# false = wrong?



## Outsider

I've noticed that in a few languages, like German and French, the word for "false" can also mean "wrong/incorrect". For example, you can say "Your sentence is false" when you mean that it has grammatical errors. In English and Portuguese this does not work. What about your language?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Lingvisten

This doesn't work in Danish:
falskt ≠ forkert


----------



## Joannes

Hard question to answer for Dutch, because we have two words for 'false' but neither of them is used in the same way as the English term. They are *vals* < Fr. *faux* and *fout*, derived from the noun *fout* 'fault, mistake' < Fr. *faute*. By the way, French *faute* and *faux* are also related. Additionally we also borrowed *foutief* from French, and there's Germanic *verkeerd* 'wrong'.

*Vals* denotes things that are unreal or insincere upto being simply wicked, mean. It could sometimes be translated with 'false': e.g. *vals alarm* 'false alarm'. I can only think of one instance where it should actually be translated with 'wrong': *valse noot* 'wrong note'.

*Fout* is more like 'wrong', to be applied with faults and mistakes. So, yes, you could say *die zin is fout* 'that sentence is wrong'. (*Foutief* is about the same but it is used way less often.)

*Verkeerd* is the most like 'wrong' -- it actually evolved from the same kind of meaning: 'twisted'. Unlike *fout*, it is not used meaning 'untrue, (false)'.


----------



## bb3ca201

We use the same term for both ideas in Gaelic – ceàrr (pronounced kyarr)


----------



## MarX

Outsider said:


> I've noticed that in a few languages, like German and French, the word for "false" can also mean "wrong/incorrect". For example, you can say "Your sentence is false" when you mean that it has grammatical errors. In English and Portuguese this does not work. What about your language?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


In Indonesian there is a difference between *palsu* (loanword from Portuguese *falso*) and *salah*.


----------



## Mahaodeh

In Arabic you use the same word.  i.e. false = khata' - wrong = khata'


----------



## Angel.Aura

In *Italian* we use two different words:
False = falso
Wrong = sbagliato


----------



## Chazzwozzer

*Turkish:*
false/wrong: *yanlış*


----------



## dudasd

Serbian (I'm giving just the most common adjectives):
false - *lažan, neistinit *(untrue, artificial, feigned, pseudo)
wrong - *netačan, nepravilan, pogrešan* etc. (incorrect, mistaken, inaccurate, not the right one etc.)

So far I can find only one adjective that partly "covers" both meanings - *manjkav *(the closest meaning is "having a fault/flaw" or "missing a part"):

Rečenica ti je manjkava. ("Your sentence is not correct" - meaning that something is missing, it's not quite correct.)
Njegova priča je manjkava. ("His story is false" - meaning that it causes doubt, something is missing again, so it can't be quite truthful.)


----------



## Abbassupreme

Mahaodeh said:


> In Arabic you use the same word.  i.e. false = khata' - wrong = khata'



I'm unsure as to the exact distinction Persian makes between "wrong"  and "false", but "khataa'"/"xataa" is oneway of saying "wrong".  "Qalat" means just downright "wrong", "eshtebaa" is used to mean "mistaken" or "incorrect".  Also, one could always say "dorost nist" ("He/she/it is not correct/right/true").


----------



## chriskardos

In Hungarian it's difficult to answer that.
th word for false is hamis, which can also mean fake, counterfeit but not wrong.
the word for wrong is hibás, which can be used for false, 
 i think everybody gets it.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Abbassupreme said:


> I'm unsure as to the exact distinction Persian makes between "wrong" and "false", but "khataa'"/"xataa" is oneway of saying "wrong".


 
In Arabic, khata' خطأ is something wrong/false/incorrect - it is the opposite of correct.  Ghalat غلط is something that is used/put/applied/said incorrectly, but it can be correct itself.  Ghalat is closer to "mistake" although not identical.


----------



## cherine

Mahaodeh said:


> In Arabic you use the same word. i.e. false = khata' - wrong = khata'


Maha, allow me to disagree a bit. False (like the French "faux") means زائف or مزيف . So, in Arabic, we have khata' for wrong, and zà'if or muzayyaf for false.
Which doesn't mean that khata' doesn't mean false, I just wanted to note that "false" has other meanings in Arabic.



Abbassupreme said:


> I'm unsure as to the exact distinction Persian makes between "wrong" and "false", but "khataa'"/"xataa" is oneway of saying "wrong". "Qalat" means just downright "wrong"





Mahaodeh said:


> Ghalat غلط is something that is used/put/applied/said incorrectly, but it can be correct itself. Ghalat is closer to "mistake" although not identical.


Are you sure that something "ghalat" can be correct in itslef? I think we use this word the same way as in Persian.


----------



## Mahaodeh

cherine said:


> Maha, allow me to disagree a bit. False (like the French "faux") means زائف or مزيف . So, in Arabic, we have khata' for wrong, and zà'if or muzayyaf for false.
> Which doesn't mean that khata' doesn't mean false, I just wanted to note that "false" has other meanings in Arabic.


 
I understood false as in "Answer the following with True or False"; in which case false = khata'; I did not understand false as fake in which case it would be مزيف. As I'm sure you are aware, you can never have a word-for-word translation from Arabic to English, it alsways depends on the context or on how you understand the word (as in this case) even if it is less so in some cases.




cherine said:


> Are you sure that something "ghalat" can be correct in itslef? I think we use this word the same way as in Persian.


 
This I am positive about; in order not to get off topic, I'll open a new thread in the Arabic forum.


----------



## cherine

Mahaodeh said:


> I understood false as in "Answer the following with True or False"; in which case false = khata'; I did not understand false as fake in which case it would be مزيف.


I thought so  But as I know some French, I guess it helped me know what was Outsider talking about, unless I'm mistaken of course.


> As I'm sure you are aware, you can never have a word-for-word translation from Arabic to English, it alsways depends on the context or on how you understand the word (as in this case) even if it is less so in some cases.


Of course. We agree about that.

Thanks for the new thread in the Arabic forum.


----------



## krolaina

Angel.Aura said:


> In *Italian* we use two different words:
> False = falso
> Wrong = sbagliato


 
It´s similar in *spanish*:

Falso=falso
Wrong=equivocado/erróneo


----------



## Outsider

I was not so interested in "false" in the sense of "counterfeit", although, in the languages that I know, including that meaning does not make any difference. 

Perhaps it does in Arabic. Still, the contrast that interests me mostly is between "false" in the logical sense, and "wrong/incorrect" in the sense of not being the right answer to a question, or not being the right way to do something.


It is false that 2+2=5.
The sentence "This is just between you and I" is false wrong/incorrect.
It is true that "wrong" and "incorrect" could also be used in the first sentence, but I hope you can see the distinction I'm making...


----------



## cherine

In that case, Maha's post stands as perfectly correct


----------



## BigRedDog

Outsider said:


> I've noticed that in a few languages, like German and French, the word for "false" can also mean "wrong/incorrect". For example, you can say "Your sentence is false" when you mean that it has grammatical errors. In English and Portuguese this does not work. What about your language?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Outsider,

Actually the only time when you say "This sentence is false" in French is when you do mean truth value. An example would be when you're discussing logic puzzles or logic theory. In any other context you would say properly "This sentence is correct/incorrect": Cette phrase est correcte/incorrecte (in a grammatical sense). Sometimes people will use instead  "bonne/mauvaise" (good/bad) but never will they use "true/false" ("vraie/fausse") in the way you suggest ...

BRD


----------



## Outsider

I think you are mistaken. I have seen, even in this forum, exchanges like the following:



> -- J'ai allé à la ville.
> -- Non, "j'ai allé" c'est *faux*. Il faut dire "je suis allé".


P.S. Here are a few real examples:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=4187196&highlight=faux#post4187196
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=4185158&highlight=faux#post4185158
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=4171135&highlight=faux#post4171135
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=4181621&highlight=faux#post4181621 ("Est-ce correcte ?" "Non, c'est faux...")
And a recent thread precisely about this.

I hope this is convincing enough.


----------



## BigRedDog

Outsider said:


> I think you are mistaken. I have seen, even in this forum, exchanges like the following:
> 
> P.S. Here are a few real examples:
> 
> -snip-
> 
> I hope this is convincing enough.



Not quite. In these quotes "faux" (false) is used in sentences where the adverb "grammatically" (grammaticalement) is implicitly used. The same applies to English where people commonly use phrases like "This sentence is grammatically false". 

Although in both instances (French and English), the proper word to use would have been "correct" (as in  "This sentence is grammatically correct" or "Cette phrase est grammticalement correcte)

Anent the "recent thread" example it only shows the difference between the form/syntax and the meaning. In this context "true/false" applies to the assertion the sentence is making that is, to the meaning itself. The walking professor might have answered either "True", "Correct" or "Good" ("Vrai", "Correct" or "Bon") and would have been ... correct in both languages 

BRD


----------



## Outsider

BigRedDog said:


> In these quotes "faux" (false) is used in sentences where the adverb "grammatically" (grammaticalement) is implicitly used. The same applies to English where people commonly use phrases like "This sentence is grammatically false".


I didn't know you could say that in English!

I'd never heard it before. In any case, you certainly can't say it Portuguese, or several other languages. The word that means "false" cannot be used in the sense of "[grammatically] incorrect".



BigRedDog said:


> Although in both instances (French and English), the proper word to use would have been "correct" (as in  "This sentence is grammatically correct" or "Cette phrase est grammticalement correcte)


I was not under the impression that the use of _faux_ in the French examples I gave was improper. I just see it as a difference in the meaning of cognates that belong to different languages. Semantic broadening and divergence, to use a fancy phrase. It's interesting, but nothing extraordinary. What makes you say that _incorrecte_ would be more proper than _faux_?


----------



## BigRedDog

Outsider said:


> I didn't know you could say that in English!



Well, you could use Google to check it out 



Outsider said:


> I'd never heard it before. In any case, you certainly can't say it Portuguese, or several other languages. The word that means "false" cannot be used in the sense of "[grammatically] incorrect".



Well, as I said it's not a proper usage but it's common for people to mix up syntax and semantic. So "correct/incorrect" should refer to the syntax, when "true/false" should refer to the meaning. But since "correct/incorrect" is used for both syntax and semantic (as in "- You have 2 children? -Correct")  people tend to do it the other way around and use "true/false" when referring to the syntax.



Outsider said:


> I was not under the impression that the use of _faux_ in the French examples I gave was improper. I just see it as a difference in the meaning of cognates that belong to different languages. Semantic broadening and divergence, to use a fancy phrase. It's interesting, but nothing extraordinary. What makes you say that _incorrecte_ would be more proper than _faux_?



Well, for the reason quoted above: abusive confusion between syntax/grammar and semantic. To be fair this stands for French as used in France but I don't see why the argument shouldn't apply to other regions as well. 

BRD


----------



## Loob

Outsider said:


> I didn't know you could say that in English!


 
I don't think you *can* say "This sentence is grammatically false" in standard English, however many google hits there may be for it (I haven't checked)

I wonder if the French use of "faux" implies "false logic"?

EDIT. I've since checked the number of google hits for "grammatically false". There are a total of 139, of which many appear to be written by non-native speakers. QED.


----------



## BigRedDog

Loob said:


> I don't think you *can* say "This sentence is grammatically false" in standard English, however many google hits there may be for it (I haven't checked)



I don't think it's a proper way to say it either in French of in English but people do   My post was an attempt at explaining why people would be tempted to do so ...



Loob said:


> I wonder if the French use of "faux" implies "false logic"?



I take it by "false logic" you mean buggy logical reasoning, right?

Let's see: consider a student saying: "2 + 2 = 5" 

- From the perspective of a well-written arithmetic formula this is correct
- From the perspective of a formal system describing arithmetic this is not a theorem 
- From the perspective of natural numbers, this assertion is false.

Although all of the 3 domains above are somewhat well mathematically differentiated, in day-to-day life they are often considered as equivalent.

So whether the French or the English speaking teacher uses "incorrect", "impossible" or "false" it carries the same practical intent: "You're a moron!" 

BRD


----------



## Outsider

BigRedDog said:


> I don't think it's a proper way to say it either in French of in English but people do


But I don't think it's improper French. We might have to agree to disagree about this (I did not understand your previous explanation). I see native speakers speak and write that way all the time. Is there any grammar of French that condemns this use of _faux_? Does the Académie Française condemn it?

Anyway, welcome to the forum, and merry Christmas.


----------



## Consimmer

To expand on MarX, in Malay, "false" would typically use _palsu_. This word would be used in the context of "fake" or "counterfeit". "Wrong" would be translated as _salah _and used in the sense of "a wrong answer". _Silap _would connote a "mistake" or "unintentional error". "True or false?" would best be translated as _benar atau tidak _(Literally "True or not")_? _


----------



## BigRedDog

Thanks for your warm welcome Ousider, merry Christmas to you too.

Ok, here goes my argument of "authority"  : when I was 15 y.o. my French teacher -who also  was "an agrégé de grammaire" (it does not get more authoritative than when teaching French grammar)- did not condone it; NOT because it was violating French grammar rules per se, but because of pragmatic knowledge. "true/false" should apply only to the meaning of a sentence and not its syntax which is correct/incorrect. In other word, a sentence is never true or false, it's just a sentence. But the fact(s) expressed by this sentence can be "true" or "false".

Another way to look at it: in order to decide if a sentence is correct or incorrect you generally  don't need to look at anything else than at the sentence itself an at the grammar rules (and obviously the vocabulary) of a given language. To decide if a fact is true or false (and yes one also says that a fact is "correct" or "incorrect") you need to appeal to your understanding of the world (e.g. "The moon is closer from earth than the sun") is "true" only because you know of Astronomy (independently of any language).

Finally, the fact that people are using certain forms does not mean they are correct. For instance many (Most) French speaking persons are using the "subjonctif" tense after "après que" (e.g saying improperly "Après qu'il ait monté l'escalier" instead of "Après qu'il a monté l'escalier")  I have no doubt than the next generation will accept this as the proper usage ... Right now it's debatable and that was certainly not accepted at the beginning of the 20th century ...

BRD


----------



## cuchuflete

[B said:
			
		

> BigRedDog[/B]]In these quotes "faux" (false) is used in sentences where the adverb "grammatically" (grammaticalement) is implicitly used. The same applies to English where people commonly use phrases like "This sentence is grammatically false".





			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I didn't know you could say that in English!
> 
> I'd never heard it before.



Outsider is correct.  The statement is poppycock.  It may be grammatically correct, but the content is a blatant falsehood.  It's wrong.  In English people do not "commonly use phrases like" the one presented.  

I have taken the dare, and looked for it using Google.  Here is the underwhelming result:

Results *1* - *1* of *1* for * "This sentence is grammatically false"*.  

You can stand on your head and spit wooden nickels before you will convince me that English speakers use such statements.  (Results *1* - *20* of about *87* for * "Stand on your head and spit wooden nickels"*.)

In the opening post, it was stated accurately that English does not allow for this use of false. 


> For example, you can say "Your sentence is false" when you mean that it has grammatical errors._ In English and Portuguese this does not work._ What about your language?


 If someone has any real evidence to contradict that true statement, it would be interesting to see it.  If not, perhaps it would be best to address the thread question.


----------



## BigRedDog

cuchuflete said:


> Outsider is correct.  The statement is poppycock.  It may be grammatically correct, but the content is a blatant falsehood.  It's wrong.  In English people do not "commonly use phrases like" the one presented.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> In the opening post, it was stated accurately that English does not allow for this use of false.  If someone has any real evidence to contradict that true statement, it would be interesting to see it.  If not, perhaps it would be best to address the thread question.



Well cuchuflete although you might be right in that it's not frequent, you're certainly wrong in thinking it's not used in English; using Google on "grammatically false" instead, you will see that sources as different as Oxford journals and Wikipedia articles are using the expression.

BRD


----------



## cuchuflete

Loob said:


> I don't think you *can* say "This sentence is grammatically false" in standard English, however many google hits there may be for it (I haven't checked)
> 
> I wonder if the French use of "faux" implies "false logic"?
> 
> * EDIT. I've since checked the number of google hits for "grammatically false". There are a total of 139, of which many appear to be written by non-native speakers. QED.*


 139 total Google citations does not indicate frequency. To the contrary, it shows that an expression is quite rare in English.  To call such an expression, with or without the rest of the sentence presented as  'commonly' used is a falsehood.  

Beating a dead horse won't bring the equine back to life.   



BigRedDog said:


> Well cuchuflete although you might be right in that it's not frequent, you're certainly wrong in thinking it's not used in English; using Google on "grammatically false" instead, you will see that sources as different as Oxford journals and Wikipedia articles are using the expression.


 Defending—or trying to defend—what you didn't originally say does nothing to support the original assertion, which was wrong.  "Grammatically false" is a rarity in English.  Outsider based this thread on a legitimate statement.  Nothing presented subsequently has undermined that statement.  Você acha?


----------



## BigRedDog

cuchuflete said:


> Defending—or trying to defend—what you didn't originally say does nothing to support the original assertion, which was wrong.  "Grammatically false" is a rarity in English.  Outsider based this thread on a legitimate statement.  Nothing presented subsequently has undermined that statement.  Você acha?



I fail to see your point, I agreed it was less common than I thought initially. As to your obvious willingness to flame, what can I say?  

Have a merry Christmas! 

BRD


----------



## Flaminius

BigRedDog said:


> I fail to see your point, I agreed it was less common than I thought initially.


Some more Google search reveals:
Instances of "grammatically false" and "grammatically incorrect" are 134 vs. 136 000 (the latter being surely a rounded number).

This means that out of all the instances that necessitate a relevant expression only 0.1% was materialised as "grammatically false."  This means that a large aggregate community as described by the Google search results almost always rejects "grammatically false."


----------



## mataripis

Tagalog:* False= Huwad or mali' / ** Wrong= mali' or sala'   E.G. 1.) Your answer is false= mali ang sagot mo.  2.) You use the wrong word= Ginamit mo ang maling salita. 3.) Wrong thoughts= salang pag iisip       4.) The predicted period is incorrect= ang hula sa panahon ng kaganapan ay sala'.


----------

