# secondo conflitto mondiale



## Citrinette

Ok, so I know that "secondo conflitto mondiale" refers to the Second world war. But is this just a synonym or should I translate it literally?  

I don't think we use The "second world conflict" in English. Are there alternatives or should I just use "Second World War"?


----------



## Yuri Orlov

They have exactly the same meaning.
Maybe *Conflitto *is slightly more formal than *Guerra *but then it depends very much on the context in which you use that expression so I'd say there no difference as far as im concerned


----------



## You little ripper!

Second world conflict is used, but is obviously not as common as Second World War.


----------



## Citrinette

Thanks, I'm not sure but it sounds a bit belittling to me. I think I may leave it with "Second World War".


----------



## Alxmrphi

Citrinette said:


> Ok, so I know that "secondo conflitto mondiale" refers to the Second world war. But is this just a synonym or should I translate it literally?
> 
> I don't think we use The "second world conflict" in English. Are there alternatives or should I just use "Second World War"?



Although they probably are equal and synonymous in Italian, that's not the case in English, so translating 'conflitto' with 'conflict' in this context wouldn't be correct in my opinion.
There are a few cases where we can see similar words in Italian that can be used absolutely interchangeably, but the obvious words in English aren't used in the same way in our language, yet some people insist on translating them on the basis that they are closer to the original words, but a translator should* never ever* translate words, but rather* meanings *with a focus on how that languages uses them.

This is exactly one of those cases


----------



## Citrinette

Agreed Alex. I think I'll do that.


----------



## 0scar

*conflict* 
n. A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.
(deictionary.com)

Io direi _"second world belic conflict" _


----------



## You little ripper!

Alxmrphi said:


> Although they probably are equal and synonymous in Italian, that's not the case in English, so translating 'conflitto' with 'conflict' in this context wouldn't be correct in my opinion.
> There are a few cases where we can see similar words in Italian that can be used absolutely interchangeably, but the obvious words in English aren't used in the same way in our language, yet some people insist on translating them on the basis that they are closer to the original words, but a translator should* never ever* translate words, but rather* meanings *with a focus on how that languages uses them.
> 
> This is exactly one of those cases


Alex, the listings given in the link in my previous post are not translations, so I don't understand your point. 'The second world conflict' is used in the same way that 'The Second World War' is in most of those instances, so it would  be a perfectly acceptable choice. The only difference I see is the capitaliztion of the first letter of each of the words in the latter  due to the fact that it has now become a set phrase.



Citrinette said:


> Thanks, I'm not sure but it sounds a bit belittling to me. I think I may leave it with "Second World War".


Citrinette, do you have any context? There may be a reason why "secondo conflitto mondiale" is used instead of "Seconda Guerra Mondiale".


----------



## Antipodes

Hello everybody; I love a good discussion.
First of all, "belic" is not English, Oscar, and I have to agree with  Alex, both about the philosophy of translating and the usage of the English word "conflict" to translate _secondo conflitto mondiale.
_Charles, "conflict" may well be a synonym of "war", but perhaps because the Second World War has so burned itself into the collective memory, it is in my experience always referred to as such in English, although we often see printed the abbreviation WWII, which we read as World War II.
I'm new to this forum, but this is the first time I am not in agreement with you, having read many of your very perceptive postings.  However, as a native speaker and retired teacher of languages, my ear is very much attuned to what "sounds right", and to my ear, while "second world conflict" is not incorrect, it sounds wrong; in fact it sounds like a gauche translation.  That being said, we native speakers are all entitled to our own opinions, and English is a very forgiving language, always happy to absorb new expressions!


----------



## 0scar

Antipodes said:


> First of all, "belic" is not English, Oscar


 
La mia vergogna e la mia colpa ora sono davanti a tutti. Mi ammazzo!


----------



## Antipodes

Non ti ammazzare!!!!
La vita è troppo bella.
"belligerence" is a nice word that comes from the same Latin root. And so bellicose.
Salve, Marie


----------



## You little ripper!

Antipodes said:


> I have to agree with  Alex, both about the philosophy of translating and the usage of the English word "conflict" to translate _secondo conflitto mondiale.
> _


Marie, I agree that one shouldn't translate words but meanings, but as I said earlier the expression 'second world conflict' found in the Google listings I provided  are not translations from Italian. The originating language is English (at least with the first few pages that I did check). 



> Charles, "conflict" may well be a synonym of "war", but perhaps because the Second World War has so burned itself into the collective memory, it is in my experience always referred to as such in English, although we often see printed the abbreviation WWII, which we read as World War II.
> I'm new to this forum, but this is the first time I am not in agreement with you, having read many of your very perceptive postings. However, as a native speaker and retired teacher of languages, my ear is very much attuned to what "sounds right", and to my ear, while "second world conflict" is not incorrect, it sounds wrong; in fact it sounds like a gauche translation. That being said, we native speakers are all entitled to our own opinions, and English is a very forgiving language, always happy to absorb new expressions!


To discard an expression that is grammatically correct simply because we're not used to hearing it makes no sense to me!   Does its use in these examples from Google, where it's not used as a stand-alone expression, also sound wrong to you?

_He also claims that in the inter-war period the nation was divided on everything except the need to avoid a second world conflict _- sadly ironic given the *...*.....

_*...* managed to survive the second world conflict with relatively little damage_

_He became Prime Minister in 1937 and having lived through the First World War, he was determined to avoid a second world conflict._

_What was the full impact on newspapers of this second world conflict?_ _This case study sets out to explore the changes wrought in the_...........

As I said earlier, we don't have any context. If Citrinette's 'secondo conflitto mondiale' is a stand-alone expression, then maybe it would be best to translate it as 'Second World War'. If it is used in a similar way to the above sentences from Google, then I see no reason why it can't be translated as 'second world conflict'.


----------



## 0scar

I now understand that bellic is rare for native English speakers but the word does exist.

*Bellic*
Bel"lic\, Bellical \Bel"li*cal\, a. [L. bellicus. See Bellicose.] Of or pertaining to war; warlike; martial. [Obs.] "Bellic C[ae]sar." --Feltham
dictionary.com


----------



## Citrinette

Haha, I've started a Third World Conflict here. I've always got context guys, so here it is:

E' la cooperativa mosaicisti di Ravenna, figlia del Gruppo Mosaicisti, che pose la prima pietra, o forse è il caso di dire, la prima tessera della sua fondazione nel lontano 1948, proprio al termine del secondo conflitto mondiale. Erano tempi difficili per il patrimonio artistico che usciva provato dalle distruzioni della guerra.

My translation (yet to be revised):

It was the mosaic cooperative of Ravenna, legacy of the Group of Mosaicists which set the first stone, or perhaps we should say, the first tessera of the foundation in the distant year of 1948, right at the end of the Second World War.  It was a difficult period for the artistic patrimony in Ravenna, coming out of the destruction of the war quite tried.

While we're at it, can anyone give me a better term for "tried".


Oh... and Bellic is definitely an english word


----------



## Alxmrphi

> To discard an expression that is grammatically correct simply because we're not used to hearing it makes no sense to me! Does its use in these examples from Google, where it's not used as a stand-alone expression, also sound wrong to you?


Its usage in those pages seems more like a deliberate choice within larger articles that already contain a lot of "WWII" / "World war II" references, and as many good writers know, it's good to diversify and use different words, a larger vocabulary to describe the same thing to avoid repeating yourself.

Even given that, I find it sounds quite bad and we would just avoid it in English.
Google isn't the answer for everything, and I know you like to include a google listing in most of your posts (and at times it's quite helpful to gauge world-usage), even if it does show there are a few people that use different terms or expressions I can't say it's always the best basis to form an opinion on good language use.

I don't think I can put it better than Antipodes did



> my ear is very much attuned to what "sounds right", and to my ear, while "second world conflict" is not incorrect, it sounds wrong; in fact it sounds like a gauche translation. That being said, we native speakers are all entitled to our own opinions


----------



## Citrinette

I have to say that in this context it is only used the once, with the exception of the word "war" further along in the second sentence. In the English I don't feel the need to diversify here. And I don't find that the term is pivotal for the comprehension of the sentence. I think it's a matter of preference so I think I'll stick to "Second World War".

In my opinion there are other situations in which something may sound strange when translated into English but where the term is exact and can't be changed due to a specific nuance or underlying meaning of the word. This is not the case here.

I think what Charles was pointing out was that, depending on the context, this unusual term might possibly be used. The context he gave in post #12 clearly shows a specific reason for using it. And without my giving context it's hard to know why the Italian original used the term. Therefore I can understand why he did not dismiss its use for certain situations. 

Thanks to everyone!!! You have all been of great help and of course learning!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think given the right context it can work, I personally think if the context fits, using 'conflict' sort of highlights the action of conflict and fighting / disagreement while "World War" seems to stand out as a historical event that people refer to, so if the aim is to stress what was going on and to highlight the actions that that period brought on, then I would be inclined to agree.

But this specific nuance isn't mentioned, and as far as I am aware "secondo conflitto mondiare" and "seconda guerra mondiale" in Italian are much more similar than the two translated terms, that's why we have a multitude of considerations to take into account and that's why (IMHO) we shouldn't use 'Conflict'.

But if we read into and create a context, then I agree that's fine, but if it hasn't been mentioned and we have a close relation between the Italian terms, then we need to stress that they're not interchangeable and without further context, we should suggest 'World War' as that's what is etched into our ears / eyes over the years.


----------



## Antipodes

Ciao Citrinette,
Could I suggest "laid" instead of "set"?  A mason or a brick*layer* lays stones or bricks.
For the last sentence I would suggest ....in Ravenna, emerging severely tried from the destruction of the war.


----------



## Citrinette

They are both excellent suggestions Antipodes. Just one curiosity of mine. Isn't there an English saying to the effect of "to set the first stone" like the cornerstone of a building, or am I remembering wrong?

Thanks!


----------



## You little ripper!

Citrinette said:


> They are both excellent suggestions Antipodes. Just one curiosity of mine. Isn't there an English saying to the effect of "to set the first stone" like the cornerstone of a building, or am I remembering wrong?
> 
> Thanks!


"set the first stone"


----------



## Citrinette

Thanks Charles, They're both generally used, but I'm wondering which one is the idiomatic one.

Lay the first stone

Set the first stone


----------



## Antipodes

Hello Charles.
You are a persistent little possum, aren't you?
I am not arguing that we should _discard an expression that is grammatically correct simply because we're not used to hearing.
_I certainly do hold, on the other hand, that many grammatically correct expressions are not the best way to express an idea and in fact can be absurd in certain contexts.  I can accept the examples marked below because they are not naming  WWII  as the specific historic event.  Once we introduce the definite article,  I would hold out for _the Second World War_. In the remaining example, if it were "this" not "the" it would be acceptable to me.
As Citronette says, it's all about context; "the devil's in the detail".
As far as accepting Google as an arbiter in questions of English usage, I would proceed with extreme caution.
_He also claims that in the inter-war period the nation was divided on everything except the need to avoid a second world conflict _....

_*...* managed to survive the second world conflict with relatively little damage_

_He became Prime Minister in 1937 and having lived through the First World War, he was determined to avoid a second world conflict.

__What was the full impact on newspapers of this second world conflict?_ 

Well, this little Tasmanian Devil is signing off on this one to prepare dinner!
Best wishes to all of you wherever you may be.
Marie


----------



## You little ripper!

Antipodes said:


> I am not arguing that we should _discard an expression that is grammatically correct simply because we're not used to hearing.
> _I certainly do hold, on the other hand, that many grammatically correct expressions are not the best way to express an idea and in fact can be absurd in certain contexts.  I can accept the examples marked below because they are not naming  WWII  as the specific historic event.  Once we introduce the definite article,  I would hold out for _the Second World War_. In the remaining example, if it were "this" not "the" it would be acceptable to me.
> As Citronette says, it's all about context; "the devil's in the detail".


Of course it's about context; that's why I asked for it way back in Post 8. To say that the expression "sounds wrong" before getting that context made no sense to me. We  now finally appear to be on the same page!


----------



## You little ripper!

Citrinette said:


> Thanks Charles, They're both generally used, but I'm wondering which one is the idiomatic one.
> 
> Lay the first stone
> 
> Set the first stone


Citrinette, "to lay the first stone" is the only one I could find as an idiom, but not in this context.


----------



## Citrinette

Thanks! That's what I was looking for!


----------



## Antipodes

Hello Citrinette,
Once again we are back to context. Yes, setting the first stone refers to the traditional ceremony of having some civic dignitary lay the foundation stone of a new building.
"set" and  "lay are interchangeable here, but men at work are usually referred to as "laying" stones or bricks.
Marie


----------



## Juri

I like quick solutions and write ever WWII.
Hope not to be wrong too much?


----------



## Antipodes

Juri, I love it!!!!
We must seem like a bunch of pedants to you. Thanks for bursting the balloon.

May I tidy up your English expression a bit?
_ 		I like quick solutions and always write WWII._
_ Hope I'm not wrong? _
or more idiomatically: _Hope I'm not too far off the track._


----------



## You little ripper!

Citrinette said:


> Thanks! That's what I was looking for!


Of course it is! This thread has gone on for so long that I had already forgotten what the context was.


----------



## Citrinette

Haha, my fault, I should have started new threads for the other components I was curious about... but I'm just lazy!!


----------

