h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In German you differentiate between "machen" - to make and "tun" to do.

However, the usage is slightly different, and "tun" is far rarer.

"Do that!!" can translate as "Mach' das" or as "Tu' das", but more often the former.

Quite why there is no difference made in other languages (French: faire / Italian: fare / Spanish : hacer) I would like to know. Will ask hubby this evening.

..........


What I have been wondering recently is why do we say "to repair to" (well, I don't think I've actually ever said it, but I know what it means) ..... as in "to go to"

It obviously has no connection with to repair as in to mend something.

"Repair" in this sense means to go back to one's own country, from Latin re + patria = fatherland.

Rather a strong word then for "let us repair to the study". Hmmm

Definition in dcitionary had
"to betake oneself : GO "

"To betake"? I don't think I have ever betook (betooken?) myself anywhere!

You don't know what you've been missing!
I'm forever betaking myself. It's much better that way and they can't touch you for it.

Betake - corruption of "bet ache".
The feeling you get when the horse carrying your money slips from first place to fourth, just before arriving at the finishing post.

if you can't beat 'em, join 'em

be-tah-keh - small wooden dugout canoe used by certain pacific islanders for delivering the post.

Now you've got me at it
Pronounced Beat-a-Ken - the ambition of all but one of the candidates in the London Mayoral Election.

"Now you've got me at it"

Excuse me

We didn't start it!

But it is fun, isn't it. I have to report that I've got someone else to refer to 24 hours as a daysworth. I will expect to see it on the evening news by Christmas!

Apparently Hindi also has distinct words for 'to do' and 'to make' that translate pretty much directly to the english words and are used in exactly the same way.

Irish, on the other hand, is like French and does not distinguish between do and make.

In Bulgarian there is no distinction b/n to make and to do it's only one verb for both.

>> Hindi also has distinct words for 'to do' and 'to make' that translate pretty much directly to the english words and are used in exactly the same way. <<

I 'do' hope this is true , and ask generally if anyone else can confirm this. I note that Mycroft has recently poked his head above the parapets and imagine he might have a word or two to offer.

I want to be certain this is so, before jumping to several conclusions. For although I can 'make' no sense of the Hindi language, I am aware of their peace-loving humanist values and find some re-assurance that here might be evidence, in terms of clarity of expression, that great minds think alike.

That is to say, the reasoning (such as it is) that occurs in the human mind to distinguish these two concepts of human activity is (I believe) a mark of an advanced awareness, an enlightened self-consciousness. Ethno-centricity would have lead me to believe that perhaps the Hindi learned this distinction for 'making' and 'doing' from the British-speaking imperial overlords of the past couple of centuries - adapting their language to match the precision of the English. Or, considering the coincidence of the industrial revolution and the rise of manufacturing (ie:making) is it possibly the other way around; the British establishing the distinction to cover new processes.

In a longer view (about 2000 years) it is historically interesting that many of the most humanist ideals of western religion and philosophy owe their existence to Hindi and Budhist thinking. These notions were passed into the Hebraic middle eastern cultures during the Greek hedgemony resulting in the more generally humanist attitudes that led to Christianity and the more universally charitable sects of Judaism.

The essential principles of fair play, fair dues and fare-the-well, and 'do' unto others, as observed in the teachings of the Budhists have always seemed to have a kind of British 'common sense' quality - low keyed, matter of fact, relying on assumptions of good taste, intuitive and yet sceptical, pragmatic and yet flexible... altogether making do with what is.

I am keen to observe if the language and the thought process are similar because the underlying philosophy of life is the same, or perhaps the philosophy is the same because the inherent intellectual abilities and social attitudes, as reflected in the subtleties of the languages (and therefore the thought process), are similar.

It may be a chicken and egg thing. None-the-less I have always found speakers of those 'other' languages mentioned - the ones that don't distinguish between 'make' and 'do' - to be less than precise in their thinking and often too quick to judge, too quick to pass judgement, apparently lacking the faculty to see subtle distinctions and bereft of the decency and patience to seek a broader outlook to situations, the way Brits and Hindis famously 'do'.

[ I note with some satisfaction that Ms Ghandi has elected not to pursue power for her own sake and will continue to strive for the betterment of the Indian people, their government and manifold way(s) of life.]

I am also still curious about Wand'rin 's insights into the nature of the 'make/do' distinction. She suggested there was a skew in the types of activities associated with each of the words, and I'd like to hear more.


~jwf~

So are the people who primarily speak those languages where there is no disinction to make and to do unable to make do?

Apparently so. They'll either have to make make or do do.

RF

>> They'll either have to make make or do do. <<

As far as I can make out that's exactly what they do do.


~jwf~

Sadly not, jwf. It was a condition forced upon me temporarily for humorous purposes in another thread. I'm a Limey.

RF(formerly ACML)

John, your hope is not in vain: 'to do' is analogous to the Hindi 'karana', and 'to make' is equivalent to 'banana' (no, I'm not making it up, although my transliteration skills may not satisfy anyone who garnered the sum total of their knowledge of Hindi through a means other than a vodka-fuelled pub conversation with a Novocastrian third-generation emigré one dreary evening in an age when 'Frankie Says Relax' T-shirts could still be seen in public to the West of Budapest).

The reason why Hindi shares this trait with, for example, English, is nothing to do with colonialism, unless John Company started up about seven thousand years earlier and developed Proto-Indo-European on a whim.

The PIE root for the English 'make' meant to knead or to fashion, whereas the root for 'do' meant to set (as in stone) or put. All PIE-descended languages have a verb equivalent to 'do' which shares its root, but many do not have an equivalent to make, although they all have words derived from its root (e.g. the French masson which gave English mason).

I like the idea that this difference between languages has had some sort of cultural effect, as I note a sort of yin and yang quality about the two: the root and many cousins of do (e.g. doom, deed, -theque) imply order, whereas make's root and relations (e.g. mangle, mongrel, macerate) tend towards chaos. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything to substantiate it, which is a pity as it could dovetail nicely into my dragon theory.

Incidentally, Sonia Gandhi was Italian until her silver wedding anniversary, so your faith in her may be misplaced.

>> So are the people who primarily speak those languages where there is no disinction to make and to do unable to make do? <<

I need to thank Phil, a seasoned hootooist of the five digit persuasion, for his gentle rebuff of my obviously biased and possibly racist remarks about non-English speaking peoples. My enthusiasm and esprit de corpse got the better of me and I am guilty of a the worst kind of chauvinism. If they can make do with without knowing the difference between a knead for fashion and a good stoning, then more power to them.

Oh look, it's Mycroft. And he expressed in his contempt in a less subtle tone:

"Incidentally, Sonia Gandhi was Italian until her silver wedding anniversary, so your faith in her may be misplaced."

This I take it is supposed to remind me of my own convictions about genetic truths versus political realities. Well at least that's what it did until I remembered the old Indian rope trick is actually a British invention.

G'night Rudyard.
G'nite Kipling.


~jwf~