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

Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch

Online-Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch: Begriff hier eingeben!
  äöüß...
  Optionen | Tipps | FAQ | Abkürzungen

LoginRegistrieren
Home|New Website|About|Vokabeltrainer|Fachgebiete|Benutzer|Forum|Mitmachen!
Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
  effect to any veto exercised »
« Baubereitschaft    

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
Frage:
Hyphens in English compounds  
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-11-17, 19:28  like dislike  Spam?  
In http://forum.dict.cc/?pagenum=13011&hilite=628573&kw=#entry..., Catesse expressed her frustration in trying to explain the use of hyphens in English compound adjectives, also called "phrasal adjectives". Unfortunately, her explanations seem to have been confined to the discussion of individual entries and thus cannot easily be found. For the record, therefore, it might be useful here in the Contribute section to set forth (and if necessary, discuss) these rules to assure their observance by all contributors. Please forgive me if I cite the standard authorities in extenso; occasionally I have also added bracketed explanations of unfamiliar terms. . Among other things, these passages explain why the spellings found in the dictionaries often seem to differ or to be inconsequent.

The Cambridge Grammar of English (2006), Nr. 266, writes:
  "The use of hyphens and complex words involves a number of different rules, and the practice is changing, with fewer hyphens in contemporary usage. For example, compound words may be written as separate words (post box), hyphenated (post-box). or written as one word (postbox).
However, in certain forms the rules governing hyphens are more regular:
   Particular prefixes regularly involve a hyphen (e.g. ex-minister, post-war, self-interest, quasi-public)
   When a compound premodifies a noun head [e.g. a compounded adjective before a noun], a hyphen is normally inserted to indicate which words are compounded (e.g. a well-known entertainer, twentieth -century Danish architecture).
   Hyphens are normally used in compounds in which the pre-head term is a single capital letter (e.g. U-turn, X-ray), and hyphens are sometimes needed to disambiguate compound words (e.g. re-form = form again, reform+ = change radically)
    In numerically modified adjectives, all modifying elements are hyphenated. Note that these forms are only used attributively (e.g. an eighteen-year-old girl, a twenty-ton truck, a twenty-four-hour flight)

The same source adds under Nr 141b:
Hyphenated compound adjectives are frequent, and these also contribute to the integration and condensation of information. They often reflect the condensation of a noun and its complement phrase:
    Spiral galexies have a disk-like+ appearance ...

More explicit and perhaps reflecting more conservative usage are the rules given in the Chicago Manual of Style (2003) -- this is the standard stylebook for academic publications in the USA -- under Nr.782--790:
   "Probably the most common spelling questions for writers and editors concern compound terms --- whether to spell as two words ["open compounds"] hyphenate ["hyphenated compounds"], or close up as a single word ["closed compounds"]. The first place to look for answers is the dictionary. The following paragraphs and the hyphenation guide in 7.90 offer guidelines for spelling compounds not necessarily found in the dictionary (though some of the examples are drawn from Webster [gemeint ist +Merriam-Webster+] ...
   A permanent compound is one that has been accepted into the general vocabulary and can be found in the dictionary. A temporary compound is a new combination created for some specific, often one-time purpose (dictionary-wielding+, impearchment hound); such compounds, though some eventually become permenent, are not normally found in the dictionary. Not strictly compounds but often discussed with them are words formed with prefixes (antigrammarian, postmodern) ...
  With frequent use, open or hyphenated compounds tend to become closed (on line to online). Chicago's general adherence to Webster does not preclude occasional exceptions, when the closed spellings have become widely accepted, pronunciation and readability are not at stake, and keystrokes can be saved. ...
  Hyphens and readability  A hyphen can make for easier reading by showing structure and, often, pronuntiation. Words that might otherwise be misread, such as re-creation, should be hyphenated. Hyphens can also eliminate ambiguity. Although decision making as a noun is not normally hyphenated, to add one in fast decision-making shows that decisions (not snap-judgments) must be made soon. Similarly the hyphen in much-needed clothing shows that the clothing is badly needed rather than abundant and needed. Where no ambiguity could result, as in public welfare administration or graduate student housing, hyphenation is not mandatory, though it is quite acceptable and preferred by many writers and editors.
  compound modifiers before and after a noun  When compound modifiers (also called phrasal adjectives) such as open-mouthed or nicotine-free come later in a phrase than the noun they describe, ambiguity is unlikely and the hyphen dispensable (though not incorrect). When such compounds precede a noun, hyphenation usually makes for easier reading. With the exception of proper names (such as United States) and compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective, it is never incorrect to hyphenate adjectival compounds before a noun. Hyphenated compounds that appear in Webster (such as well-read or ill humored) may be spelled without a hyphen when they follow a noun.
   Compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective or participle (such as largely irrelevant or smartly dressed) are not hyphenated either before or after a noun, since ambiguity is virtually impossible.
   Although two or more hyphens are standard in such phrases as a matter-of-fact approach or an over- the-counter drug, there is no consensus --- nor need there be --- on the need for one hyphen in longer and less common adjectival compounds. Readability and semantic logic are sometimes judged differently by equally literate writers or editors. Thus early nineteenth-century literature and early-nineteenth-century literature are both in good standing. Using one hyphen or two does not affect the meaning of the phrase as a whole. ...

Obviously, this flexibility in usage poses PROBLEMS FOR THE DICTIONARY-MAKER. Thus one finde the following  text in Bo Svenson, A Handbook of Lexicography: the theory and practice of dictionary making, (Cambridge UP, 2009).
  2... in English, a hyphenated form such as air-mail is as plausible as the one written separately. In consequence, the user may have to look in two different places in the dictionary before the expression is found. If it comes to the worst, it may be neccessary to look in three places [i.e. dictionaries with a nesting structure listing compounds under their component terms], as the user cannot know in advance whether air mail is entered [as an example of a combination] under air or  under mail. These three expressions have been formed in an exactly parallel way, and the graphic form cannot be held to justify treating them in different ways, particularly if the aim is to make things easier for the user. The conclusion is that items of this kind, whether written separately, hyphenated, or solid, should be accorded the same lemma status [treated as separate entries].
   The treatment of lexical terms consisting of several graphic words, i.e. "multi-word lexical terms" in dictionaries has been, and still is, the subject of a lively discussion, and practice differs between object  languages [i.e. the different languages treated] as well as between dictionaries. ...
   Generally speaking, there is now a tendency to accord, to a greater extent than before, lemma status to lexicalized noun phrases [multi-word items for which a separate enty is made] in learners' dictionaries and in dictionaries with a nesting macrostructurestructure, ...
   The increasing tendency to accord lemma status to [i.e. to make separate entries for]  noun phrases and verb phrases [also phrasal adjectives mentioned elsewhere in this book] has made some contribution to making these items easier to find in the dictionary. The search problems are even smaller in electronic dictionaries, since the search facilities there make it easy for the user to access such an item, irrespective of its status in the dictionary text ...

FAZIT Im Englischen, abgesehen von Adjektiven, die mit einem "ly"-Adverb gebildet sind, und Adjektiven, die in den maßgebenden Wörterbüchern ausschließlich als ein Wort geschrieben werden,  gibt es normalerweise keinen Grund für Streit über die Setzung eines Hyphens oder eines Spatiums zwischen den Bestanteilen eines zusammengesetzten Adjektivs, solange die Bedeutuing klar zu erkennen ist. Es ist nicht falsch separate Einträge für beide Formen zu machen. Dasselbe gilt für Noun- und Verbkombinationen.
  Es ist auch wichtig zu wissen, dass wir hier in Dict.cc in vielen, vielleicht in den meisten neueren Fällen, die über ein Basisvokabular hinausgehen, mit sog. "temporary compounds" statt "permanent compounds" zu tun haben, d.h. mit Kombinationen, die noch nicht, und vielleicht nie, Eingang in den Standardwörterbüchern finden. Für den Übersetzer sind sie aber höchst wichtig und gehören deshalb in Dict.cc.
Antwort: 
Postscript: New Hart's Rules of English Usage (2005) -- an additional source  #628646
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), 2011-11-17, 22:17  like dislike  Spam?  
A more detailed exposition of hyphen rules, differentiating between British and American usage  can be found in New Hart's Rules of English Usage (2005), which is available on the Internet to those with subscription access to Oxford Dictionaries Online
UR - http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/view/book/acprof-978019861041...
The passage is too long to quote here and copyright prohibits putting it on the Internet separately, but I have made a copy of the text for myself in Word-format, and I would be happy to send a copy to anyone who requests it.
Antwort: 
A good summary by Oxford  #628661
von Don (NZ/GB), 2011-11-17, 23:58  like dislike  Spam?  
One comment I would like to make is regarding compound adjectives including the adverb 'well'. Oxford touches on this in the summary, saying they shouldn't be hyphenated when used after a noun, only when used before a noun (attributively). My own Oxford also states this in the foreword - his remarks were well intentioned - a well-intentioned remark.
However, in the main body of the dictionary, all adjectival compounds beginning with 'well' are shown without hyphens, I guess the dictionary user has to reach his or her own conclusion on whether to use a hyphen or not. One hopes they have read the foreword.
Antwort: 
US / UK variations  #628673
von Catesse (AU), 2011-11-18, 04:21  like dislike  Spam?  
There are legitimate variations in the use of hyphens in compound nouns. There is a general trend for separate words to become hyhenated, and hyphenatd words to become a single word, and it is often a matter of opinion and personal preference which form is used. (UK / US usages differ slightly, especially in the use of e.g.vice-president, attorney-general, lieutenant-commander, major-general.) Sometimes there are three acceptable forms: e.g. air raid, air-raid and airraid, although in this case the third form looks odd. What is objectionable on dict is that experienced contributors who should know better re-open and vote down a perfectly correct form because they prefer some other form.
With adjectives, however, the situation is different, and there is a large measure of agreement. There is an excellent exposition in the "Chicago Manual of Style", Table 6:1 (Also, unfortunately copyright and apparently not online.). As this largely corresponds to the Australian Government Publishing Service "Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers", I presume that the UK usage is similar. The problem with entering these in dict is that the attributive and predicate forms can be different. e.g
"My much-loved aunt died last week."
"My aunt, who died last week, was much loved."
This is something that the wordreference format handles much better than dict: it gives the difference in bright red letters in a framed box for all such entries.
What I found particularly objectionable, a matter which nearly sent me fleeing from dict some six months ago, was that the correct entry "first-aid post" was re-opened and changed to "first aid post", with subsequent outvotes for those who voted for the correct form, while those who changed their votes to the wrong form survived. The last straw with regard to this entry was that the source given by the person who had made the change stated quite clearly, at the bottom of the entry, that the words "first aid" were hyphenated when used attributively. And almost all the little lemmings jumped over the cliff without checking - or at least without understanding, this limitation, even though I had previously entered a comment pointing out this fact. And they were all experienced contributors, not newcomers. I was too disgusted and depressed and angry even to do another re-open or make a post on forum. I still am depressed about it. What's the use?
While there is a problem with the manner of indicating the different customs when the compound adjective is entered by itself, there should be no problem when it is in a phrase. There are certainly hundreds of incorrect entries of this type (attributive compound adjectives) in dict. It might or might not be an exaggeration to say thousands. They cannot be altered automatically, and I am not going to put my hand up to volunteer to alter them manually. I am not the one who made these errors.
Re compounds beginning with "well": Chicago states: All compounds with well-, ill-, better-, little-, lesser-, etc. are hyphenated before the noun unless the expression carries a modifier.
i.e.: a well-known author, a very well known author, an author who is well known.
Confusing? Well, the style manuals are there to provide for consistency in usage. Even a good English author or editor will consult them to make sure what is required. It would be very agreeable if users could rely on dict. in this matter. At present they definitely cannot. Caveat emptor.
Antwort: 
Specific recommendations concerning compound adjectives and nouns  #628774
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-11-18, 20:58  like dislike  Spam?  
Thank you, Don and Catessa for your comments, which do much to clarify the issues at stake here. Two questions: could you please specify, Don, what reference work you mean by Oxford and could you, Catessa, specify what edition of the Chicago Rules you are using -- in my 2005 (15th) edition, the table you refer to is under the Nr. 7.90.

Given the general agreement of all the authorities that compound adjectives in front of a noun are hyphenated as a rule, perhaps the following recommendation could be inserted into the GL to avoid unnecessary multiplication of entries:
    In English, compounded adjectives not written as one word, e.g. "high-quality", "middle-class", "first-aid",
    "tight-lipped", "high jumping", "computer-literate", should as a rule be written with a hyphen when they
    are entered alone, e.g "first-aid [adj.] or (attributively) before a noun e.g. "first-aid kit", even
    though they can be written without the hyphen when they are used predicatively. The principal exceptions
    are names of countries,  e.g. "United States military", scientific terms e.g. "liquid crystal display", names
    of colors, e.g. "emerald green gem", capitalized compounds, e.g. "New Testament exegete", and
    compounds beginning with an adverb ending in "ly", e.g. "highly paid", all of which are always written
    without a hyphen. A hyphen is also generally omitted, when the compound is preceded by "very" or a
    similar modifier, e.g.  "very well known". "everywhere well known".
         Adjectives formed with prefixes like "neo-", "anti-" are  always hyphenated before a capital
    letter, e.g. "neo-Gothic" but generally written together without a hyphen before a small letter, e.g.
    "neoclassical", but they are never written separately as two  words

Such a recommendation would impede the kind of unjustified entries and reopenings that Catessa rightly complains about. On the other, Paul might find it too detailed for the GL, though, given the importance of EN in a majority of the Dict.cc sections, I think it should be considered. For nouns, one might make the following *recommendation*:
    In English, compounded nouns can often be written as separate words, or connected with a hyphen, or
    even, esp. in American usage, as one word, e.g. "air stream", "air-stream", "airstream"; thus multiple
    entries are possible, although preference should be given to spellings found in dictionaries over against
    Google hits, however numerous, which often do not reflect correct usage. When, however, a compound
    noun is formed with an adjective that is itself a compound, a special rule prevails, see below under
    Adjectives.
Antwort: 
More thoughts.  #628776
von Don (NZ/GB), 2011-11-18, 17:41  like dislike  Spam?  
Tomaquinaten's link is no longer available, perhaps it had a time limit.
Catesse raises a good point when she mentions the adjectival phrase 'very well known', which I agree shouldn't be hyphenated. Incidentally this has been entered correctly in dict.cc by the much-maligned Drax.
Consider also 'a not very well thought out plan' and ' the plan was not very well thought out'. Completely hyphenated attributive examples can be found on the Internet though.
I was thinking that attributive compound adjectives, such as 'well-known', 'much-maligned' and so on could be marked [attr.], and those used predicatively, e.g. well known, much maligned etc. could be marked [pred.], but the addition of a modifier to attributive adjectival compounds complicates this. I'm not sure what the answer is in this case, suggestions are very welcome.
Consider also - fully automatic, semi-automatic (or semiautomatic) - A fully automatic / semi-automatic gearbox - the gearbox is fully automatic / semi-automatic. Whether it's used attributively or predicatively, the form of the adjective doesn't change.
Also - co-operate, co-operative, and co-operation can also be spelt cooperate, cooperative, and cooperation respectively, despite the two o's having different sounds. However the noun co-op (short for co-operative society etc.) should always be spelt co-op, because of possible confusion with coop (noun and verb).
Hyphens in noun componds were more common in bygone days, and another example is that street names (in Britain at least) were at one time hyphenated in print, but not on the street signs. For example Baker Street (of Sherlock Holmes fame) was rendered as Baker-street. This practice has died out.
Adjectives such as neo-Gothic and anti-British should always be hyphenated because of the capital letter.
Pre-war and post-war are often spelt prewar and postwar repectively, but rarer examples of adjectives with pre- or post- such as post-earthquake and pre-earthquake should be hyphenated - preearthquake looks rather weird anyway.
Antwort: 
tomaquinaten  #628777
von Don (NZ/GB), 2011-11-18, 17:46  like dislike  Spam?  
By Oxford I mean the Oxford Dictionary of English in this case (I always keep it handy). But I also tend to refer to the online version as Oxford!
http://oxforddictionaries.com/
Antwort: 
Die Zusammenfassungen von Tom  #628793
von ddr (AT), 2011-11-18, 18:58  like dislike  Spam?  
irgendwo handy im E-D dict (und den anderen E-s) unterzubringen, halte ich für eine blendende Idee.
Vielleicht auch mit links zu den genannten Quellen. Toll wäre es unter dem Eingabeformular bei den anderen links [google, Wikipedia etc.] unter einem Titel, den man noch erfinden müsste. Dann bräuchte man in den GLs nur einen Hinweis darauf.
Ich glaube, das würde uns verwirrten Deutschsprachlern sehr helfen.
Für die Eingabe, denke ich, wäre 'much-maligned [präd.: much maligned]' eine einfache Lösung. Auf Deutsch zumindest denkt man bei Adjektiven ja immer zuerst an die attributive Verwendung.
Antwort: 
Don: More Thoughts  #628805
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-11-18, 20:55  like dislike  Spam?  
1) The link to Hart's Rules is available, unfortunately, only to subscribers to OxfordDictionaryOnline or to those who have access to this service through their library. It is not available on the free OxfordDictionaries site. For this reason, I have created a Word file for the relevant passage on hyphenation and would be happy to share it privately (I cannot put it on the Internet) with anyone who is interested.
2) Unfortunately, I do not have the printed version of the Oxford Dictionary of English, so I rely on the paid subscription Internet version and generally check its information against the paid Merriam-Webster Unabridged, as well the free online Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Macmillin, Collins, and American Heritage.
    For disambiguating Dict.cc entries, the free online Oxford, Cambridge, Macmillan, and Merriam-Webster *Advanced Learner's Dictionaries" are often the best sources, since they make an effort to provide definitions and explanations useful to those who are not native speakers of English. They can be found at:
Oxford:  http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/help.html
Cambridge: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/
Macmillan: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/
Merriam-Webster:  http://www.learnersdictionary.com/
3) To account for the omission of the hyphen in compound adjectives preceded by "very" or other modifiers. I have listed this as an exception in my proposed recommendation. However, I cannot find a clear ruling on this anywhere, perhaps it is a peculiarity of adverbial modifiers.
4) To insist on entering both the attributive and the predicative form of compound adjectives and marking them as such is problematical, since the version without the hyphen cannot be used predicatively (except for the exceptions listed) but the version with the hyphen can also be used attributively. If double entries are made, it would be better to omit [attr.] and [pred.]. *P.S.*: ddr has meanwhile made a proposal which is worth considering; see below.
5) the case with "fully" is covered by the rule that compounds beginning with an "ly"-adverb are not hyphenated.
6) Adjectives formed with prefixes like "neo-", "anti-" are of course always hyphenated before a capital letter, e.g. "neo-Gothic" but generally written together without a hyphen before a small letter, e.g. "neoclassical", but they are never written separately as two  words. If desired, a corresponding statement could be added to my proposed recommendation. I have now made such an addition to my proposal above.
Antwort: 
ddr's "einfache Lösung" is worth consideration,  #628807
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-11-19, 19:32  like dislike  Spam?  
to be exact, however, it must read "much-maligned [pred. also: much maligned]", since the hyphenated form is also correct in the predicative position. -- P.S. In the light of the exchange with Don below, I would now propose the form:
    much-maligned [pred. +chiefly+: much maligned].

Perhaps Paul could devise a program that would automatically add this to the hyphenated adjectives [Wordclass "adj."] and would make sure that they would easily be found when someone enters "much maligned", e.g by displaying them at the top of the list of "teilwise Übereinstimmung" . Perhaps the resulting duplicates could also be eliminated per program, when on the German side the translation is identical. In any case, it would also be necessary to make exceptions in such a program for written numbers beginning with "twenty-" to "ninety-" and for compounds formed with standard prefixes which never stand alone [a list can be found at Wikipedia(EN): English_prefixes].
Antwort: 
much maligned  #628810
von Don (NZ/GB), Last modified: 2011-11-18, 22:21  like dislike  Spam?  
There is already an entry for much maligned, which I entered way back in 2005. Unfortunately I did not follow Collins closely enough - I have just rechecked in Collins, which shows it as much-maligned. I may consider reopening this entry, depending on the outcome of this debate. I also notice that viel geschmäht is now vielgeschmäht in the Duden Universalwörterbuch
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=582671&goback=2
I tend to disagree with the assertion that much-maligned (with hyphen) is also used predicatively. Similarly with much-admired, which is usually much admired [pred.].
Antwort: 
Don: The use of the hyphen in predicatively used compound adjectives  #628821
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-11-19, 19:15  like dislike  Spam?  
may be an Americanism or it may be an example of language evolution. It is explicitly stated in the Chicago Rules  that it is "not incorrect". Cambridge does not mention the issue, and Hart's says, "Compound modifiers that follow a noun do not need hyphens," which seems to leave the issue open. Nevertheless, I have now amended my version of ddr's proposal, substituting "chiefly" for "also". See above.
Antwort: 
Chicago  #628862
von Catesse (AU), 2011-11-19, 03:54  like dislike  Spam?  
4; tomaquinaten: 13th edition, 1982.
Thanks for pointing out the update. I thought that the chapter divisions would be retained, although the content might be tweaked. I feel obliged to buy new editions of Australian manuals as they appear, but I could not afford to keep updating my Chicago, Duden, Larousse, etc. My Dudens are very much out of date by now, mostly bought second-hand, of varying dates going back to the 1950s. However, they serve me well enough, and my Oxford-Duden contains the major Neue Rechtschreibung variants, although not the updates to the variants, Lord help us.
(I have used a hyphen in a predicative "second-hand" here, because it seems correct. Maybe because of a slight ambiguity re the "second hand" on a clock. It is probably safer to include a redundant, non-essential hyphen in a predicative adjective than to omit an essential hyphen in an attributive adjective.)
Antwort: 
second-hand  #628880
von Don (NZ/GB), 2011-11-19, 09:55  like dislike  Spam?  
The adjective is second-hand (or secondhand), and shouldn't change when used predicatively. Second-hand can be used as an adverb as well. The noun is second hand, when referring to a hand on clocks and watches.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/second-hand
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/second+hand
Antwort: 
Don  #628920
von Catesse (AU), 2011-11-19, 13:49  like dislike  Spam?  
Fair enough. No argument.
Antwort: 
well-known / well known  #630409
von Wenz (DE), 2011-11-30, 21:06  like dislike  Spam?  
Könnte nicht jemand, der von dieser Materie mehr versteht als ich, unsere dict-Wortpaare mal durchschauen.
Sie korrigieren  bzw. erweitern mit [attr.], wenn notwendig.
Es wäre eine tolle Sache und für die Zukunft sehr hilfreich für jedermann. Danke!

Was ist mit diesem Eintrag hier?
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=579258
Antwort: 
I would remove the hyphen.  #630444
von Don (NZ/GB), Last modified: 2011-12-01, 00:44  like dislike  Spam?  
'Well known' is not being used as an attributive adjective in that entry, so no hyphen is necessary. It is more likely to be used predicatively -
Barcelona is well known for its beaches.
Norway is well known for its fiords.
Another entry that was reviewed recently should also have the hyphen removed.
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=show-history&id=144945
Antwort: 
Paul: Fine print proposal for the GL  [ texts revised as of 3 Dec, 19:00]  #630545
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-12-02, 23:01  like dislike  Spam?  
Obwohl nur wenige von uns an dieser Diskussion beteiligt waren, hat sie gezeigt, dass wir doch  eine praktische Lösung brauchen, um unnötige und oft unsinnige Duplikate und Reopenings zu vermeiden. Die Regel für den englischen Hyphengebrauch sind evident zu kompliziert um in den GL wiederzugeben, zumal sie auch z.Zt im Fluss sind. Angeregt durch die Beiträge vor allem von Don und ddr, möchte ich folgende Ergänzungen für GL 7 und 9 vorschlagen, die möglichst als "small print" erscheinen sollen.

PROPOSED FINE-PRINT TO BE ADDED TO GL 7, 8, AND 9)

add to GL 7 NOUNS
Hyphen or blank in compounds not written together as one word
In English, compounded nouns phrases can often be written as separate words, e.g. "air stream", as hyphenated words, e.g. "air-stream" or even, esp. in American usage, as one word, e.g. "airstream". In short,  multiple    entries are possible and even wellcome, especially for alternative spellings found in dictionaries (mere Google-hits  -- however numerous -- do not justify correctness!). When regional preferences can be identified, qualifications like "esp. Brit." may be added.
SPECIAL CASES:
1)      When, a compound  noun is formed with an adjective that is itself a hyphenated compound, DO
          NOT PUT a hyphen before the final term, e.g. "first-aid kit", "matter-of-fact approach",
          "well-known entertainer", "twenty-four-hour flight", unless there is dictionary warrent for putting one
          there..
2)    When the compound begins with a single capital letter, PUT s hyphen between that letter and the
          following word. e.g.  "U-turn", "X-ray"..
3)    After prefixes that cannot stand alone PUT a hyphen (never a blank!) between the prefix and the
          following word, e.g. "ex-minister", "post-war", "self-interest", "quasi-public", unless there is dictionary
          evidence for writing the term together as a single  word (frequent in American usage).
4)    When needed  to disambiguate compound words having different meanings, PUT a hyphen to prevent
        confusion,  e.g. "re-form" [= form again], "reform" [= change radically].

add to GL 8 VERBS
Hyphen or blank in compounds not written together as one word
DO NOT as a rule write compound verbs with a hyphen UNLESS they are derived from a hyphenated compound noun, e.g. "to hold up" BUT "to machine-gun".

add to GL 9 ADJECTIVES
Hyphen or blank in compound adjectives not written together as one word
In compound adjectives (phrasal adjectives) formed by by joining nouns, adjectives, participles, adverbs, and numbers, in whatever order they follow,
     [compare :  "high-quality" (adj.+noun), "computer-literate" (noun+adj.), "matter of fact" (2 nouns),
      "tight-fitting" (adj.+part.), "twenty-four-hour" (number+noun)]
PUT hyphens between the members and add a standard bracket-explanation to distinguish between the attributive form always spelled with the hyphen and the predicative form usually spelled without the hyphen, e.g.
-  high-quality [attr./ pred. usually with blank instead of hyphen]
         [NB: I suggest using a slash between "attr." and "pred." for the sake of optical clarity.]]
EXCEPTIONS:
ALWAYS write without a hyphen: (and thus without the bracketed  addition):.
--  names of countries,  e.g. "United States" as used in "the United States military",
--  scientific terms e.g. "liquid crystal" as used in "liquid crystal display"; "sodium cloride" as used in
     "sodium cloride solution",
--  names of colors, e.g. "emerald green  as used in "emerald green gem",
--  capitalized compounds, e.g. "New Testament" as used in "New Testament exegete",
--  compounds beginning with an adverb ending in "ly", e.g. "highly paid" as used in "highly paid worker"
--  compounds beginning with adverbs of magnitude, e.g. "very well known"  "everywhere well known".as
     used in "very well known author"

For adjectives formed with prefixes like "neo-", "anti-" "post-", ALWAYS PUT a hyphen before a capital letter, e.g. "neo-Gothic" but, before a small letter, do not put a blank or hyphen, but WRITE TOGETHER as one word,  e.g.  "neoclassical";,unless there is dictionary evidence for an alternative spelling..

EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF THIS PROPOSAL (NOT to be incorporated in the above texts)
Given the prominence of English in so many of the Dict.cc sections, I believe that it is justified and indeed necessary to include these directives in the general rules section of the GL. The need to enter compound nouns and adjectives to translate the much more frequent compounds used in agglutinating languages like German, means that we often must enter terms that are not found in any English dictionary and we need clear directives to define how such combinations should be entered or, if necessary, re-opened and corrected.
   As noted in the discussion above, the English rules are complicated and in the process of changing, so that older dictionary entries may not still be normative. I  have attempted here to reduce the English rules to clear practical directives to make entries that are generally correct and useful (especially when dictionary evidence is lacking) and which will avoid senseless and and often confusing duplication or inconsequence, as well as disputes about what spelling should be marked as "spv."
  . There is neither need nor place to explain the full rules of English hyphenation in the GL or to expand on the many possibilites for departing from the standard forms under special circumstances. Following these directives, however, unless there is clear dictionary evidence for entering a different spelling, will insure correct entries AT LEAST FOR THE STANDARD spellings. and leave open the possibility of making additional entries for spelling variants.

Possible automatic cleaning up of existing entires
Above I suggested that Paul might be able to design a program to clean up *existing entires in the wordclass  *ADJECTIVES*:
1)  automatically adding the clarification "[attr./ pred. usually with blank instead of hyphen]" to all existing entries written with the hyphen. .
2)  automatically referring entries for adjectives written with the blank to the entry spelled with the hyphen.or better deleting entries for spelling with the blank and *referring searches with the blank" to the entries with the hyphen.

Existing entries for adjectives written together would be exempted from this program and would thus continue to exist alongside the entries for hyphenated forms.

Multiple entries in the wordclass *NOUNS / SUBSTANTIVES" reflecti alternative spellings with the hyphen,or blank or written as one word, i.e. without a hyphen or blank, and thus should be tolerated and even encouraged, especially when justified by reputable dictionaries rather than mere Google-hits. They may be given regional tags like "esp. Brit." if this usage can be identified.
Antwort: 
Expansion of GL7  #630605
von Catesse (AU), 2011-12-02, 03:44  like dislike  Spam?  
Tomaquinaten's exposition is probably correct in all respects, but reading every word gives me such a headache that I would not guarantee my opinion.
Problem 1: Since many contributors, especially but not exclusively new ones, take little notice of even simple instructions, I am not hopeful of compliance. However, it would provide a firm basis for re-opens and resolution of disagreements.
Problem 2: This applies to ALL the English language sites, not just to DE-EN. I confess that I have been dodging such entries on several sites because of the hassle that they cause.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-02, 08:17  like dislike  Spam?  
 #630624
Dear tomaquinaten,
I'm sorry, but I don't feel able to handle this amount of grammar information in the guidelines. This is only one small part of the grammar of only one language. Over time I would have to do the same for every piece of grammar information in every language - and I would have to maintain this for every change in the official rules. That's not possible for me. There have to be some grammar standards defined for every language and I can only refer to these.
Antwort: 
Paul  #630625
von Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2011-12-02, 08:53  like dislike  Spam?  
Would it be possible to have some way of making those Forum decisions that do not go into the GL readily available? Maybe by some tag that would identify them in a Forum Search.
Time and again I have to tell some earnest newcomer that what they have done is not fully covered in GL, but it has become the custom to do it differently. They quite legitimately ask something like: "Well, how was I supposed to know that?" And sometimes they don't believe it.
A lot of this material may be in tomaquinaten's work, but this is not as readily accessible as it might be, nor is what you want to know easy to find.
Yes, it is logical; yes, it is fairly complete. But I don't find it all that accessible and user-friendly, and many newcomers would have about as much success as they would with a Japanese road-map. When you become accustomed to it, it is great. But it is intimidating before you know your way around - just at the time when you really need it. Despite the effort that has been put into it, I find it very difficult to direct people to it.
I don't know what more could be done to make this available. Sometimes it is hard enough directing newcomers to the GL, even when you tell them the colour of the bar to look for, and where "Guidelines" is on the bar, and the number of the Section and Sub-paragraph.
With regard to the hyphen problem, there is one GL that helps: if something is not definitely wrong, don't alter it; make a separate entry. Some good manners in that direction would save a lot of confrontations.
Antwort: 
Catesse  #630631
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-02, 09:18  like dislike  Spam?  
You're right, forum search could be improved. I guess I should do two things: Make it possible to search in both title and description, and add a category filter, so only CONTR entries could be searched. That would surely help. I'll add that to my task list.
Antwort: 
Paul  #630637
von Catesse (AU), 2011-12-02, 10:07  like dislike  Spam?  
I have a suggestion which, I think, your technical skills and tact could make work, but I need a bit more time to formulate it. Meanwhile, I have to close down my computer for a few hours. There is a storm on the way, and I do not want either my motherboard or my modem to be fried. (Which can happen despite a circuit breaker. Or circuit-breaker.)
Antwort: 
Okay!  #630638
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-02, 10:10  like dislike  Spam?  
Antwort: 
Catessa Paul  PROPOSALNOW REVISED (corrected in original entry)  #630654
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), 2011-12-02, 11:43  like dislike  Spam?  
4;Catessa, thank you for your well-justified observation on the unreadability of my original proposal. They prompted me to revise the formulations to make them simpler and clearer.

4;Paul,
Only after submitting an edited version of my original proposal some  minutes ago did I see your negative response to my proposal.
    1 appreciate your reluctance to include ssuch lengthy texts in the GL, and for that reason I have repeatedly pleaded for an official set of "Practice Rules" to supplement the GL, to provid guidance in specific issues too detailed for the GL and  especially to hold fast and make availablet decisions what has been agreed upon in Forum discussions and thus prevent later controversies"Practice Rules" we only have the GL.
     Given the present state of Dict.cc, in which English is the primary reference language for the majority of sites. I believe it imperative to give directions of this sort at least for English, since these same problems arise in all such sites. This could be done in a set of Practice Rules for English. Almost equally important would be a similar set of Practice Rules for German..
Antwort: 
tomaquinaten  #630688
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-02, 13:40  like dislike  Spam?  
I agree that German and English are more important for dict.cc, as currently all language pairs are combined with one of these two languages. And it might also work to have some additional detailed rules. However, I currently don't know how these could be presented in a way that caters to all needs - from dict.cc contributing novices to the experts. I need to find a solution for that first. In the meantime it would work to have these rules incorporated into your FAQ document, so the work isn't lost. When I'm ready to expand the guidelines, I can use the contents of this document to structure and fill them.
Antwort: 
Suggestions  #630689
von Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2011-12-02, 13:46  like dislike  Spam?  
Storm fizzled out or went around north of us and all is quiet and safe. (I hope.)
4; tominquaten: I did not want to be critical of your work. It is great; it is well set out. But many of us to not have the background in academic methodology that would make it easy to use, and it intimidates most newcomers.
Re the hyphen problem, etc: First: searchability of Forum. It is only some of the Contributions discussions that are worth saving and making accessible. A lot of them refer to only one term, or are fairly shallow chit-chat, and should not have been tagged "Contributions". It is difficult to locate the ones  that are useful, and which make definitive judgments, even when you know that they exist. Especially difficult for newcomers who were not even around when the matters were discussed, so do not know they ever existed.
Now, the hyphenation or otherwise of English adjectives and nouns. Time and again, contributors have said that they do not understand this hyphenation, but then they have gone right ahead and voted. Maybe there should be an instruction: If you realise that you do not know, and are not willing or able to do the necessary research on an entry, then do not vote on it. (And by no means do I mean only this point, and even with the best of intentions mistakes will inevitably be made.)
How to handle existing incorrect entries: The first problem is to identify the old entries. Is there any technical way of doing this? I have an unpleasant feeling that this is something that is beyond a computer, and that it requires humanoid brains.
Could we then perhaps take several steps? One is to set up (informally) a panel of persons who do understand this topic fairly well? That does not by any means entail only English native speakers. The principles can be learned by any diligent and dedicated student, but it entails, even for native speakers, a willingness to consult multiple sources and conduct discussion with others without rancour. This might be easier if there are no outvotes on re-opens of such entries. (I hesitate to suggest: perhaps no vote credits either. This would ensure that only those who are devoted to linguistic correctness, and not to point-chasing, would participate. Maybe that is too much to ask.) These persons could be nominated or self-selected.
Maybe I am living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Can some practical academic (if that is not an oxymoron) formulate a procedure to facilitate what needs to be done?
Antwort: 
Providing a link to tomaquinaten's work would be a start.  #630731
von Don (NZ/GB), Last modified: 2011-12-02, 17:37  like dislike  Spam?  
What form this link takes is up to Paul - it could be a link from the guidelines to this forum discussion, or perhaps to a separate file. It is important that tomaquinaten's work isn't swept under the carpet. (By the way, the proposed text published, as it stands at the moment, needs a little more proofreading.)
It is worth bearing in mind that many native English speakers are confused about when to use hyphens and when not to, so those users who do not have English as their native language can be excused for getting things wrong.
As for Catesse's idea of forming a panel, I assume this would be only for hyphenated entries, or would it be more encompassing? If such a panel was set up, only those who have enough time to work on the panel should volunteer, or be chosen.

A comment on the paragraph beginning 'For adjectives formed with prefixes like neo-, anti-, post-, ...'
Perhaps British dictionaries are more likely to use hyphens here than American dictionaries. My Oxford Dictionary of English includes -
neo-realism, neo-liberal
anti-infective, anti-inflammatory, anti-knock
post-mortem, post-war, post-hypnotic
non-professional, non-profit, non-proliferation, non-smoker
Admittedly not all are adjectives, but it does illustrate the point. Perhaps the wording should be - 'For adjectives and nouns formed with prefixes like ...'
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-02, 17:24  like dislike  Spam?  
 #630732
To have the least possible amount of spots to look for information, I would find it best to add the text to the FAQ document that's already linked at the very top of the guidelines page.
Antwort: 
Don Paul  Original Proposal corrected anew (see above "Fine print proposal"  #630736
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-12-02, 19:11  like dislike  Spam?  
4;Don: Moved by your observation on the need for further proofreading, I have once again corrected the text of the proposed directives (though not the supporting comments). Would you please read the latest version and suggest corrections and improvements? I have deliberately not explicitly addressed the distinction between Brit.preference for hyphens in compound adjectives. over against Am. preference for writing them as a singla work, since Americans generally are free to use either spelling. But if you feel that this point should be treated, perhaps you can suggest a formulation.

4;Paul. Clearly these texts belong in the FAQ^, but for roughly a year  now i have been trying unsuccessfully to produce a new version of the FAQ taking account of the latest changes,  since the Forum discussions in the Contribute section deliver a steady stream of new topics and resolutions (including issues deliberately left open), and I have simply been unable to keep up with themall. Unfortunately I have more urgent projects which limit the time I have available for Dict.cc and especially for updating the FAQ. To make updating easier, I intend in the new version is to separate the practice rules, which most frequently need to be updated, from the rest of the text, which needs further editing and simplication, but not regular overhaul.
   Keeping up on the changes in the practice rules  would be much easier for me  if we had an improved way of finding those contributions within the discussions that are really relevant (Catessa's desideratum above). Often they are not identifiable either by the original name of the thread or by the title given to the individual contributions to a thread, some of which go off on a tangent to discuss a topic quite foreign to the original issue.
   As it stands now, I have an ordner in my mail-program, where I deposit the email notices for discussions I feel "might" be pertinent to the practice rules section. Since the last revision of the FAQ, some 100 notifications have landed in this ordner, and l have not yet had the time to look up and read through the corresponding  threads to sift out the wheat from the chaff -- many of these threads are very long and often only one or two (seldom more that five or six) contain really useful information.  
   Thus I would like to repeat a suggestion I made a year ago. Could you as the administrator of the Forum perhaps set up a file where not only complete forum threads but also the (relatively few) individual contributions with substantial and topically relevant content could be temporarily deposited as specific links, so that they can later be found and referred to? Perhaps you already have such a reference file (as a "to do" list?) yourself. In any case, setting one up and making it available somewhere at least to VP5 contributors, would make it much easier for all of us to keep up on both decisions made and on issues left open after discussion. Needless to say, it would be of great service to me in helping me to keep the practice rules section of the FAQ (currently sections 3.1--3.6 and 4.2--4.3), which, as noted above, I intend to extract from the rest of the text, .to provide for easier updating and to make it easier for contributors to find them without having to page throughthe whole document. Such a file, maintained by you or one of your co-workers in Vienna, would not require an elaborate, pre-thought-out topical structure: one could begin quite pragmatically with a simple alphabetical list of topics emergent from the contributions deposited in it. As the list grows, connections between the topics will become apparent, making it possible to group together those dealing with the same basic theme. The paragraph-structure of my FAQ might also be helpful here. In this way, the material for future official sets of practice rules for the individual languages could be collected and provisionally ordered, long before you can work out the best way to formally present them to all users of  the sites.
Antwort: 
tomaquinaten  #630745
von Don (NZ/GB), Last modified: 2011-12-02, 21:36  like dislike  Spam?  
I will send you an email (through dict.cc).

I have unwittingly mentioned another one which can be written two ways: email or e-mail (a capital letter doesn't have to be used).
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/email
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-02, 22:18  like dislike  Spam?  
 #630753
Ich habe jetzt mal in der Datenbank alle Contribute-Postings (aus allen Sprachpaaren) herausgesucht. Es sind 739 Threads. Mit den Texten dieser Threads könnte man bereits mehrere Bücher füllen. ;-)

Ich habe die Threads stichprobenartig durchgesehen und ich finde, die meisten davon sind relevant für die Regeln bei dict.cc. Deshalb denke ich, die beste Lösung für das Problem wäre die oben angesprochene Erweiterung der Suchfunktion im Forum, also die Erweiterung um die Kategorie. So könnte man beispielsweise nach "hyphenation" nur innerhalb von Contribute-Threads suchen und würde sofort fündig werden. Man könnte aber auch nur die Kategorie auswählen, um alle Contribute-Threads anzuzeigen.

Allerdings müsste ich dafür die Datenbank ein wenig umbauen, was relativ aufwändig ist, weil derzeit die Kategorien nur im ersten Posting eines Threads gespeichert werden, nicht in den Antworten. Machbar und sinnvoll wäre es aber.
Antwort: 
Panel  #630770
von Catesse (AU), 2011-12-03, 04:03  like dislike  Spam?  
Yes, Don, my suggestion for a special panel was intended to apply only to re-opens of such entries where there is a hyphen problem. Also that it should probably be informal and only temporary. At present the problem is not acute on the other sites where I work, as there are not a large number of compound adjectives yet.
 At present. I can foresee that it might at some time become necessary to tackle German separable verbs, in accordance with the Neue Rechtschreibung, but that is not yet critical. (Do not lose sight of what is happening beyond DE-EN.)
 Some problems are appearing on the new language sites with German as one of the pair. Such as: morgen früh/Früh, nichts neues/Neues. I will not take sides on such differences in German, as my knowledge is a bit dated; my response has been that any form that appears on DE-EN must be accepted on all other sites, unless it is changed by discussion on the DE-EN Forum, whatever I or other contributors believe.
Antwort: 
Es ist nicht einfach!  #630773
von Wenz (DE), 2011-12-03, 07:39  like dislike  Spam?  
Bindestriche:
Angenommen, dict würde nur die absolut richtige Schreibweise angeben, dann müßte Paul seinen Suchalgorithmus in den Listen "Nur in dieser Sprache suchen" ändern. Auf meinem Merkzettel für Suchen steht z. B.:
SUCHE full time: Es wird auch gefunden full-time (nicht fulltime)
SUCHE full-time: Es wird auch gefunden full time (nicht fulltime)
SUCHE fulltime: Es werden nicht gefunden full-time und full time
Wie ich von Paul schon in mehreren Antworten gelesen habe, suchen die Leute die Begriffe mit Copy/Paste. Dann werden sie aber bei "Falschschreibungen" nicht fündig.
------
Nur nebenbei: Wie wird das ADVERB von full-time geschrieben? Mit oder ohne Bindestrich.
Nachdem ich ein DEL. vorgeschlagen habe, habe ich jedoch als einzige mir vorliegende Quelle das Adverb auch als "full time" gefunden (Chambers), aber da hatte ich schon den DEL.-Eintrag gemacht. Sollte dann event. hinter full time [rare] hingeschrieben werden ?????
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=224314
Antwort: 
Paul: Many thanks for your prompt and ingenious response to my request for a an improved way of finding specific relevant contributions.  #630778
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), 2011-12-03, 09:48  like dislike  Spam?  
The category search restriction to Contribute-Threads would be a vast improvement. For the time being, you need not manually index the individual contributions within a thread, if you could implement a search-in-thread function corresponding to the search-in-page function in ordinary html texts, so that a string of characters is automatically highlighted in the texts -- automatically opening the longer texts currently not visible unless "display full text" is  clicked. This would make it much easier for me to keep the practice rules of the FAQ up to date, and it would be extremely helpful to all users trying to find previous decisions and undecided issues concerning the application and interpretation of the GL. Noch einmal, herzlichen Dank!
Antwort: 
Catessa. your idea of an ad-hoc editorial panel is a good one and I would be happy to participate.  #630779
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-12-03, 10:27  like dislike  Spam?  
For the time being at least, we only need to deal with the compound adjectives, since there are mor or less clear rules for them, whereas greater liberty is possible for nouns and multiple entries are welcome.

If the panel is to be consulted only when existing entries are reopened, then Paul will have to find a way of notifying the members in such cases. Since the number of entries is still managable, we could perhaps work through them systematically, if Paul can give us an algorithm to find them (FIND "-" in entries of the wordclass "adjective". When we have the list, we could then divide it up among us and then share with each other the  results of our reviews (not just the entries proposed for change but also those left standing) before the results of this review outside the normal verification procedure are returned to the vocabulary. We then need to devise a way of marking them so that they will not be reopened unjustifiably by new voters to change the hyphen/blank decision.. For that purpose, for that purpose, a standard warning clearly visible in the edit form when reopened would suffice; such a warning might read simply:"Hyphenation verified!".

To work effectively, we would have to agree on a standard to follow. My proposed directives could form a basis for discussion and improvement. As they stand, they deal only with the questions, whether compound adjectives should be written with a hyphen or with a blank, at least in cases where no dictionary warrant is available. When they can (and should) be written together as one word, cannot, I fear, be decided by a rule but only by dictionary warrant in each particular case; so we can exclude such entries at least for the time being.

I agree that something similar should be done for the DE-entries, to bring them into conformity with the new spelling rules, but, as you say, this is not a priority matter, and it might be more difficult to identify the cases needing revision, since in German the proble is whether compounds should be written with a hyphen or as one word.

4;Wenz: the sources available to me do not explicitly deal with the hyphenation of adverbs. I presume that they should be treated like adjectives, but I will have to research that. Perhaps Catessa or Don have an answer..
Antwort: 
Wenz  #630795
von Catesse (AU), 2011-12-03, 13:17  like dislike  Spam?  
Instinct. My instinct tells me:
"Fulltime" does not exist.
He has a full-time job. (definitely)
He works full time. (almost certainly)
My instinct is good, but not infallible; so if I were writing for commercial publication, I would check in an authority relevant to the country in which the material was to be published. (Which I am not going to do right now.) Better to be safe than sorry.
Chat:     
tomaquinaten  #630796
von Catesse (AU), 2011-12-03, 13:23  like dislike  Spam?  
Catesse, tom; not Catessa.Coincidentally, Catessa is the name I use on another site. All my nicknames, as far as I rememberr them, are feline. And not always feminine.
Antwort: 
catesse  #630797
von Wenz (DE), 2011-12-03, 13:34  like dislike  Spam?  
Mit dem Begriff "fulltime - full time - full-time" wollte ich auf den Suchalgorithmus von dict hinweisen, d.h. was gefunden wird.

Was den reopened-Eintrag "ganztägig" angeht, habe ich im Comment 4 Quellen angegeben, u.a.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/full-time?rskey=QPWCq4&...
Antwort: 
Catesse: spelling and proof-reading are not my only weakspots  #630809
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-12-03, 15:55  like dislike  Spam?  
Thanks for the reminder about the correct spelling of your nickname and also for the general explanation of your nickname choices. In fact, I have long known that you spell your nickname with a final "e", but repeatedly I get  it wrong and fail to catch the error in proof-reading. As i observed to Don, neither correct orthography nor efficient proof-reading -- despite my best efforts -- count as my strengths. And as we all know, clear, succinct formulation is also not one of my strong-points. Aside from the matter of formal proof-reading, I usually need myself to revise what I have written -- including my Forum contributions and my comments on entries -- at least 4 to 5 times before they become half-way intelligible , with the result that, by the time I submit them, the discussion has long gone beyond what i was replying to. In any case, I always welcome corrections not only of orthographic errors but also of unintelligible wordiness or academic language.
Have a nice weekend, Thomas

P.S. I know you are busy, but because I greatly respect your competence as a teacher, I would be most grateful if you could take a look at the sections 3.1--3.5 (pp. 16--43) and 4.2 (pp. 50--56) of my handbook, which are urgently in need of updating in the light of the Forum discussions since the last revision in November 2910 . As I indicated above, I intend to extract them from the body of the current handbook and make them separately available as a provisional and hopefully intelligible and agreed-upon set of "practice rules" reflecting our prevailing interpretations and applications of the GL in DE-EN. This will make them easier for me to keep up to date and will, I hope, enable them to serve as a ready reference tool for contributors making and reviewing entries (at least for VP 4 and 5 contributors). In fact, they arose from my own earlier private efforts to maintain a personal file for such material. Before I carry out the necessary revision, therefore, I would much appreciate your  specific corrections and also your critical observations where the text is ambiguous, unintelligible, or downright wrong -- I have asked Don to do the same. Since the text is available as a Word file, you could export thos pages into a new file, where you could then make corrections using the track-corrections function in order to call them to my attention,and you could mark problematical passages simply by highlighting them, without feeling obliged to make an explicit comment, much less to suggest a better formulation.
Antwort: 
Here is a list of hyphenated English adjectives:  #630827
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-03, 18:01  like dislike  Spam?  
dict.cc: class:adj 628635
Please note that you have to be logged in to see this list, it may be buggy and it's only temporary.

4;tomaquinaten und Catesse: I'll try my best to get the improved forum search implemented as soon as possible.

4;Wenz zur Info: Aus Geschwindigkeitsgründen sucht die Datenbank bei der Wörterbuchsuche standardmäßig immer nur nach ganzen Wörtern. Ein Wort ist für die Datenbank eine Aneinanderreihung von Buchstaben und/oder Ziffern. Sobald ein anderes Zeichen kommt, ist das Wort abgeschlossen. Wenn man also nach dem menschlichen Wort "full-time" sucht, versteht die Datenbank: Suche nach den Einträgen, in denen die Wörter "full" und "time" vorkommen. Das nur zum Verständnis, falls Du Dich wunderst, warum das so funktioniert.
Antwort: 
Paul: FIRST REACTION: excellent work and a good basis for further action!  #630838
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2011-12-03, 21:46  like dislike  Spam?  
1) The number of entries, 13000, is large, but managable, for the vast majority at first glance seem to be in order, so that for most of them the problem of writing with or without the hyphen could be handled f by automatically adding an agreed-upon standard tag like the bracket-statement I proposed above "[attr./ pred. usually with blank instead of hyphen]" -- imöroved versions, of course, are welcome. In order to work, however, such a solution would have to be mentioned briefly in GL 9 as  a "general"-rule valid for most, though not all adjectives. For the exceptions the user could be referred either to the FAQ practice rules or simply to standard dictionaries and grammars
  . Probably the best procedure would be 1) to import all of these entries into a special file, 2) automatically add the bracketed statement, 3) manually review the items thus changed to remove the bracket where needed, i.e. the exceptions listed in my proposal, and simultaneously to make whatever other corrections might seem necessary, e.g. eliminating "Am."/"Brit" qualifications that apply only to the use of the hyphen or blank, not to other spelling differences. Afterwards, the corrected versions  can be re-imported from this special file into the database, replacing the currently existing versions with the revised ones.. The alternative method would be  first to go through the list manually before making the automatic additions, but Ithis would mean having to mark individually either the each of the entries takeing the bracket or each of those which do not take it-. In any case it would be easier to recognize the problem cases, if the supplement had already been added.
    Working in teams of two to insure a double check of the decisions made, it should be possible to work through the list in a reasonable amount of time despite its length. Remaining problematical entries could then be referred to the whole panel for resolution. All this could and should take place outside of the normal verification process. Meanwhile, new or re-opened entries made in course of the ongoing normal verification process would have to be referred automatically  to the the panel, perhaps by entering them in a new file, where they would first be automatically converted. and then manually controlled, before returning the revised form to the database.

Now that for this thread, at least, all the contributions  are now displayed on my computer in full length after I opened it via the link in the email notification, the "find-in-page" function of my browser can quite satisfactorily be used to identify and highlight the terms sought.after. This is exactly what i had in mind, and it will be a great help to me in working through relevant threads to find specific contributions treating the topics I am looking for in order to update my FAQ. Thus I thank you heartily, Paul, for implementing this full display mode.
   At present, howver, it seems to work only when the thread is called up via the email link. When I open the thread via the thread number or in the automatic redisplay when I enter a  new contribution. Could perhaps make it available at least as an option clickable on one's personal page?`  Many people, undoubtedly,  prefer the  abbreviated display, but my own choice is definitely for the full the full-display mode.
    When you succeed also in giving us the possibility of restrictiing our searches to a particular Forum category, in particular to the categorie "Contribute!", you will have fulfilled most of our needs and desires. Thus i thank you in advance.
Antwort: 
In haste  #630864
von Catesse (AU), 2011-12-04, 03:24  like dislike  Spam?  
I shall have to print out a few of the longer posts and go over them with a highlighted in order to catch their full import. But, for a start:
4; Paul: The problem with the hyphenated adjectives is not great; almost all of these are probably correct. However, they should perhaps be labelled "attributive", and have the predicative form made as a separate entry and tagged. Your thoughts? The serious problem is with the ones that ought to have a hyphen, but do not, and I think that identifying these is what is beyond the capabilities of the computer.
 Off topic: would it be possible to build in a Spellcheck for this Forum? Only for English and German, of course. One that could be turned on or off easily, because some entries knowingly contain non-standard spelling. I check all my posts, but I still find typos when I have saved them.
4; tom: (I would not have commented on the Catesse/Catessa, except that it amused me that in another life I am indeed Catessa. In fact, once recently, when I lost my automatic Login, owing to a clean-up program, I did try to log in as Catessa.)
  Jog my memory: What is the easiest way to access your "handbook"?
  If there are enough contributors willing and able, I think that three might be desirable, except for the obvious cases on Paul's list.
 For about five or six weeks, I am simply not going to be able to do much work, especially not anything that is new or requires concentration. Christmas presents and catering, "spring"-cleaning (which we do in December), grandkids, son has bought a new house and is in the trauma of moving (good move, but a lot of touchy temper involved), etc., etc. I shall do what I can when I can, but at the moment, that is "not much". Very sorry.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-04, 22:08  like dislike  Spam?  
 #630957
4;tomaquinaten: To be honest, I don't want to add a statement of this length to 13000 entries. This is too much into grammar and reduces the clarity of the search results.
Regarding the display of the forum threads I don't quite understand what you mean. Does clicking the link "answer" or "antworten" get you to the view you're looking for?

4;Catesse: If the problem with the hyphenated adjectives is not great, then I'd rather not make bulk changes. Finding the ones that lack the hyphen is not possible without further data.
The spelling is better checked by the browser. I would recommend using Google Chrome instead of Internet Explorer. Chrome comes with an integrated spellchecker. Alternatively you could also try http://www.iespell.com/ (not tested by me).
The fastest way to get to Tomaquinaten's document is clicking the link on top of the guidelines page, even before the abbreviations.

By the way, I'm also moving into a new apartment, either this month or in January, depending on how much time I find for finishing bathroom, kitchen, lighting and so on. I'd still like to finish the first version of the smartphone dictionary app for Android phones in December.
Antwort: 
Attributives  #630982
von Catesse (AU), 2011-12-05, 04:41  like dislike  Spam?  
Upon thinking it over: these hyphenated adjectives probably do need attention. That is, most would need to have the tag [attrib.] added, and a companion entry, without a hyphen, tagged as [pred.]. Is that the way we should go?
In case the tone of this query comes over as petulant: it is meant simply as a query, not as a complaint. It would provide the most informative outcome, but would entail a fairly large amount of work.
[Personal comment: son's old house sold within 24 hours of being posted on internet, and for the asking price. - they should have asked for more. Since they have to move out by 6 January, and cannot move into their new house for about two months, they are homeless. And they cannot live with us, owing to distance to schools. We are going to have a really upset time for several months, which will reflect on what I can manage to do.]
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2011-12-05, 15:29  like dislike  Spam?  
 #631033
4;Catesse: This sounds quite good, but on the other hand it might also lead to clutter in the search results pages if I look at a page like dict.cc: above-mentioned. Considering the balance between "much information" and "simplicity" and adding the amount of work and the additional guideline text necessary, I would prefer not to add this information.
Antwort: 
compound adjectives  #635453
von Wenz (DE), 2012-01-05, 19:12  like dislike  Spam?  
Entschuldigung, Entschuldigung, Entschuldigung ... ich wage es kaum zu schreiben.
ABER ich glaube, dieses Contribute wurde von den meisten Contributoren und Verifizierern nicht bis zum Ende verfolgt. Denn es geht lustig weiter mit mMn falschen Eingaben/Verifizierungen diesbezüglich.

Vielleicht würde es helfen, wenn Paul mit einem neuen Contribute auf dieses hier verlinkt, damit das Problem noch einmal explizit zur Kenntnis gebracht wird.

--- Ich neige fast dazu, vorzuschlagen, daß ADJ.-Eingaben nur von einem englischsprachigen Verifizierer abgeschlossen werden können. In der Annahme, daß sie es besser wissen als wir Deutsche :-)) ---

Ich danke euch vielmals.
Gesundes, glückliches und erfolgreiches neues Jahr
-WENZ-
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2012-01-05, 19:35  like dislike  Spam?  
 #635458
Wenn Einträge fehlerhaft verifiziert werden, bitte Reopens machen, damit die Leute, die die Rechtschreibregeln in diesem Punkt nicht kennen, davon erfahren - möglichst mit einem Link auf eine Seite, auf der die Regel erklärt wird.
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob es etwas bringt, das noch einmal als eigenen Thread zu posten.
Antwort: 
Schon klar, Paul ... Aber gut gesagt, wenn man selber unsicher ist.  #635514
von Wenz (DE), 2012-01-06, 09:07  like dislike  Spam?  
Deshalb ist die Hilfe von "Könnern" unentbehrlich! Natürlich kannst Du / kann man allgemein argumentieren: "Wenn du es nicht weißt, dann laß die Finger davon!" Das habe ich mir auch schon gedacht. Aber es ist auch KEINE Lösung so zu tun als würde man etwas nicht anzweifeln.

http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=1081005
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=1080807
Zum Beispiel "front running" - Warum [Am.] [spv.] ?? Machen wir im Zweifelsfall dann dieses Käse, daß immer Am. und spv. hinmuß? Habe ich auch schon beobachtet.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2012-01-06, 12:10  like dislike  Spam?  
 #635535
"front running" habe ich mir angesehen. Die Quellen (beim Input) sagen, dass beide Schreibweisen zulässig sind, wobei die Schreibweise ohne Bindestriche, so wie ich das verstehe, die weniger häufige Schreibweise ist (die Examples haben zum Teil auch eine andere Bedeutung) - also [spv.]. Warum [Am.] weiß ich nicht, da müsstest du den Eingebenden fragen. Übrigens ist der Eintrag eine Ergänzung zum bereits vorhandenen Eintrag "front-running" mit Bindestrich.
Antwort: 
von geoyo (UN), 2013-01-20, 20:51  like dislike  Spam?  
 #691201
Hello, I'm new to dict.cc and I just entered two new terms, freak-out and freakout. I wondered whether to discard one of them. So I read the guidelines which brought me here. However, I'm a little confused now. So many discussions. It's hard for me to find a general consensus, so it'd be great if someone point me into the right direction. Online dictionaries tell me that freak-out is the main term and freakout another possibility. Plus, freak-out wins over freakout at google. So I deleted freakout and kept freak-out. Is this correct?
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2013-01-20, 22:40  like dislike  Spam?  
 #691205
4;Geoyo: Ist in Ordnung so! Der Eintrag wird auch gefunden, wenn man nach "freakout" sucht!
Antwort: 
von geoyo (UN), 2013-01-20, 23:16  like dislike  Spam?  
 #691211
Danke, Paul. Ist es denn die empfohlene Vorgehensweise, Alternativschreibweisen in Klammern anzufügen? Momentan steht dort:

freak-out [coll.] [also freakout] [the act of freaking out]

Ist das korrekt so?

Noch ein anderes Beispiel, "bailout":

dict.cc: bailout

Momentan ist sowohl bail-out als auch bailout aufgeführt, wobei "bailout" die Hauptschreibweise ist. Dann müsste man doch die Alternativschreibweise "bail-out" löschen und diese stattdessen in Klammern an die Hauptschreibweise anhängen, richtig?
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2013-01-20, 23:34  like dislike  Spam?  
 #691212
Wenn beide Schreibweisen üblich sind, kann man auch beide getrennt voneinander eingeben. Auch ein zusätzlicher Eintrag für "freakout" ohne Bindestrich wäre also in Ordnung (in dem Fall aber nicht nötig, weil das Wort so auch gefunden wird). Nur wenn so viele Varianten entstehen würden, dass die Suchergebnisseiten unübersichtlich werden würden (z.B. mit Bindestrich, mit Leerzeichen und zusammengeschrieben, mit jeweils einer größeren Zahl deutscher Entsprechungen) sollte man sich auf die wichtigsten Formen beschränken.

Eine perfekte Einheitlichkeit aller Einträge bei solchen Fragen ist bei einem Projekt wie dict.cc nicht möglich. Wichtig ist, dass die Wörterbuchnutzer finden, was sie suchen, und das in einer möglichst übersichtlichen Form.
Antwort: 
von geoyo (UN), 2013-01-20, 23:46  like dislike  Spam?  
 #691214
Ein gewichtiges Argument gegen die Verwendung getrennter Einträge hätte ich allerdings vorzubringen: Wenn es zwei mögliche Schreibweisen gibt, müssen auch zwei Einträge vorgenommen werden, die User müssen zweimal dafür abstimmen, Fehler müssen zweimal korrigiert werden, Diskussionen in den Kommentaren zweimal geführt werden. Außerdem könnten Benutzer annehmen, dass es sich bei zwei verschiedenen Einträgen auch um zwei verschiedene Bedeutungen handelt. Wenn man sich die Einträge zu bailout anschaut:

dict.cc: bailout

Könnte man zu dem Schluss kommen, dass "bailout" und "bail-out" verschiedene Bedeutungen haben, da sich die Übersetzungen voneinander unterscheiden. Tatsächlich bedeuten die Wörter aber ein- und dasselbe.

Wenn relativ deutlich ersichtlich ist, welches die häufigere Schreibweise ist, wäre ich daher für die Lösung, die Alternativschreibweise in Klammern anzuhängen und keinen eigenen Eintrag daraus zu machen. Es macht weniger Arbeit, verursacht weniger Verwirrung und führt letztendlich zum selben Ergebnis. Was spräche dagegen?
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2013-01-20, 23:59  like dislike  Spam?  
 #691215
Wenn die Suche nach der Alternativschreibweise zu einem Treffer führt, gerne.
Es kann aber trotzdem vorkommen, dass ein halbes Jahr später eine andere Person den Eintrag in der anderen Schreibweise vorschlägt.

Aber wenn Du das ausführlicher diskutieren willst, würde ich Dich bitten, auf E-Mail oder einen neuen Thread im Forum umzusteigen. Dabei geht es ja nicht mehr nur um Bindestrich-Varianten, sondern generell um Variationen in der Schreibweise.
Antwort: 
von geoyo (UN), 2013-01-21, 00:58  like dislike  Spam?  
 #691220
Ich habe jetzt einen neuen Thread dazu im Forum erstellt:

http://forum.dict.cc/?pagenum=14008&hilite=691219&kw=geoyo%...
Antwort: 
#691219  #691314
von Paul (AT), 2013-01-21, 12:27  like dislike  Spam?  

Optional: Login | Registrieren 
  Frage beantworten oder Kommentar hinzufügen
Please log in to post an answer to this thread - or post a new question.
nach oben | home© 2002 - 2024 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum / Datenschutz
Dieses Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr dazu
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
Werbung