I suppose it could be that in that language the ship bell and temple bell would have two different names, but obviously that nuance is lost when translated into English.
It's like in English you have fingers and toes, and obviously fingers are not toes, and toes are not fingers. But for example in Polish, they are both called the same thing, so you need to specify which "fingers" you mean - so you could have a sentence that says "foot fingers", which when translated into English could end up being "foot toes" - obviously to an English speaker it makes no sense, since toes are only on a foot, so saying foot toes is pointless. But it makes perfect sense in Polish, and yet this nuance is lost here.
Yes, good point. Sort of the same is true in Hindi. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) that there are separate words for fingers and toes in Hindi - the word ung(a)li [1] is used for both, IIRC - and they may add the Hindi word for foot if they are referring to toes rather than fingers.
Just checked it in Google Translate:
finger - उंगली
toe - पैर की अंगुली (finger of foot)
though you can see that they use two different spellings for ungali there - the latter one reads as anguli.
I used to think that the former was the right spelling, but on seeing the above now, remembered the story of Angulimala and Buddha, so maybe both are correct spellings:
It's like in English you have fingers and toes, and obviously fingers are not toes, and toes are not fingers. But for example in Polish, they are both called the same thing, so you need to specify which "fingers" you mean - so you could have a sentence that says "foot fingers", which when translated into English could end up being "foot toes" - obviously to an English speaker it makes no sense, since toes are only on a foot, so saying foot toes is pointless. But it makes perfect sense in Polish, and yet this nuance is lost here.