# porquería



## notthatkind

A ver si alguien me puede ayudar...

El texto dice: Por la vidriera entra esa *luz de proquería *que no calienta nada.

Mi intento:   Through the stained-glass window enters that *bloody light* which nothing heats.



no me convence para nada! pero queria dar un intento al menos!



muchas gracias


----------



## perikita

Creo que si usas -bloody light- solo estarías maldiciendo la luz, no indicando su mala calidad quizas -lousy light- sea una mejor opción...

Suerte


----------



## notthatkind

gracias!!!

tenes mucha razón


----------



## Wellow

notthatkind said:


> A ver si alguien me puede ayudar...
> 
> El texto dice: Por la vidriera entra esa *luz de proquería *que no calienta nada.
> 
> Mi intento: Through the stained-glass window enters that *bloody light* which nothing heats.
> 
> 
> 
> no me convence para nada! pero queria dar un intento al menos!
> 
> 
> 
> muchas gracias


Hola notthatkind

Te sugiero:-

Through the stained glass window enters that dirty/filthy/poor quality light which heats nothing.

Saludos


----------



## jinti

notthatkind said:


> A ver si alguien me puede ayudar...
> 
> El texto dice: Por la vidriera entra esa *luz de proquería *que no calienta nada.
> 
> Mi intento: Through the stained-glass window enters that *bloody light* which nothing heats.


_That lousy light_, as Perikita suggested, seems good, or _that useless light_.  _That bullshit light_ might work if you want to be more vulgar.  


Another little note:

...which nothing heats = nothing can make the light hot

You mean:

... which heats nothing.
... which doesn't heat a thing.
... which doesn't heat anything.


----------



## sandpiperlily

"Bloodly light" is fine, but is very British.  Americans don't use "bloody" in this way.


----------



## edwincito

"Lousy" me suena muy bien... ¿qué tal "filthy" o hasta "infamous"?

Y, aprovechando, permíteme jugar un poco con el orden de las palabras:

That filthy, infamous light, which does not warm at all, entered through the stained glass.

That filthy infamous light, which warms nothing, entered through the stained glass.

¡A ver cómo te suenan!

Saludos


----------



## pwr serge

This is where you could get very colorful.  In my opinion it is not enough to translate "porqueria" but to capture the emotion.  I would use "damn light" or even stronger, more vulgar words to capture that emotion.


----------



## notthatkind

Thanks *wellow* and* jint*i! I wasn't sure about "nothing heats" either, and now it's more clear and of course better! 

* edwincito*, gracias por tus sugerencias! Creo que como lo propones suena más natural, pero al ser una traduccion literaria no se si se pueda modificar mucho el orden...quiero decir, tengo miedo de estar cambiando el estilo del autor. ¿Qué opinas?

*pwr_serge, *how about "that damn lousy light" ?


----------



## jinti

How about _that damnable light_?

Damnable:


> 1 *:* liable to or deserving condemnation 2 *:* very bad *:* detestable <_damnable_ weather>


----------



## notthatkind

That  also sounds interesting, jinti!
so many options, I don't know which fits better!


----------



## edwincito

I like damnable... My vote goes to it!


----------



## edwincito

Notthatkind: Estoy de acuerdo contigo, muchas veces me pasa lo que a ti. ¡Igual es divertido jugar!

Un saludo


----------



## notthatkind

then, It will be _damnable_ 

thanks guys!!


una ultima pregunta: Hacía más frío que no sé qué = It was colder than I don't know what ?

me suena espantoso, pero no encuentro otra manera


----------



## pwr serge

My vote goes out to "DAMN".  Damnable to me sounds as if it has the potential to be bad.


----------



## sandpiperlily

Damnable me suena muy raro.  He oido la palabra pero casi nunca se usa en EEUU.

"Goddamn" puede ser apropriada si no te molesta ser un poco grosero.


----------



## notthatkind

Goddamned es una buena opción, pero como dijeron anteriormente se pierde la idea de que la luz es inefectiva, que no ilumina ni calienta. Por lo grosero no te preocupes, "porquería" es bastante grosero también.


----------



## pwr serge

I missed the point. How about

that God Damn useless light...

I refrained from suggesting the "G" word earlier out of respect. Apparently it is o.k. by the person asking for the translation.


----------



## notthatkind

According to the Longman dictionary, the word God Damned is considered offensive by some Christians. 

* that God Damn useless light *sounds good


----------



## WestSideGal

pwr serge said:


> I missed the point. How about
> 
> that God Damn useless light...
> 
> I refrained from suggesting the "G" word earlier out of respect. Apparently it is o.k.


 
This was the best option so far, in my humble opinion for whatever it is worth!


----------



## notthatkind

It is really worth it, WestSideGal!
thank you!


----------



## jinti

WestSideGal said:


> This was the best option so far, in my humble opinion for whatever it is worth!


 
I disagree, for what it's worth. (Or isn't worth .)

_Goddamn(ed)_ is strong language, definitely offensive to many (to more than just Christians!).  To me, it's way stronger than _porquería_, so it doesn't seem like such a faithful translation....


----------



## notthatkind

so.. how about "that damned useless/lousy light", jinti ? what do you think?


----------



## pwr serge

The idea was to strongly curse that useless light.  The "G" word is offensive to many christians but it is slang to others.  It's use depends entirely on the presenter.


----------



## notthatkind

gurseal said:


> Then why not use lousy?  A menos que éstos sean los pensamientos de alguien que suele usar groserías.



Porque creo que al decir simplemente "lousy light" se pierde lo que aporta la palabra porquería. Entiendo que "porquería" no solo implica que la luz es mala e inútil, sino que también implica una connotación despectiva, el narrador dice que la luz es fatal pero a la vez se queja, maldice.

Me explico?


----------



## pwr serge

I believe "porquería" curses at the light while at the same time saying it is useles/lousy.  
I feel lousy by itself does not have the same "vulgarity" if you will as calling it a "porqería".  
That is why I suggest "the god damn lousy light" or "the damn lousy light" if one prefers to not use the lords name in vain.


----------



## gurseal

pwr serge said:


> *The idea was to strongly curse that useless light.* The "G" word is offensive to many christians but it is slang to others. It's use depends entirely on the presenter.


What's wrong with _lousy_? It suggests disgust at the utter uselessness of the light, I feel.


----------



## notthatkind

gurseal said:


> Notthatkind, is this true? Was this your intent by using the word _bloody_?



Yes, in fact i wanted to converge the idea of cursing and saying the light is bad in the same phrase. But "bloody" didn't serve this purpose since it is only cursing. Am I clear?


----------



## notthatkind

gurseal said:


> What's wrong with _lousy_? It suggests disgust at the utter uselessness of the light, I feel.



But, is he really complaining about it? is he annoyed by it?


----------



## gurseal

Yes, clear. Sorry, but you responded to a post that, as you can see, I have changed.


----------



## gurseal

notthatkind said:


> But, is he really complaining about it? is he annoyed by it?


 I didn't see enough context in your original post to be able to answer this.


----------



## pwr serge

pwr serge said:


> I believe "porquería" curses at the light while at the same time saying it is useles/lousy.
> I feel lousy by itself does not have the same "vulgarity" if you will as calling it a "porqería".
> That is why I suggest "the god damn lousy light" or "the damn lousy light" if one prefers to not use the lords name in vain.


 

Nothatkind, I think we are on the same page.


----------



## gurseal

Okay, pwr serge. I can understand that. There must not be many like me who think that using "lousy" is risky.


----------



## notthatkind

pwr serge said:


> Nothatkind, I think we are on the same page.



Exactly


----------



## gringuita

Why not "worthless" light? To me, this fits best.


----------



## pwr serge

Perhaps it is the way we were raised.  To me "porqueria" is much stronger and vulgar than "worthless".  I feel "porqueria" borders on the expletive similar to the way "damn" does while at the same time saying the light is worthless.  Therefore I believe, "that damn worthless light" is a closer translation of "esa porqueria de luz".


----------



## jinti

Well, _damn(ed)_ is an expletive, so I do think it's a step further than _porquería_.

How about _crappy_?   _...that crappy light...._


----------



## pwr serge

Again the vulgarity level of "porquería" or "damn" is relative.  FCC doesn't require a bleep when the word "damn" or "porquería" is uttered on television.  I agree "crappy" is a good option although not as strong as "damn" or "porquería" to MY ears.  I really don't sense anger or frustration in describing the light as "crappy".


----------



## sifueratica

¿Qué tal *piece of shit? *La luz es una mierda, una porquería... the light is a piece of shit, it doesn't even heat anything. Un poco más suave sería crappy.


----------



## pwr serge

Awesome!!!  Nothing shows more anger than that unles we put *fucking* in front of it.  However I think the original post wanted to avoid profanity, which is why I limited to "god damn" or the more religious-friendly "damn".


----------



## ORL

I like crappy, shitty would be too much. "De porquería" is one step lower than "de mierda". I´ve heard most English speakers go for "fucking" in such a context. 
Why is everybody talking about religion??? This is a forum about languages and the way they are used in the real world.


----------



## fenixpollo

ORL said:


> Why is everybody talking about religion??? This is a forum about languages and the way they are used in the real world.


Because in the real world, many Christian English-speakers take offense to any use of the word "damn". If one is going to translate "porquería" as *damned*, then one should be aware of the social implications of the word... and social implications often include religious concerns.

For me, *lousy *sounds old-fashioned. However, it is very tame and would never be taken as vulgar or offensive, as far as I know.

There may be some generational aspects of using *crappy *as a translation. By that, I mean that in the generation born before 1960, "crap" was considered only slightly less vulgar than "shit", and could not be said on television or in school. As someone who grew up in the 70's and 80's, I know it was still unacceptable then. The youngest generation, however, seems to consider it as harmless as "cruddy" or "bad".


----------



## ORL

> Because in the real world, many Christian English-speakers...


 
I´m aware of that, but I´ve seen people in this forum who try to censor certain terms or vocabulary based on their religious beliefs. Maybe I was not clear enough about that. If you want to talk about languages, you have to be ready to accept that you´re most certainly going to read or hear words which are going to offend you. Warning about the implications of certain words within certain groups of speakers, is one thing. But censorship based on religion is a completely different one.

PS: "you" is meant as "one", and the censorship I´m talking about is not something related to this thread in particular.


----------



## pwr serge

Check out my replies. I found it necessary to bring up the possible religious implications for one of the translations of porquería. Imagine if the original post unknowingly uses god-damn light at his next church group meeting.


----------



## jinti

ORL said:


> If you want to talk about languages, you have to be ready to accept that you´re most certainly going to read or hear words which are going to offend you. Warning about the implications of certain words within certain groups of speakers, is one thing. But censorship based on religion is a completely different one.


 I think it's quite relevant to know that reactions to a word in one language/culture may be quite different than reactions to a particular translation in another language/culture.  If _porquería_ doesn't offend a large percentage of people but a suggested translation is likely to, then the suggested translation is inadequate.  Same goes for the reverse: if _porquería _*is* offensive, then the translation ought to be, too.  But we're aiming for equal offensiveness here.


----------



## ORL

My point is on my message, it´s censorship based on religious beliefs I´m talking about. Nothing else.
And by the way, I do not consider "damn or goddamn" as a good translation for "porquería":

*porquería**.*
(De _porquera_).

*1. *f. coloq. Suciedad, inmundicia o basura.
*2. *f. coloq. Cosa vieja, rota o que no desempeña su función como debiera.
*3. *f. coloq. Acción sucia o indecente.
*4. *f. coloq. Grosería, desatención y falta de crianza o respeto.
*5. *f. coloq. Cortedad o cosa de poco valor.
*6. *f. coloq. Cosa que no gusta o no agrada.
*7. *f. coloq. Comida de poco valor nutritivo o indigesta

(RAE)

For a light, one should consider the second (*2*) meaning of the word. Porquería is no cursing word. Now find the right cultural equivalent. I go for crappy.


----------



## gringuita

pwr serge said:


> Check out my replies. I found it necessary to bring up the possible religious implications for one of the translations of porquería. Imagine if the original post unknowingly uses god-damn light at his next church group meeting.



I agree. I have only seen this expression used on TV, never in the real world. I knew that it was "borderline," but I didn't realize that it was so vulgar. This is often the case when you only get to see/hear a word used in few contexts. 

What I don't understand is why these shows don't have higher ratings in regard to suitable age for viewing if this word is so strong?


----------

