Telefon Hírmondó
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
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.
Although I suppose they weren't building completely from scratch, they were using the existing telephone network for the actual physical layer connectivity.
> 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.
My Hungarian tells me "announcer" would be closer. It's literally someone who says the news.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/screamer https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crier
No it wouldn’t. A scream expresses extreme emotion or pain, it’s not just speaking loudly.
"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.
But the noun "herald" literally means "official who tells the news"
So this still definitely checks out.
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.
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.
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. :)
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).
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
A more idiomatic translation would be “reporter”.
“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.
[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.
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.
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.
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 checked newsteller, news teller, news-teller, and herald. Looks like herald is roughly 50,000 times more common.
Regardless, this is an irrelevant detail to my comment, so comparing frequencies is pointless.