Alle Sprachen    |   EN   SV   IS   RU   IT   FR   RO   PT   HU   NL   LA   SK   ES   BG   HR   FI   NO   CS   DA   TR   PL   EL   SR   EO   |   SK   HU   FR   PL   NL   SQ   RU   ES   NO   SV   IT   DA   CS   PT   HR   FI   BG   RO   |   more ...

Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch

Online-Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch: Begriff hier eingeben!
  ä ö ü ß
  Optionen | Tipps | FAQ | Abkürzungen | Desktop

LoginRegistrieren
Home|About/Extras|Vokabeltrainer|Fachgebiete|Benutzer|Forum|Mitmachen!
Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
Types of entries to display:     Linguistic help needed   Chat and other topics   Dictionary entries   Contribute!  

English-German Translation Forum

Hier kannst du Fragen zu Übersetzungen stellen (auf Deutsch oder Englisch) und anderen Benutzern weiterhelfen. Wichtig: Bitte gib den Kontext deiner Frage an!
Suche | Richtlinien | Neue Frage stellen
Frage:
The (potential) Vocabulary of any language is larger than the terms actually documented in the dictionaries or by G-hits!  
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-01-13, 01:23  Spam?  
Dictionaries document only a small segment of the vocabulary of any given language, depending on what criteria they use for deciding to include a word or a meaning, they aim to reflect priorities of the community of users to which they address themselves. Every language, however, has its own rules for inventing new words -- usually in the form of compounds -- or attributing new, more specific or analogous meanings to existing words.

For  the word-formation rules of German see :  http://www.canoo.net/services/WordformationRules/ueberblick/index.h...   -   https://www.duden.de/sprachwissen/sprachratgeber/Komposition   -   http://hypermedia.ids-mannheim.de/call/public/sysgram.ansicht?v_typ...
For word-formation rules in English, see   https://www.englishgrammar.org/word-formation-english/   -   http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words/wordtypes.html  -   Wikipedia(EN): Word_formation .

In principle, therefore, any word formed or  given a new but related meaning, e.g. by generalization, by specification, or by analogous extension,  -- provided this is done according to the grammatical and semantic word-formation rules of the language in question    is at least potentially a legitimate word in that language, even if it appears only as an "Eintagsfliege" in a single context. Whether or not such a newly-formed word is useful or not, will depend on whether or not.the language already has an existing term with the same denomination and connotations. Oftens such new formations serve to express a distinctive viewpoint, for example a humorous or pejorative attitude

Bilingual dictionaries have a different responsibility for unusual word-formations than monolingual ones.

   Monolingual dictionaries, historically, have often attempted to exercise a "prescriptive/restrictive" role, giving preference to those terms which are more frequently used and/or are  recommended according to theoretical or esthetic principles, by tagging  terms whose usage is restricted or problematical as colloquial, slang. humor, etc., and by ignoring terms that the editors  believe should not be used. The problem with ignoring terms as a means of prescription/restriction is that dictionaries of general usage, even the so called univeraal dictionaries, is that they also ignore/exclude much of the specialized terminology particular to narrower academic discipline and to diverse  sciences and technologies, and they also ignore many expressions whose use is restricted to particular regions or social groups. Hence, general usage dictionaries must be supplemented by special dictionaries.
     Thus the mere absence of a term in a general monolingual dictionary is NO proof that it does not exist or is not at least potentially usable.. Correspondingly, the makers of universal dictionaries are increasingly abandoning the "prescriptive" approach in favor of a "descriptive" approach based on tracking actual usage rather than evaluating it on the basis of theoretical or ideal considerations, and they use tags to express evaluative judgments about the terms they record
    In Bilingual dictionaries, like Dict.cc, there is even less place for the prescriptive/restrictive approach. -- at least to the extent that their size is not limited by print or file magnitude. From the beginning, Dict.cc was intended to be inclusive, thus eliminating the need to supplement its vocabulary by resorting to special usage dictionaries; it was conceived to provide translations for ANY AND EVERY potentially legitimate expression in both of the two paired languages they were meant to serve. The reason for this desirable inclusiveness is that users often need to translate "unusual" terms from outside their normal horizon, e.g. special terms proper to a particular area of science or technology or proper to to a particular socio-cultural milieu or linguistic usage  area. Thus instead of relying on exclusion as an instrument of prescription, Dict.cc indicates usage restrictions by adding appropriate tags to less common or special terms or, in particular cases, by adding usage warnings, e.g. the  "WRONG for: ..." entries.

IN SHORT: "I've never heard it" or "I can't find it in a dictionary or in Google" are NOT valid arguments for rejecting a proposed entry here in Dict.cc. Even one single plausible example of the use of a proposed term SUFFICES to justify the term's inclusion here. To avoid cluttering up the dictionaries with novelties for the sake of novelties, we have the RULE that for the source term, at least one example should be cited  If possible, this should be taken from a publicly accessible Internet source (one or more G-hits), but it is also possible to cite a printed or even an oral source by giving a short quotation together with author, short-title and year of publication. Reservations about the currency or legitimacy of the term can and should be expressed by adding appropriate usage tags or a usage warning.
     Often, however, there is no documentable equivalent term that can be given as a translation on the target side. In that case, it is permissible and indeed desirable to "invent" an equivalent translation term following the grammatical and semantic word-formation rules of the given language -- such inventions should not be confused with "free" or "loose translations". In that case, instead of citing a source, the author of the proposed translation should provide an explanation, why no standard equivalent is available and why his proposed creation is a grammatically and semantically correct equivalent of the source term, reflecting not only its directly denotated but also its indirectly connotated meaning.
 « zurück


nach oben | home© 2002 - 2018 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum / Datenschutz
Dieses Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr Informationen!
Enthält Übersetzungen von der TU Chemnitz sowie aus Mr Honey's Business Dictionary (Englisch/Deutsch). Vielen Dank dafür!
Links auf dieses Wörterbuch oder einzelne Übersetzungen sind herzlich willkommen! Fragen und Antworten