# Embarcarse



## Sandy_Bella

Hola! Me preguntaba como puedo decir "Alejandra quiere embarcarse a final de año" Cuando digo "embarcarse" me refiero a que Alejandra piensa trabajar en ese barco; y no ir de visitante, así que no creo apropiados los verbos to embark or to go aboard. Gracias de antemano


----------



## rodrivera

Alejandra wants to get on board by the end of the year, Alejandra is getting on board by the end of the year, pero si quieres mas especifico, could be, Alejandra is working on board (in that ship) by the end of the year. that's my suggestion


----------



## Sandy_Bella

Thank Rodrivera! I really appreciate your help. Regards


----------



## nv1962

Nobody likes the _literal_ use of the English verb _to embark_... 

Seriously, you can use that just as well.


----------



## Sandy_Bella

Thank nv1962! It's good to know


----------



## k-in-sc

Alejandra wants to be working aboard the ship by the end of the year
Sorry, "embark" would not work here.


----------



## nv1962

How does "Alejandra wants to embark by the end of the year" for "Alejandra quiere embarcarse a final de año" not work? I'm not sure what you mean.

Of course one can _intend_ whatever meaning one likes with a given, specific sentence, but in this case, it's just what it is. That she's looking to _work_ (as opposed to enjoying the trip as a passenger, or inspecting the ship, or drilling holes in it) isn't relevant: she just, well, _embarks_.


----------



## k-in-sc

"She wants to walk up the gangplank by the end of the year" ...?!?! That's what "embark" sounds like.


----------



## nv1962

I kindly suggest looking up "embarcar" then*. To wit:
Word Reference
DRAE

It's a pretty specific verb, indeed. That's why I said: that sentence just "is what it is" - regardless of the universe of connotations dancing around the back of the mind of its speaker / writer.

**Added later:* I'm pointing to the root forms, and not the reflexive infinitive as that's quite straightforward in its meaning, as well.


----------



## k-in-sc

Does she want to translate her sentence to its closest English dictionary equivalent, regardless of actual usage, or does she want it to sound colloquial?


----------



## nv1962

Frankly, I don't like to engage in crystal ball gazing, and less so to spend much time guessing. If a given sentence is provided, the translation of that sentence is just what it is. If you want to provide a _diverging rendition_ then that's an entirely sovereign choice, but not covered by the term "translation."

For example, if I say "I'd like a glass of water" but I _really_ mean to say "I'd like to jump off the Empire State Building" I'm saying and thinking two different things. It's not a translator's job to sort out that kind of things.

*Edited to add:* I don't think it's worthwhile to pursue this any further. I simply prefer to agree to disagree.


----------



## k-in-sc

We're not translating it, we're trying to give her the tools to translate it, because it's her sentence, not ours.


----------



## nv1962

I'd point to two simple things: first, this is the Spanish < > English language forum. Second, there's the request itself:


Sandy_Bella said:


> Hola! Me preguntaba como puedo decir "Alejandra quiere embarcarse a final de año" Cuando digo "embarcarse" me refiero a que Alejandra piensa trabajar en ese barco; y no ir de visitante, así que no creo apropiados los verbos to embark or to go aboard. Gracias de antemano


Perhaps Sandy_Bella is requesting assistance in Spanish here to (better) express a given idea in Spanish, as a _substitute_ for "embarcarse." That might well be but, if that is really the case, this is the wrong forum altogether as it should then be simply moved into the Spanish Only forum. The title of this topic is _embarcarse;_ If "embarcarse" is not the _intended_ word, then, well, the whole thing here is moot, as in that case it's more a matter of "how do I ask a question here on this forum" which then leaves the question itself pending (and also renders the title pointless here, as an entry for future reference / consultation).

Lastly, just for clarification: I comically embarked on my own case of typing one thing while thinking another... In my earlier example above, I really _meant_ to type, and therefore _should_ have typed: 





> if I say "I'd like a glass of water" but I _really_ mean to say "I'd like to jump off the Empire State Building, however, I'm scared and have a dry throat so I'd like a glass of water" I'm saying and thinking two different things.


My point there was that a _translation_ of "I'd like a glass of water" still essentially boils down to the information in that sentence, so adding into a translation the elements of the building, the intent to jump and so forth is taking poetic license with information, which in that first short, prosaic statement just isn't there. And _that's_ my point here: the patently conveyed semantics in the original statement and the resulting or alternatively the _intended_ surrounding mental image, with all its peripheral connotations, are obviously related, but still quite separate things. My proposition is that a translator should be able to tell and keep those apart, or else change jobs to become a _rewriter_.

Still, you might well be right; in that case this whole exchange is yet another hilarious instance of Babylonia's version of the Empire State, from which I then well might consider jumping.


----------



## k-in-sc

Hmm. I still think we're trying to help her communicate, not translate mechanically. There are lots of programs that do that. In fact, she did check the dictionary and was not convinced, and I happen to agree with her. Do you really think this ordinary Spanish word that happens to have a less commonplace English cognate is best translated by that cognate, no matter if it sounds overly precise to native speakers or carries other shades of meaning?


----------



## Juan Alek

Sandy_Bella said:


> Hola! Me preguntaba como puedo decir "Alejandra quiere embarcarse a final de año" Cuando digo "embarcarse" me refiero a que Alejandra piensa trabajar en ese barco; y no ir de visitante, así que no creo apropiados los verbos to embark or to go aboard. Gracias de antemano


 
Creo que hay una confusión en la pregunta, cuando uno dice "*embarcar*" no significa que la persona vaya como tripulante o pasajero.
*Embarcar* o *abordar* solo significan que la persona *sube a la embarcación*, no dice lo que hará en la nave.

Si quiere decir que Alejandra va a trabajar en la nave deberia decir algo como: 
"Alejandra quiere embarcarse *como tripulante* a final de año", eso creo altera la traducción al inglés.

*DRAE embarcar.(*De en- y barco).
1. tr. Introducir personas, mercancías, etc., en una embarcación, tren o avión. U. t. c. intr. y c. prnl.
2. tr. Mar. Destinar a alguien a un buque.
*DRAE abordar*.(De bordo).
1. tr. Dicho de una embarcación: Llegar a otra, chocar o tocar con ella. U. t. c. intr.
2. tr. Atracar una nave a un desembarcadero, muelle o batería.
3. tr. Dicho de un pasajero: Subir a un medio de transporte.
*em·bark *
v. tr. 
To cause to board a vessel or aircraft: stopped to embark passengers. 
To enlist (a person or persons) or invest (capital) in an enterprise. 
v. intr. 
To go aboard a vessel or aircraft, as at the start of a journey. 
To set out on a venture; commence: embark on a world tour.
*a⋅board*
–adverb 
1. on board; on, in, or into a ship, train, airplane, bus, etc.: to step aboard.


----------



## nv1962

Just on a technicality, a minor point really: 





k-in-sc said:


> [...] this ordinary Spanish word that happens to have a less commonplace English cognate [...]


 Google disagrees: 9.75 million hits in English for "embark" against 1.28 million for its Spanish vernacular. That nicely covers the relative underrepresentation of Spanish versus English on the intertubes.


----------



## k-in-sc

How many of those uses of "embark" are figurative? I'd bet most of them.


----------



## TurbidTongue

nv1962 said:


> Just on a technicality, a minor point really:  Google disagrees: 9.75 million hits in English for "embark" against 1.28 million for its Spanish vernacular. That nicely covers the relative underrepresentation of Spanish versus English on the intertubes.



But people use embark more often in a figurative sense nowadays. Nobody really says "embark" to mean getting on a boat. And google's hit count doesn't tell you how that word is being used. 
Plus, I wonder if "embarcar" in Honduras has a semantic nuance the rest of us don't attribute to it, one of implying that one goes on board as a crewmember or staff.


----------



## nortonk

I would suggest saying that she wishes to _be_ on board by the end of the year, rather than saying she wishes to _embark_.  I think using _to be_ gives a better sense of permanence, as in she won't be getting off the ship in the near future.

I'm a little confused as to the reason for the use of _embarcarse_ in the original Spanish sentence.  I don't think that's entirely appropriate to the meaning, but I am by no means an expert in Spanish.


----------



## TurbidTongue

k-in-sc said:


> How many of those uses of "embark" are figurative? I'd bet most of them.



I'm sorry, but I believe this is quite right.


----------



## nv1962

Yes, of course he's right - the problem is that that argument goes for the Spanish version, too.


----------



## k-in-sc

"She" ... 

What argument? That "embarcarse" is used figuratively in Spanish too? Or that used literally it sounds odd in English ...?


----------



## nv1962

Oops - sorry, K-in-SC... No idea what triggered the gender impression, but it's entirely intuitive and therefore a reprehensible assumption; my apologies for that.

The argument I refer to is that "to embark" is indeed widely (and arguably mostly) used in a figurative sense in English; it is reversible in that "embarcar" (the term I looked for) probably just as much is used in a figurative sense in Spanish, too. It's a pity that I don't know of any readily available usage frequency database, so it's hardly a tenable argument to reverse it, if only because the dimensions of compared relative usage is hard to establish without that.

Still, I just now refined by using the "Spanish language" criterion (I sadly didn't when I came up with 1.28 million, so its usage in e.g. Portuguese "pollutes" it with its polyseme) and the adjusted number for Spanish language is 518,000 occurrences. At least that goes to support that "to embark" is not at all a (much) more "rarely used" word in English, compared the use of its Spanish equivalent. I just checked the number for occurrences in English languages pages: the figure of 9.76 million came back. I see no evidence to the contrary. I simply don't see either "embarcar" in Spanish or "to embark" in English as a rarity. At best, I think it's fair to state the _literal_ use is rare but that goes for both languages, to one degree or another. Still, it's a minor issue.

The deeper thing here is where to draw a line between a "flexible" and "strict" interpretation of intent of a given word. Dealing specifically with translation, I err on the side of strict - with a few specific exceptions, such as lyrical translation where it's _always_ a messy compromise between available variables (meter, semantics, rhythm, sound...) and so on a bilingual translation forum, even though I recognize this is identified as a "language forum," I follow that same strict-leaning criterion, if only because of the *reference* function of this forum; imprecise lemmata (titles of topics) pullute and neuter that reference function. If it happens to be "wrong" it should be shipped out of the inherently _translation_ related section and go into the "monolingual" support group first or instead. Anyway, all that is essentially talking about metalanguage; more on point, I think the best way to help people get to the "best translation" is to insist on a good (as in: accurate or solidly grounded) source text, first, as this _is_ a SISO system: stuff in, stuff out. Although I suspect you know what I had in mind originally, for the "s".

So, that's essentially also why I stubbornly stick to pointing out that "embarcar" = "to embark." From that angle, whether that's germaine or helpful to the _intent_ of what the original question tried to establish is, simply put, secondary to me. There's an enormous supply of resources available in the form of new, to be created topics to address the "correct" or _intended_ source word.


----------



## k-in-sc

OK, granted that "embarcarse" = "to embark" in the dictionary sense, conveying the meaning of getting on a boat. But whether it's the best _translation_ is what we have been debating. Several native speakers have said in this thread that "embark" is not a word they would be likely to choose, since its main English meaning is now figurative, "set off, set out on a journey or venture." That information surely will be useful to other foreros down the line. 
As for Sandy Bella's original question, the GIGO principle does apply, but if she explained what she was trying to say, why would you ignore her explanation and focus only on the sentence she provided? That's unjustifiable no matter how "strict" you are.


----------



## Roberto_Mendoza

Sorry to jump in the middle of an thread of which I have no part, but this is a very interesting discussion. 

Following your logic Nv1962, the sentence "mis actividades cotidianas consisten en...", would be translated as "my quotidian activities are...,", or something along those lines. You don't believe that I should translate "cotidianas" as "quotidian", do you? 

I am not native speaker of English, but I get the impression that an accurate translation entails more than a strictly semantic transposition of sentences and words. That is to say, to a certain extent translators have to play the additional roles of interpreters and sociolinguists. Or at least that's the impression I get and that is how I approach this field. Cheers.


----------



## nv1962

(Edited to add: by no means, please jump in!)

No, Roberto, that's not the conclusion of my point of departure. At the very least, I expect _semantic equivalence_ in translations I consider "appropriate" and the mechanical, blind use of polysemes in my humble opinion offends another cardinal rule: that what others might call "proper language usage" in the target translation. If you think I'm stubborn here, wait until someone opens a topic on false cognates...

The question here, in this topic, is perhaps more easily "resolved" (i.e. taken to a _productive_ conclusion, leaving dissenting opinions intact and equivalent) by asking a very simple question: is "embarcar(se)" the word that _should_ be in the title of this topic? In other words: is Sally _really_ looking for its translation?

If the answer is "no" then we're generously trading arguments over an inexistent premise. If the answer is "yes" I'll continue to refer to "to embark" as an absolutely correct answer.

Still, we're in agreement, Roberto: hell hath no fury like a translator spotting a false cognate.

I think there's a relevant nuance here, in that (presumably / probably) Sally is looking for a translation of the _wrong source language word_ while a false cognate is a _wrong target language word._

Lo and behold, _both_ happen to have "wrong word" in common.


----------



## Roberto_Mendoza

If I understood you correctly, you said that "quotidian" is a false cognate for "cotidiano". Mmmm... If that is the case, I beg to differ, and I would say that a cursory search of this very forum, as well as many reference texts, will show that they are indeed cognates; they just happen to have a very disparate rate of use in their respective languages. 
If on the other hand you did not mean that they were false cognates, then let us ignore the previous paragraph. 

As far as to what Sally was looking for and how she expressed herself, it is quite often the case that forum users (and forum contributors) make mistakes, or simply don't speak like Eton graduates. Even if her original phrase was ambiguous, she stated quite clearly what she wanted to say in English. Yes, one can, and probably should,  point out to her that the phrase in Spanish may be inaccurate or unclear; but If I can hazard a guess, I would say that many phrases in daily speech are, to say the least, but everyone understands them. Heck, even when the contributors write, they make mistakes, albeit mostly of a different nature (i.e. typos).

I agree with you that since this forum often serves as a reference for many people, it is important to be accurate. However, I think you should give people more credit and believe in their ability to discern right from wrong when they read the whole thread.

In any event, let us agree to disagree (if we are indeed on opposite sides of the issue). Bet regards.


----------



## nv1962

Well, you obviously can differ, but it's off register, and by quite a bit at that. "Cotidiano" and "quotidian" are not - by _any_ stretch of the imagination - in a similar _low_ range of tension of register as the case of "embarcar" and "to embark". Are you claiming the contrary? I don't think so, either.

Of course, false cognates exist in degrees: you have patently absurd ones, like "embarazada" and "embarrassed," or more subtly "felony" and "felonía" (or yet another outrageous case, one of the personal _favorites_ of mine: "to molest" and "molestar") No, I don't think "cotidiano" and "quotidian" are _truly_ false cognates. But "cotidiano" and "quotidian" are hardly _equivalents_ in the broad sense, in general usage. Therefore, I wouldn't use them as a readily available pair, _certainly not_ as easily as in this case "to embark" and "embarcar".

I'm not sure we _really_ disagree here, on the same issue.

(*Added later*: aha - I missed the conditional at the end of your first paragraph. So, forgotten it is then. Actually, I mentioned false cognates as an illustration of cramped-up translation, which is _to be avoided at any and all cost_. Hence the reference to "hell hath no fury")


----------



## Sandy_Bella

Thank You All! Nice Easter Week!


----------



## k-in-sc

Poor Sandy! What a tangled thread we spin, when first we venture to all jump in! 
Happy Easter!


----------



## Ynez

Sandy_Bella said:


> Thank You All! Nice Easter Week!



Hey, Sandy_Bella, don't leave us! We need you here! 


I personally would need her answer to this question:

Is she translating a text written by someone else or is she trying to express those ideas/thoughts she explained?

I agree with nv1962 that if it is a translation, the right thing to say is just "embark".

If she is trying to express her own thoughts, then it is what k-in-sc is explaining, and in Spanish it should also be different from her original little text.


In other words, I agree with nv1962.


----------

