# There's no word for it in English........ **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 21, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317 "2004-10-21T00:32:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/21 "2004-10-21T02:14:20Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > You’re proving the point made earlier. ‘Chez’ has been adopted in English, fulfiling the ambiguous roles you idetify. I don’t recall ever hearing it used in an english sentence, other than as a proper name (e.g. _Chez Helen_ that I referred to earlier was a TV program that taught kids french way back when I was a rugrat). Can you give an example of _chez_ used in an english sentence? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/22 "2004-10-21T02:51:47Z")
What’s the word for, “There’s no word for it”? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/23 "2004-10-21T03:00:12Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > No. Roughly speaking, _savoir_ means to know a fact; _connaître_ means to know a person, or be familiar with a thing. _Je sais que Montréal se situe au Québec_ (I know that Montreal is in Quebec); _je connais Montréal_ (I know Montreal). (Understand is _comprendre_.) > > And if you think that’s tricky, try _ser_ and _estar_ in Spanish. Caused me no end of grief. > > And that’s without even going into the prepositions. Similarly, Deutsch[German] uses wissen and/or kennen. wissen is for abstract items, concepts, ideas [= to have an understanding of, to have knowledge of] kennen is for concrete things, persons, places [= to be familiar with, to be aquainted with] ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/24 "2004-10-21T03:12:41Z")
> [@Mathochist](#): > > “Proper” English has no transitive verb to describe sexual act AFAIK. There’s “fuck”, and also “swive”, although “swive” is archaic. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/25 "2004-10-21T03:41:43Z")
Coit? ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/26 "2004-10-21T03:45:32Z")
> [@Mathochist](#): > > “Proper” English has no transitive verb to describe sexual act AFAIK. Copulate? ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/27 "2004-10-21T04:05:26Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Copulate? I’ve never heard the verb “to copulate” used transitively (i.e. with a direct object). It’s always been followed by the preposition “with” e.g. _X copulated with Y_. ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/28 "2004-10-21T04:12:45Z")
Originally Posted by **Mathochist** > [@](#): > > - > > “Proper” English has no transitive verb to describe sexual act AFAIK.\* Mating? btw: “Apartheid” certainly isn’t an English word. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/29 "2004-10-21T04:17:28Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > I’ve never heard the verb “to copulate” used transitively (i.e. with a direct object). It’s always been followed by the preposition “with” e.g. _X copulated with Y_. Good point. I think the issue here is that English does have a perfectly good transitive word for this: fuck. It is only “improper” in the sense that it has been considered impolite to use in formal situations. I’d argue this just has to do with a general prudish attitude toward sex in English speaking cultures. ANY word with the same meaning as “fuck” would acquire the same impolite attitude. And at least in the US, other than in broadcasting or formal use, I see little hesitation by people to use the word “fuck” when they mean “fuck”. ---
**Author:** ![quothz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/da6949/32.png) [@quothz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quothz)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/30 "2004-10-21T04:38:55Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > [snip] and your heart feels like it’s going to burst with the indescribable love of all creation?" > > “Um, yeah, I guess,” I said. > > He smiled. “We have a word for that.” > > 🆒 Well, so does English. I call it “joy”. If you mean a word for that -specific- case, I call bullshit - I’m pretty sure he was just trying to convince you of the superiority of his ethnic group over your own. -My- English to Cherokee dictionary includes no such word that I can find. Aside from that, I’ve always wanted to see, in English, a word denoting a positive answer to a negative interrogative, similar to the French “si”. And, since I’m wishing, an equivalent to the Japanese (?) “mu”. ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/31 "2004-10-21T04:45:04Z")
A quantum mechanics book I used back in the day gave the example of the German word _gemütlich_ as a word that can’t be translated into English. Of course, I don’t speak German, so I don’t know how accurate this is. Why this was in a quantum mechanics book is another story. Suffice it to say that it’s a very unorthodox book. (_Primer of Quantum Mechanics_ by Marvin Chester, if anyone cares.) ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/32 "2004-10-21T04:51:30Z")
In some languages there are two forms for first person plurals (us and we), one including the person(s) being spoken to and one excluding them. I think it’s a pity that my dialect doesn’t let me use you-all. Not to mention a gender neutral third person pronoun. And I’m not sure what I’m missing because English has no familiar form pronouns (thee and thou are archaic). ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/33 "2004-10-21T04:57:54Z")
Well, as long as we’re on pronouns, how about a formal and informal pronoun for “you,” as with many European languages? Or gendered versions of “I”, as in Japanese? ---
**Author:** ![Yamirskoonir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/c0e974/32.png) [@Yamirskoonir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yamirskoonir)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/34 "2004-10-21T04:59:13Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Good point. I think the issue here is that English does have a perfectly good transitive word for this: fuck. It is only “improper” in the sense that it has been considered impolite to use in formal situations. I’d argue this just has to do with a general prudish attitude toward sex in English speaking cultures. ANY word with the same meaning as “fuck” would acquire the same impolite attitude. And at least in the US, other than in broadcasting or formal use, I see little hesitation by people to use the word “fuck” when they mean “fuck”. How 'bout “to bed” someone? Or is it more of a euphemism? Still kind of archaic but definitely more “proper” than fuck…“He beds his mistress with much rigor!” ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/35 "2004-10-21T04:59:28Z")
There are also some Amerindian languages that have certain verb endings denoting how much credence the speaker puts in the verb, denoting “it is rumoured,” “I believe,” “I know for a fact,” etc. If you say a falsehood using the “I believe” particle, you will be considered mistaken; if you use the “I know” particle, you will be considered to have lied. I believe these particles are obligatory on verbs. ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/36 "2004-10-21T05:08:43Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > I’ve never heard the verb “to copulate” used transitively (i.e. with a direct object). It’s always been followed by the preposition “with” e.g. _X copulated with Y_. while I wouldn’t choose “to copulate with” as a good example of this phenomenon, it should be remembered that English is a Germanic language and therefore has a strong heritage of verb/preposition combinations that together form completely different verbs. These are descended from the “separable prefixes” of Old German, but some associated prepositions are always separate even in German today (and for many centuries in the past), so I make a distinction between separable and associated prepositions. Examples might help: Both English and German have "inseparable prefixes’ [e.g. “to overcome” means something very different from any of the many senses of “to come over”] A separable prefix is a verb like “vorstellen” [to imagine] where the prefix is separated from the root in many common uses (but remains attached in others) The verb “stellen” mean (primarily) “to place (a thing)” and “vor” means “before, in front of” but _“Ich stelle gefährliche Tieren vor”_ means “I imagine dangerous animals” not “I place dangerous animals in front of (something)”. Similarly, “aufhören” (to stop) has a meaning distinct from its root “hören” (to hear). English doesn’t really have separable prefixes, though there are a handful of oddities that come close (none of which occur to me at the moment) Both English and German have “associated prepositions” that can completely change the meaning of the verb, but since English doesn’t have separable prefixes, it has more of the more loosely “associated” preposition/verb combos (e.g. “to cop out”) and sometimes even associares an additional preposition once a verb/prep pair becomes completely familiar and transparent to native speakers (e.g. “to put up with” is distinct from “to put up”) Since the example raised was “to copulate (with)”, it might clarify things to note that “to sleep” (schlafen) and “to sleep with” (schlafen mit) are actually different verbs. The prepositon changes the meaning completely. We could quibble over whether “English has a word for X”, partly because English tends to create discrete and distinctive 2-3 word phrases where other languages use only one. You might even argue that some “English words” are actually 2-3 words long, due to (among other things) the separable prefixes we no longer use – certainly our dictionaries treat many verbs that way! We do the same with nouns, now that conjoined compound words seem to be falling out of favor (there was a time when we might have made “rock star” or “child molester” into compound words) Other modern languages seem to be following the same trend We can’t say that English doesn’t have a transitive verb for copulation. It does, but most candidates are two-word verbs. English does that a lot. We don’t have ANY one-word infinitives (as German and the Romance langiuages do), but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have infinitives. (This of course, led to the foolish 19th/20th century grade school dictum against splitting infinitives. You can’t possibly split an infinitive in languages like French, German, Spanish, Italian, Latin, etc., where infinitives are single words. So some grammarian decided that you shouldn’t do it in English, where infinitives are two words. ) ---
**Author:** ![bitwise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea5d25/32.png) [@bitwise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bitwise)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/37 "2004-10-21T05:18:28Z")
I remember reading somewhere that some language had a word that meant “staring into the other’s eyes waiting for the other to initiate what we both want but are afraid to start”. I forgot what it was; it was rather long and it began with an M (when anglicised). I think it was the language of some native people in the Tierra del Fuego. I’m trying to search for it now, but I can’t seem to find it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/38 "2004-10-21T05:20:07Z")
> [@Mathochist](#): > > There are any number of examples of words “missing” from English. Some are concepts from other cultures which English merely uses a loanword for: _schadenfreude_, for example. Others are examples of distinctions other languages make which English doesn’t: say, the difference between French _savoir_ and _connaître_. Finally, there are even uses which are just missing; “Proper” English has no transitive verb to describe sexual act AFAIK. _Schadenfreude_ is the one word that immediately came to mind, and although it might be found in a English dictionary as a loan word, you’d be hard pressed to find 1 out of 10 random English speakers who would know what it meant. For that reason, I’d hestitate to say it’s truely be absorbed into English. But the “to know” examples given in French (true in Spanish as well) is not an example. That’s two redundant words being collapsed into one. It’s possible to do translations both ways w/o adding any “extra” words. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/39 "2004-10-21T05:22:27Z")
> [@Yamirskoonir](#): > > How 'bout “to bed” someone? Or is it more of a euphemism? Still kind of archaic but definitely more “proper” than fuck…“He beds his mistress with much rigor!” It is a euphemism, but you are correct that the verb “to bed” is indeed equivalent with “to fuck”. Also English uses “to lay” as a verb meaning the same, as in “I hear Joe has been laying Sally.” Any English speaker would know that means that Joe has been fucking Sally. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317/40 "2004-10-21T05:48:36Z")
**WhyNot** , I can believe that the Cherokee have a word for that feeling that does not translate well into English. (And I assume that it is the feeling and not the specific experience.) The English word _joy_ would fall a little flat for me. The Danes have a word which _might_ be similar to that which the Cherokee was describing. The word is _hyggelig_. I was told that it doesn’t translate well. But I would certainly welcome an attempt from someone who is familiar with it. > [@](#): > > **bitwise** : I remember reading somewhere that some language had a word that meant “staring into the other’s eyes waiting for the other to initiate what we both want but are afraid to start”. I forgot what it was; it was rather long and it began with an M (when anglicised). I think it was the language of some native people in the Tierra del Fuego. If someone ever makes a perfume that captures the tension of “that thing” that goes on during that brief time, I must no longer be held accountable for my actions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-word-for-it-in-english/270317.md?page=3)