It's quite fascinating that this was not only possible with 1800's technology, but formed the basis of a successful business: "Vacuum-tube amplification would not be developed until the 1910s, so there were limited means for producing signals strong enough to be heard throughout the system. Therefore, for transmitting the news, announcers with especially loud voices — known as stentors — were hired and instructed to speak as forcefully as possible into specially designed double-receivers."
Wikipedia also talks about their sub growth: "Telefon Hírmondó began operations in 1893 with 60 subscribers, a total that grew to 700 in 1894, 4915 in 1895, 7629 in 1899, around 6200 in 1901, and 15,000 by 1907...The annual subscription price of the service was 18 krones (the price of 10 kg sugar or 20 kg coffee in Budapest at that time)."
Claude says retail for 20kg of coffee is $360 today. Assuming that's accurate, it would be equivalent to a service today selling at $30 / month. Some quick research shows Netflix's most expensive Premium plan costs $25 / month.
It's pretty interesting that in 1893 they could run the business sustainably (it survived until radio) at essentially the same price point as modern day, given they were producing all their own content (all live) and providing customers with hardware. Although I suppose they weren't building completely from scratch, they were using the existing telephone network for the actual physical layer connectivity.
To give them more credit, their operations seamlessly transitioned to (subscriber-free) radio as well, without losing subscribers:
> In the 1920s, the company was granted the right to establish the first radio broadcasting station in Budapest, which began operating on 1 December 1925.[11] The combined operations were now known as the Magyar Telefon Hirmondó és Rádió. The services were offered in parallel for some time, both on radio waves and telephone wires. By 1930, Telefon Hírmondó had started other services, and it had 91,079 subscribers.
It seemed like their telephonic service already had advertising, though.
Although I suppose they weren't building completely from scratch, they were using the existing telephone network for the actual physical layer connectivity.
Very impressive indeed (although maybe Coffee and Sugar were rarer back then), especially given that according to the article they did built their own infrastructure unidirectional lines at some point
I am Hungarian and "Telefon Hírmondó" translated to English is "Telephone News Teller" (or rather News-Teller, i.e. someone who is telling the news), not "Telephone Herald".
I might have gone with "crier" rather than "herald". That seems a little closer in terms of what the actual job consists of? But I agree that "herald" seems fine.
I am getting down-voted (for saying I did not know of this word, which is wild), but I asked a couple of people from the US and UK and they could not tell what it means, not without a dictionary.
It is a small sample, but you could ask your family and friends.
Plus, I still prefer something that most if not all people know: news-teller over herald, so I would have translated it to that.
People quickly jump to conclusions all the time on here. I did not claim that it is not a valid translation. All I said is that I did not know the word and that probably many native English speakers do not know it either. Additionally I claimed that I think it is better to use "news-speaker" instead of "herald" as it is obvious to most if not all people who speak English, whether native or not. I am fine with "reporter", too.
You could go around and ask people if they know the meaning of "herald". I did, and many people did not know, but "news-teller" is definitely obvious, and as I have previously said in two other comments: while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion, and in accordance to my experiences.
“News-teller” is recognizably not standard English. In particular, we don’t commonly use “teller” in that way. No native English speaker would say “news-teller” in ordinary speech or writing.
Yes, I am fine with "reporter" too. I just provided a literal translation, and as I said in another comment, that while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion.
“News teller” is blatantly non-standard English. It immediately reads as either a deliberate anachronistic affectation, or a bad literal translation (in this case, it is indeed the latter).
That might be the case, but while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion. I am fine with "reporter", too. FWIW I provided a literal translation.
Check out my other replies if you are interested[1].
It is unfortunate that meaningful discourse often suffers when individuals form hasty judgments based solely on the initial few words of a comment, or when they make assumptions and jump to conclusions without fully considering the underlying content and intent. In my experience, I frequently encounter down-votes in such situations, which I find quite disappointing, especially when these down-votes occur without any accompanying explanation or constructive feedback. Such superficial engagement diminishes the quality of discussion and discourages thoughtful contributions, IMO.
TL;DR: Down-voting without explanation is quite frustrating. People hastily form misguided judgments on content they haven't fully understood, think "I don't like it" and down-vote without consideration (and any form of feedback or constructive criticism).
The English connotations of that are about a person who is overly loud, it wouldn't typically be used to describe someone
"Crier" is the closest if you're looking for a word along those lines, since it has historically been used in that way, although it's not a modern term.
There's a reason "herald" comes up here, though - it's actually a pretty close fit.
Your earlier suggestion of "announcer" works, though. "Reporter" might be even better, since it tends to imply a news context. You might say "telephone reporter" alone, for example, but you'd probably need to say "telephone news announcer" if you wanted to avoid it sounding like you were talking about someone who reads e.g. the time over the telephone.
I'm aware of that, but the term I'm familiar with is "crier". I've never heard "screamer" used in that sense. Wiktionary doesn't list such a usage; contrast with "crier" for which it is listed.
I do not intend to offend you as it is not really about you, just that people generally resort to dictionaries like no tomorrow, but read this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44845717.
To be clear, I'm trying to appeal here to actual usage, not to the dictionary per se. The dictionary is just evidence of such, since trying to directly present evidence of actual usage is not so easy without some good tools.
“News-Teller” are two English words that wouldn't be used together in that way, “Herald” is one English word and literally means what the naive combination of those two suggests, and is extremely commonly used in that sense in the name of news outlets (newspapers, etc.)
“Crier” is another pissibility with overlapping denotation that is also somewhat commonly seen in that context, “announcer” would work today in speech, but largely is a product of TV & radio so would be somewhat odd choice given the other options available.
> News-Teller” are two English words that wouldn't be used together in that way
I'd respectfully disagree. You can't definitively say that two words "wouldn't be used together in that way". Language is constantly evolving organically, and compound words often emerge through natural usage before appearing in dictionaries. Dictionaries document language as it develops rather than dictating what's permissible. "News-teller" follows standard English compounding patterns and clearly conveys its meaning; that's how language naturally develops.
> You can't definitively say that two words "wouldn't be used together in that way".
Languages aren't just aggregates of individual words. There are several individual words in English that mean “person who tells the news”, and it is idiomatic to use them, not the combination “News-Teller".
Word-by-word translation is not the gold standard of translation, because individual words that seem to have the right meaning can be meaningless, have different meaning, or just be non-idiomatic in combination. Good translation is more than word-by-word and takes into account idiom in both the source language and the destination language.
Perhaps I should have said aren't used together in that way.
You're welcome to try to invent your own language, but you shouldn't be surprised when people push back on it. Chances are people aren't going to use your invention.
"News-teller" sounds archaic at best, or like a non-native trying to literally translate something, which is in fact exactly what's happening here.
Invented words or word combinations are more likely to catch on when there's a need for them. There are various words that already exist for this, so no need to invent a new one. Announcer, reporter, and even e.g. herald and crier if one is looking for a more historical meaning, that appears in the title of many newspapers.
> You're welcome to try to invent your own language.
What I'm doing with "news-teller" (or news teller) is not inventing my own language at all, and I don't appreciate dismissive or snarky remarks, especially when they're incorrect.
From a grammatical standpoint, "news-teller" is perfectly valid, English freely allows such noun-noun compounds. It's not an arbitrary invention, but a natural, transparent compound formed from two common, easily understood words. English has always created new terms this way (storyteller, truth-teller, lawgiver, bookseller), and while "news-teller" is not standard, it follows established morphological patterns. Because both components are familiar, most speakers would grasp its meaning immediately, arguably more so today than with the now-archaic "herald". You can even check Google's Books Ngram Viewer. Check for "news teller" and "herald".
The fact that "news-teller" isn't in widespread use does NOT make it "invented language". It makes it an uncommon but legitimate formation under the existing rules of English. If you doubt that, you could ask people whether they understand "herald" and then ask if they understand "news-teller". If you ask "news-teller" first, they will probably infer it means the same thing, so avoid that.
In any case, I already said I am fine with "reporter" or "announcer", and that I was providing a literal translation that everyone understands over "herald". This is literally the essence of my point, which is not the one being argued. Was I wrong in believing this literal translation is better (see: easier to understand) than "herald'?
It's quite fascinating that this was not only possible with 1800's technology, but formed the basis of a successful business: "Vacuum-tube amplification would not be developed until the 1910s, so there were limited means for producing signals strong enough to be heard throughout the system. Therefore, for transmitting the news, announcers with especially loud voices — known as stentors — were hired and instructed to speak as forcefully as possible into specially designed double-receivers."
Wikipedia also talks about their sub growth: "Telefon Hírmondó began operations in 1893 with 60 subscribers, a total that grew to 700 in 1894, 4915 in 1895, 7629 in 1899, around 6200 in 1901, and 15,000 by 1907...The annual subscription price of the service was 18 krones (the price of 10 kg sugar or 20 kg coffee in Budapest at that time)."
Claude says retail for 20kg of coffee is $360 today. Assuming that's accurate, it would be equivalent to a service today selling at $30 / month. Some quick research shows Netflix's most expensive Premium plan costs $25 / month.
It's pretty interesting that in 1893 they could run the business sustainably (it survived until radio) at essentially the same price point as modern day, given they were producing all their own content (all live) and providing customers with hardware. Although I suppose they weren't building completely from scratch, they were using the existing telephone network for the actual physical layer connectivity.
To give them more credit, their operations seamlessly transitioned to (subscriber-free) radio as well, without losing subscribers:
> In the 1920s, the company was granted the right to establish the first radio broadcasting station in Budapest, which began operating on 1 December 1925.[11] The combined operations were now known as the Magyar Telefon Hirmondó és Rádió. The services were offered in parallel for some time, both on radio waves and telephone wires. By 1930, Telefon Hírmondó had started other services, and it had 91,079 subscribers.
It seemed like their telephonic service already had advertising, though.
I am Hungarian and "Telefon Hírmondó" translated to English is "Telephone News Teller" (or rather News-Teller, i.e. someone who is telling the news), not "Telephone Herald".
The verb "to herald" means to be a sign of something that is imminent.
But the noun "herald" literally means "official who tells the news"
So this still definitely checks out.
I might have gone with "crier" rather than "herald". That seems a little closer in terms of what the actual job consists of? But I agree that "herald" seems fine.
I have to be honest I have never heard of the word "herald" and I have been in many settings since I was a kid. I bet many natives are in my shoes.
If you're a native English speaker you've probably seen it, even if you didn't know what it meant.
A common context in which it's used is in the idiom "herald a new era" - here's a search: https://www.google.com/search?q="heralds+a+new+era" which shows that it's pretty common.
It's also used in the names of many newspapers around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_(newspaper)
There's also the Christmas carol, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hark!_The_Herald_Angels_Sing
But I suppose if you don't already know the word "herald" you might just put that down to weird religious language.
I am getting down-voted (for saying I did not know of this word, which is wild), but I asked a couple of people from the US and UK and they could not tell what it means, not without a dictionary.
It is a small sample, but you could ask your family and friends.
Plus, I still prefer something that most if not all people know: news-teller over herald, so I would have translated it to that.
if you're going to claim that something is not a valid translation of a word, you should probably know what it means first--duh?
People quickly jump to conclusions all the time on here. I did not claim that it is not a valid translation. All I said is that I did not know the word and that probably many native English speakers do not know it either. Additionally I claimed that I think it is better to use "news-speaker" instead of "herald" as it is obvious to most if not all people who speak English, whether native or not. I am fine with "reporter", too.
You could go around and ask people if they know the meaning of "herald". I did, and many people did not know, but "news-teller" is definitely obvious, and as I have previously said in two other comments: while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion, and in accordance to my experiences.
Language evolves. :)
“News-teller” is recognizably not standard English. In particular, we don’t commonly use “teller” in that way. No native English speaker would say “news-teller” in ordinary speech or writing.
A more idiomatic translation would be “reporter”.
Yes, I am fine with "reporter" too. I just provided a literal translation, and as I said in another comment, that while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion.
“News teller” is blatantly non-standard English. It immediately reads as either a deliberate anachronistic affectation, or a bad literal translation (in this case, it is indeed the latter).
That might be the case, but while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion. I am fine with "reporter", too. FWIW I provided a literal translation.
Check out my other replies if you are interested[1].
In any case, language evolves. :)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44845717, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44845575
The downvoting patterns of HN are often disheartening and illogical af
I am very much inclined to agree.
It is unfortunate that meaningful discourse often suffers when individuals form hasty judgments based solely on the initial few words of a comment, or when they make assumptions and jump to conclusions without fully considering the underlying content and intent. In my experience, I frequently encounter down-votes in such situations, which I find quite disappointing, especially when these down-votes occur without any accompanying explanation or constructive feedback. Such superficial engagement diminishes the quality of discussion and discourages thoughtful contributions, IMO.
TL;DR: Down-voting without explanation is quite frustrating. People hastily form misguided judgments on content they haven't fully understood, think "I don't like it" and down-vote without consideration (and any form of feedback or constructive criticism).
That's what a herald is in the literal sense - someone who is telling the news. Of course these days it is generally used metaphorically.
I might have gone with "crier" rather than "herald". That seems a little closer in terms of what the actual job consists of?
"Screamer" would work as well.
My Hungarian tells me "announcer" would be closer. It's literally someone who says the news.
> “Screamer" would work as well.
No it wouldn’t. A scream expresses extreme emotion or pain, it’s not just speaking loudly.
"Shouter"?
The English connotations of that are about a person who is overly loud, it wouldn't typically be used to describe someone
"Crier" is the closest if you're looking for a word along those lines, since it has historically been used in that way, although it's not a modern term.
There's a reason "herald" comes up here, though - it's actually a pretty close fit.
Your earlier suggestion of "announcer" works, though. "Reporter" might be even better, since it tends to imply a news context. You might say "telephone reporter" alone, for example, but you'd probably need to say "telephone news announcer" if you wanted to avoid it sounding like you were talking about someone who reads e.g. the time over the telephone.
I've never heard of "screamer" in English for someone who tells the news?
This was before amplifiers were invented, so the announcer had to be very loud.
I'm aware of that, but the term I'm familiar with is "crier". I've never heard "screamer" used in that sense. Wiktionary doesn't list such a usage; contrast with "crier" for which it is listed.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/screamer https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crier
I do not intend to offend you as it is not really about you, just that people generally resort to dictionaries like no tomorrow, but read this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44845717.
To be clear, I'm trying to appeal here to actual usage, not to the dictionary per se. The dictionary is just evidence of such, since trying to directly present evidence of actual usage is not so easy without some good tools.
“News-Teller” are two English words that wouldn't be used together in that way, “Herald” is one English word and literally means what the naive combination of those two suggests, and is extremely commonly used in that sense in the name of news outlets (newspapers, etc.)
“Crier” is another pissibility with overlapping denotation that is also somewhat commonly seen in that context, “announcer” would work today in speech, but largely is a product of TV & radio so would be somewhat odd choice given the other options available.
I have replied to many other comments, if you are interested in my line of thinking, you may check them out[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44845575
> News-Teller” are two English words that wouldn't be used together in that way
I'd respectfully disagree. You can't definitively say that two words "wouldn't be used together in that way". Language is constantly evolving organically, and compound words often emerge through natural usage before appearing in dictionaries. Dictionaries document language as it develops rather than dictating what's permissible. "News-teller" follows standard English compounding patterns and clearly conveys its meaning; that's how language naturally develops.
> You can't definitively say that two words "wouldn't be used together in that way".
Languages aren't just aggregates of individual words. There are several individual words in English that mean “person who tells the news”, and it is idiomatic to use them, not the combination “News-Teller".
Word-by-word translation is not the gold standard of translation, because individual words that seem to have the right meaning can be meaningless, have different meaning, or just be non-idiomatic in combination. Good translation is more than word-by-word and takes into account idiom in both the source language and the destination language.
Perhaps I should have said aren't used together in that way.
You're welcome to try to invent your own language, but you shouldn't be surprised when people push back on it. Chances are people aren't going to use your invention.
"News-teller" sounds archaic at best, or like a non-native trying to literally translate something, which is in fact exactly what's happening here.
Invented words or word combinations are more likely to catch on when there's a need for them. There are various words that already exist for this, so no need to invent a new one. Announcer, reporter, and even e.g. herald and crier if one is looking for a more historical meaning, that appears in the title of many newspapers.
> You're welcome to try to invent your own language.
What I'm doing with "news-teller" (or news teller) is not inventing my own language at all, and I don't appreciate dismissive or snarky remarks, especially when they're incorrect.
From a grammatical standpoint, "news-teller" is perfectly valid, English freely allows such noun-noun compounds. It's not an arbitrary invention, but a natural, transparent compound formed from two common, easily understood words. English has always created new terms this way (storyteller, truth-teller, lawgiver, bookseller), and while "news-teller" is not standard, it follows established morphological patterns. Because both components are familiar, most speakers would grasp its meaning immediately, arguably more so today than with the now-archaic "herald". You can even check Google's Books Ngram Viewer. Check for "news teller" and "herald".
The fact that "news-teller" isn't in widespread use does NOT make it "invented language". It makes it an uncommon but legitimate formation under the existing rules of English. If you doubt that, you could ask people whether they understand "herald" and then ask if they understand "news-teller". If you ask "news-teller" first, they will probably infer it means the same thing, so avoid that.
In any case, I already said I am fine with "reporter" or "announcer", and that I was providing a literal translation that everyone understands over "herald". This is literally the essence of my point, which is not the one being argued. Was I wrong in believing this literal translation is better (see: easier to understand) than "herald'?
I interpreted part of your comment as saying that Google ngram shows news-teller is more common than herald.
I checked newsteller, news teller, news-teller, and herald. Looks like herald is roughly 50,000 times more common.
I was talking about the Google's Books Ngram, but according to even https://ngrams.org/ngram-viewer.html, that is not true: https://i.imgur.com/zlss0Ib.png.
Regardless, this is an irrelevant detail to my comment, so comparing frequencies is pointless.
I don't know about other places/communities - but in the Jewish Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) communities this is still in common use: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_news_hotline
Electrically.