• 6 Posts
  • 396 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle






  • uranibaba@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldDamn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    Thanks for the research! I will send the museum an email and ask if they know anything.

    or genuinely a Swedish person who didn’t realize that impregnerade had a double meaning in English.

    Or perhaps someone who knew what they were doing (but more likely not). Perhaps a way to market them outside of Sweden, though that really depends on when this was.






  • uranibaba@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldDamn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    Someone came up with a reasonble explination: https://www.tumblr.com/adobe-outdesign/tagged/this post has everything... language... mistranslations... impregnated goblins

    This is a hilarious mistranslation actually. I suspect it originally said something along the lines of “Impregnerad mot vatten”, i.e. “Water proof”.

    Impregnering is the process of making a material resistant to water/heat. The swedish word for water (vatten) is similar to the word for goblin (vätten) so I guess there was a mixup.

    It’s also possible “goblin” was used as a translation of “tomte”, the creature depicted riding the wagon, with impregnated referring to the matches being made of impregnated wood. The implication of the two words combined in English might not have occurred to whoever designed it, since “impregnerad” isn’t really used in that meaning in Swedish.

    “Impregnerad mot vatten/vätten” would more likely have been translated as “impregnated against water/goblin”. The absence of “against” would make it very clunky in both English and Swedish, which kinda points against it.


  • Agreed. This law suite gives me the feeling that they know exactly what they are doing.

    It is probably easier and faster to take this route that was the auther suggested.

    If Louisiana wants platforms to implement stronger identity verification for child safety reasons, they should advocate for new legislation designed for that purpose (and see if they can make a law that actually survives Constitutional scrutiny), not twist existing privacy protections into their opposite.

    It also does not prevent them from acually advocate for new legislations.