Talk:royal family

RFD discussion: April–August 2018
SOP, the translations look straightforward (except perhaps the Hindi and the Chinese). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand why is SOP but  isn't. They both literally mean "royal room", don't they? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, brain fart. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean "Sorry, that was a brain fart." I'm not calling you a "brain fart". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And perhaps the Scandinavian translations too: 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. Though in that case I'm not convinced (🇨🇬 ≈ (sense 8)). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Royal house" is used in English as well, totally synonymous with "royal family". That may support what PUC was saying. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it? I would say the royal house of the UK is the, which is by no means synonymous with the royal family. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I suppose not. All of the instances I was thinking of were, but they were limited. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. konge- (etc.) compounds are derived from king, and can mean royal, not what the inexperienced user would expect. DonnanZ (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you call the royal families of Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein kongehus/kungahus even though they don't have kings? (For that matter, can you call them royal families in English?) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be fyrstehus in those cases, . DonnanZ (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as translation target. Wyang (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , why did you do ? I think my concern about dumping qualifying and non-qualifying translations in the same place is a legitimate one, and I would like more people to see . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a Eurocentric split. Wyang (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If some European language had a "non word-for-word translation" (for lack of a better wording), then I'd put it in the first box; the fact that there's none in this specific instance is completely accidental. The point is definitely not to say "look at how Asia/Africa/Oceania/America does it, and how Europe does it". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is a word-for-word translation anyway? It makes no difference- a translation is a translation. The fact is that multiple languages have words that are perfectly valid and includable to refer to "royal family", thus it is a translation target. Sure, in European languages you can have words characteristically thought of as equivalents of English words (e.g. family ~ famille), but most languages don't. Are 皇家, 皇室, 王室, etc. word-for-word translations of 'royal family'? I don't know, because there are no word-to-word correspondences between English and Chinese. The JKV words are borrowed from Chinese, so are they "word-for-word translations"? Wyang (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I only speak French and English fluently, I lack the knowledge and cognitive baggage to answer your questions properly.
 * You might want to weigh in on the Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs vote (I've voted against the proposal) though. It states that "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: 1) a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term 2) a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". If the distinction is worthless to you, your definition of a translation target is different than most other people's. --Per utramque cavernam 19:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting. I've opposed in part for the opposite reason than you: the criteria aren't stringent enough to my taste :p. If I understood correctly, you're thinking more along the lines of ? --Per utramque cavernam 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, largely. Well, this is what happens when discussions don't happen and votes are used instead to make decisions. Mob ignorance. Wyang (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep using the lemming heuristic (WT:LEMMING): in Collins and Macmillan. As for translation hub (Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs), I have doubts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Kept --New WT User Girl (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)