Stevertigo!) Please could someone who understands the paragraph reword it in some way? Thanks! -- Oliver P. 03:41 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

No rewording needed, but I stretched it out a little with some non-oriental examples of the same thing. Ortolan88

I am with Oliver P. I don't understand what this recent addition has to do with the article at all. This new text should be moved to an article where it makes sense. RK

Nonsense! -豎眩

Try this. Engrish happens:

1. When people who speak an oriental language but not English simply make a mistake.
2. When people who speak English make jokes about oriental people.
3. When oriental people adopt English words to oriental pronunciation.
4. When oriental people deliberately distort English for an amusing effect

All of these are covered in the article. The last case is the disputed paragraph. I do not understand why, particularly with the addition of the Mötley Crüe example, this point is not clear. Ortolan88

As I understand it - Engrish is a term reserved for the advertising aspect, any other use is tertiary.. -- 豎眩

There is no bureau of slang deciding what terms are reserved for what meanings. All of the uses I mentioned are common, all are in the article. Do I have to defend your contribution from attack by you too? Ortolan88

"bureau of slang"  :]-豎眩

---

I think an entry I made on Talk:Chinglish needs to be read by participants in this argument as well. -- Michael 14:09 19 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Isn't Engrish really just another word for Japlish? I was under the impression that Engrish was a dedicated term rather like Franglais and Chinglish, Singlish and others. For example, I wouldn't call the frequently amusing mistakes people make in western countries "Engrish", whereas funny English in Japan is definitely Engrish... Comments? Exploding Boy 01:12, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 bite the wax tadpole 2 Lexical borrowing or Engrish 3 What is Engrish? 4 Is it derogatory? 5 Who's offended? 6 What really is Engrish? 7 Cheese 8 Best Ever

bite the wax tadpole

Doesn't "bite the wax tadpole" come from translating the opposite way from Engrish? Kingturtle 09:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it came about when Coca-Cola tried to market iself in China; it found some characters that resembled the pronunciation of Coca-Cola, but the particular combination they chose, aside from being quite off pronunciation-wise, was a nonsense phrase that could be interpreted as "bite the wax tadpole". They later hired some firm to look through thousands of kanji and come up with a phrase that both meant something pleasing and sounded like Coca-Cola; the phrase they came up with, the one used today, can be roughly interpreted as "pleasure in the mouth." GusGus 22:22, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Depending on the dialect, "ke-kou-ke-la" could also be interpreted as "female horse fastened with wax" or "wax-flattened mare" in addition to "bite the wax tadpole." --162.83.227.101 22:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The urban myth has been debunked. [1] (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tadpole.asp)--Tokek 12:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lexical borrowing or Engrish

I disagree that "puroresu" is an example of Engrish. It's a contraction of a lexical borrowing from English. There are many of these in Japanese. The Japanese will borrow English terms for things they don't already have names for (examples: word processor, television), but frequently due to Japanese restrictions on consonant clusters the borrowing ends up long and unweildy (waarudo purosessaa, terebijion), so they coin short contractions or abbreviations (wapuro, terebi). These are legitimate Japanese words that happen to derive from English. Technically, they're not speaking English at all, any more than somebody who says "ex post facto" is speaking Latin. It's not at all the same thing as spelling "lady" as "rady" because you can't tell the difference. - Gwalla 23:34, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

What is Engrish?

I agree with Exploding Boy ... I think "Engrish" refers to "Japanese English" most of the time, English as used in Asia at its most general (drawing on the old "Asia and R vs. L" issue). It seems like the "Engrish" page as it is now is redundant considering a Non-native pronunciations of English page already exists. It would be nice to have a page with more concrete examples of Japanese English like there is on the Japanese language page for Engrish.

There is debate in Japan too as to what is "Engrish", or waseieigo (和製英語: literally "English made in Japan") ... the Japanese version of the Engrish site divides it into 4 sections:

• "English" words created in Japan: Guts pose, salaryman, plus alpha, etc.
• English words given a new meaning: sign ("autograph"), mansion ("apartment"), etc.
• Shortened words: infura (infrastructure), infure (inflation), etc.
• Words borrowed/created from other languages: abekku (French avec), arubaito (German Arbeit), etc.

It seems like the "Engrish" page should deal exclusively with these types of Japanese-English words and phrases ... and leave the generalities to the Non-native pronunciations of English page ... but what does everyone else think? CES 05:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider any of those to be Engrish. In my experience, Engrish refers to Japanese misuse of English (not gairaigo borrowings like "manshon", or gairaigo-derived coinages like "infura" or "salaryman"). This includes non-native pronunciation (but more often misspellings based on non-native pronunciation, such as the word "Engrish" itself) and also ungramatical or just incoherent phrasing like "The sentimental taste is cozy for the heroine's [sic] in the town." and "Water feeling powder is in the center of the white candy." Most examples I've seen are of the latter type (strange phrasing) rather than the former (mispronunciation or misspelling). It's any mangled use of English (as English) produced by Asians (usually Japanese) that is strikingly wrong or odd to native speakers. It's usually from Japanese product packaging or advertising copy—spoken English is rarely considered "Engrish" no matter how mispronounced or grammatically incorrect. — Gwalla | Talk 02:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok ... I follow your thinking (although I would debate your point that calling an apartment a "mansion" or inflation "infure" is not "strikingly wrong or odd" to a native speaker). Looking at the other -ish pages (Singlish, Konglish, Spanglish, etc.) there appears to be a wide range of definitions for Engrish. I would personally be leary about an article concerning "any mangled use of English (as English) produced by Asians (usually Japanese) that is strikingly wrong or odd to native speakers", given the subjective nature of that definition. Looking at it from just the perspective of Japan (as I'm sure most people would agree is the "target" for Engrish), the article as is lumps three very distinct phenomena together: 1. Bad translation from Japanese to English (All your base is belong to us) 2. Non-native pronunciation of English (Eric Crapton) and 3. English assimilated (correctly or incorrectly) into Japanese ("mansion" to mean apartment, etc.). Maybe all this article needs is a more specific definition of "Engrish" and a little better organization. CES 04:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Manshon" and "infure" do sound odd to native speakers of English, but the difference is that they aren't English! They're Japanese words (derived from English ones), used in Japanese writing and speech. Japanese speakers who say them do not—in most cases—think that they are speaking English at the time. Engrish is the result of failed attempts to speak English. I would consider your #1 to be a type of Engrish, #2 to be borderline, and #3 to be not Engrish at all. Saying "manshon" in Japanese conversation is not bad English, any more than saying "beef" in English conversation is bad French (yes, "beef" is a lexical borrowing from French). — Gwalla | Talk 05:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What you say makes sense ... however, it also contradicts the definition given in the article. But, giving it more thought, I agree with your definition of Engrish and I think this article is too inclusive ... I was thinking of it more along the lines of what the Japanese call waseieigo but that's not the same as Engrish, is it. Looking at the article again, it looks like the three main aspects mentioned belong in the following categories/articles:

• "Bad/funny" translations: Engrish
• Non-native pronunciations: Non-native Pronunciation of English
• Lexical borrowings: Japanese Language (Western influences on the Japanese language)

But this would be a radical re-edit of this page ... we need to hear other voices. How would others define "Engrish"? And is it possible to have an article on Engrish without it just being a list of examples Engrish phrases like All Your Base? Is it worth an article at all? CES 06:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I guess it wouldn't be that big of an edit ... just the removal of one paragraph. I was also wondering what was meant by the following phrase from the first paragraph that defines Engrish as "poor translation of English into another language followed by good translation back into English." What is an example of this? CES 06:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that was probably thinking of translating with Babelfish and then translating back. I guess they assumed that was why Engrish is incoherent. It doesn't seem to fit at all. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is often unclear what the definition of the slang term Engrish is. I've read on the web self-professed cultural experts use the terms English Japanese, Japanese English, Engrish, Japanglish, or Japlish to mean either:

• Code-switching between Japanese and English. (e.g. "Today was ii tenki datta")
• English words being imported into the Japanese language as loanwords, including Wasei eigo ("Meeru")
• Japanese words being imported into the English language as loanwords ("Tycoon")
• Unnatural or incorrect usage of English in Japan ("Sumail Cafe")
• Unnatural or incorrect usage of Japanese in English-speaking countries ("Sushi and saki")
• portmanteau or phrase made from English and Japanese words ("saki bomb")

What one person calls "English Japanese" is the same as what another person calls "Japanese English," but can have a different meaning from what yet another person calls "English Japanese" - so IMHO they're all problematic terminologies. Furthermore the term Engrish can be associated with any other language (such as Thai) that also has problems pronouncing L. --69.214.224.74 21:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it derogatory?

Pursuant to the current VfD discussion... as a matter of NPOV fact...

...is the use of the term "Engrish" in fact a slur or offensive? I was thinking that perhaps this article needs to be NPOVed to reflect this, but was rather surprised by the small number of Google hits for Engrish slur offensive (29) and Engrish slur derogatory (9). Even Engrish derogatory gets only 352 and most of them are not directly relevant. If the "Engrish" is regarded as derogatory or insensitive or insulting, the article should say this—but in fact a very quick look didn't turn up any obvious evidence of this. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Just because there aren't many pages that discuss the offensive aspect of it does not reduce the 104,000 google hits where it is used offensively instead of being identified as such. - Tεxτurε 15:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, have you got any language to suggest for a sufficiently objective, referenced, NPOV way to say this in the main article? Other than a vague throwaway opinion like "Many feel/it is widely believed/etc that whenever native English speakers ridicule the mistakes made by well-intentioned non-native speakers it is insensitive/derogatory/offensive/a cheap shot/xenophobic etc." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given the currency and popularity of the term (and length of and amount of work in the article), and given that there is no shortage of Asians on the Internet, and given that there is no movement against the use of this term by the allegedly wronged party that even the proponents of deletion (including one who has lived in Japan for 15 years!) can show evidence of, I don't consider any argument on the offensiveness of this term valid unless it comes from a native Japanese person and speaker.

Also note that the canonical example of Engrish is, in fact, the literal word "Engrish", appearing in non-casual works. It is not mockery, but verbatim reuse. Even still, it is that term -- and not the phenomenon that it is used to describe -- that the proponents of deletion really have any argument.

Even the submitter admitted that he did not totally disagree with what is said in the article. However, instead of cleanup, he submitted for deletion -- even though by his own admission he believes the article is partially valid! In itself, that practice IMO approaches abuse of VFD. - KeithTyler 17:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article I think the person who listed it for VfD misunderstood deletion policy and process. But now that the question is been raised, I think it needs discussion.

The question I'm dealing with is sort of factual. I think we can say (for example) that the word "nigger" is derogatory; AHD4 says "Offensive Slang 1a. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person." Any article about this word should say so. We can say that "piccaninny" is, at least, insensitive. The question is: is there anything similar that can or should be said about "Engrish?" Tεxτurε seems to think that the Google hits show it as being used offensively. My own current opinion is that the usage of Engrish seems to me to reflect no more than the innocent enjoyment of exoticism, not very different from saying that Maurice Chevalier had a "charming French accent." Finding humor in foreigners' mangling of English is hardly new (remember "English as she is spoke"?). It is xenophobic, but such a mild level of xenophobia as to be almost harmless. I don't even see evidence of any widespread dispute about whether the word "Engrish" is insensitive or disrespectful. But I could easily be missing something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh heavens yes, regarding one culture finding another culture's accent/dialect/grammar of their language amusing. Poirot, Clouseau, any character played by Gedde Watanabe in the 80s, Charlie Chan, any character played by Masao Maki, even Canadians in the South Park movie. Not to mention nearly every surfer movie, or movie taking place in the San Fernando Valley, or the "jive" scene from Airplane. This is not new, nor is it at all widely considered offensive to be amused at. - KeithTyler 19:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Some years ago, it became voguish for people in the United States to adopt various Sinograms as T-shirt designs and tattoos. I suspect that there were at least some of these that were incoherent, or worse, made by people who knew the languages to have fun at the expense of those who bought them to look cool. I suspect that many instances of amusing Engrish are made with similar nonchalance as to their meaning. I would probably be amused myself by a collection of such misfiring texts, were I able to read them. Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this page slightly ridiculing the inability of non-English speakers? The sentence like:

The more ridiculous and humorous is the mangling, the more likely people are to classify it as Engrish.

-- Taku

Um, yes, Engrish is, by definition, a humorous attempt to speak English by a non-English speaker... mayhaps you're missing the point here.. --kwertii

I work for a manufacturer with a Japanese parent company. Until someone noticed, we had one of their products in our showroom, an enclosed cat litter box, with a label reading "this is the best toilet for your pussy." Perfect Engrish. --JJ

The phenomenon of Engrish is, by definition, the ridicule of errors made by non-native English speakers (or apparent errors created by the misinterpretation by English speakers of text as English which is really the co-opting of English word bases into other languages; there's plenty of faux French in English which is perfectly good English usage but would be ridiculed by native French speakers). We should try to keep our description of it neutral, however. --Brion

There's a selection of "Inverse Engrish" on [www.engrish.com], showing people unknowingly abusing Kanji. I would hardly say the term was derogatory, per se. Mildly sarcastic, perhaps - insulting, no. Examples of Engrish are just as funny as me trying (and failing miserably) to speak Mandarin :-) Chris 23:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who's offended?

The question is not 'Is it derogatory?', but, 'Is anyone offended?'

First of all, if anyone is offended by the TERM Engrish the article should say so, and it should say why.

Secondly, if people don't want an article on the fracturing of English by foreigners then: too bad! Everyone who learns English makes mistakes, just like we English speakers make mistakes when we learn foreign languages.

If someone can think of a better title for the article, then move it -- if that's the problem. I haven't heard too many people use the word Engrish but maybe I don't listen well. The Japanese and Korean people I've known over the last 25 to 30 years always refer to Jinglish and Konglish, meaning "English as spoken by Japanese or Koreans who are new to the language".

It's really rare to hear about anybody being offended by the idea that someone might mispronounce a word or get some grammar wrong. (Okay, I once read about an English teach in Japan whose student suddenly quit when he found out his teacher was letting him get away with minor mistakes. He was mortified at the thought that his "Communication English" would be noticed by other Japanese!)

Let's not go overboard on the political correctness thing, here, okay? --Uncle Ed 17:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the word "Engrish" is in wide use and that the article is reasonably accurate in describing it. If is is derogatory, the article should say so and give evidence; otherwise, it should not. If anyone is offended either by the term "Engrish" or by the phenomenon of English-speaking people seeing humor in poorly translated Japanese, the article should say so and give evidence; otherwise, it should not. I actually did eyeball the first hundred or so Google hits on Engrish, and they did not seem to me to show any xenophobia or hostility; it was mostly "hey, look at this website with examples of Engrish, it's a stitch" and "Heard this funny example?" Now, of course, this sort of affectionate patronization may be a problem ("Will you just look at those little piccaninnies? Aren't they just the cutest thing?") but, oddly enough, I didn't see any obvious examples of hostility cloaked as just-kidding patronizing, and I didn't see any discussion suggesting that sensitive and politically correct people should avoid the term. Not in the first hundred or so I glanced at, anyway.

Right now, personally, I'm not yet convinced that there's any problem. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To answer the point put by the heading, anyone that is personally offended (i.e. you are offended, vs. you think someone else might be) should step forward now and explain why they are offended. Chris 00:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm personally offended--this is a term created by white people to make fun of asian people for the way they talk. I think translation errors can be amusing and I'm not ignoring that foreigners can have trouble learning english, but what I'm offended about is the ways in which this term is used to make Asians the Other, the ways it is used to associate stereotypes and generalizations with Asians and Asian Americans, and in general the ways it is used to disenfranchise us. User:Jordan314

Well, you may be about to be offended again. It's not my intention to do so, but I think you are overreacting and missing the point. I don't think that the term was created to ridicule or "other" Asian people generally or Japanese people in particular; rather, it was invented as an apt description of an actual phenomenon. Japlish is funny, just as it's funny when non-Japanese people mangle the Japanese language, or when non-native speakers of any language do the same thing. But as has been pointed out above, Japlish goes way beyond the mistakes of Japanese people struggling to learn to speak English. Exploding Boy 21:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not offended by you Exploding Boy, but I disagree with you. It is an actual phenomenon but it is not an "apt description." No put down is an apt description. An apt description would be respectful, and there is nothing respectful about the word Engrish. While I don't think this article should be deleted, I would like to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" the way other articles such as Palestinian_terrorism is. User:Jordan314

The "neutrality is disputed" tag is supposed to be a temporary measure for articles where the editors cannot yet find common ground. It is not supposed to be a permanent fixture.

I think there would be a lot less controversy here if this article stuck to the actual phenomenon of Engrish instead of branching off into irrelevant tangents such as gairaigo. A full rewrite may be necessary at this point. — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think you are overreacting. Comparing the term "Engrish" with terrorism is a gross overreaction, to be frank. I'm not convinced that the term is in any way intended as a put down (unlike, for example, such awful expressions as "jungle bunny," "wetback," "jap's eye," and so on). However, I do agree that the article needs a rewrite. Exploding Boy 18:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I never compared Engrish with terrorism, I said that the article should have "the neutrality of this article is disputed" tag. And I think that this article should have it, because the editors cannot yet find common ground on this article. Also, Exploding Boy, isn't a "jap's eye" also an apt description for an actual phenomenon? Can't you make all of the same arguments? Japs' eyes are slanty, what's the big deal? User:Jordan314

What really is Engrish?

The term Engrish does not (canonically) refer to "people who are new to the language" -- i.e. people who are learning. It refers to bad translations done in a professional setting -- publications, advertising, instruction manuals, video games -- i.e. people who ought to know better. Another source of Engrish phenomena is an apparent desire among Japanese businesses to include or use English words in their advertisements/signage in order to look Western, but without any regard for actually being correct -- i.e. people who don't care. If you care to research the topic, you will find this to be the rule. A good place to start your objective research on the term might be Engrish.com (http://www.engrish.com). - KeithTyler 22:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a good point. It's one, however, which the current article doesn't seem to me to be clear on. Should it lead off with some kind of definition? e.g.

engrish.com (http://www.engrish.com/faq.php#Q1) defines Engrish specifically as "the humorous English mistakes that appear in Japanese advertising and product design." It adds "many companies do check their English before placing them on products, within advertising, etc. (these companies get it right). There are just many companies/individuals that either do not care to do so (again, in such cases English is used as facet of design more than a way to communicate), or do not have the resources to check their English." Note that it specifically refers to bad translations done in a professional setting.

I thnk I would say a commecial setting rather than a professional one. Rich Farmbrough 00:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

The article claims that 600 English words are used in Japanese -- this is way too few. The number is more like 15,000 -- it depends a little bit on your definition of "used" and whether you count technical/field-specific vocabulary, jargon, and slang. But "gairaigo" dictionaries (dictionaries of all loan words, not just English ones) generally contain between 10,000 and 20,000 words.

Shouldn't the list of languages under the See Also section and Engrish itself be under a category rather than having so many cross-references to each other or Engrish when it's a different language? I propose the topic for this grouping be "Mixed languages resulting from incorrect translation"

Cheese

Japanese photographers say chiizu with a Z. Chitsu, admittedly with a short i, is unlikely to be employed as it means vagina in Japanese (膣). Jpatokal 15:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies on that. I speak German and English, so I tend to mix up my z's and ts's (a German z is pronounced as English ts). Will have to try that one out at some point, though. --T. R. Stratton 08:50, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Best Ever

"You are invited to take advantage of the chambermaid" is the best I ever heard :-) Wouter Lievens 19:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)