|Sollen sogenannte "Ebonics" in dict.cc eingetragen werden?|
aktuelles Beispiel: http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=1095556
Bitte AngloAndy's comment zu diesem Eintrag beachten.
zum Thema: Wikipedia(EN): Ebonics
|Ebonics sind noch nicht eindeutig definiert||#647473|
Die wissenschaftliche Diskussion über die Einordnung von Ebonics scheint noch stark im Fluß zu sein. Jedenfalls würde es sehr schwer werden, Ebonics Begriffe zu verifizieren (das könnten fast nur Sprecher der entsprechenden sozialen Gruppen machen). Daher plädiere ich dafür, Ebonics nicht in dict.cc einzutragen. Darüber sollte vielleicht nach ausführlicher Beobachtung der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion später noch einmal nachgedacht werden. Ich gebe zu bedenken, dass es in den USA mindestens noch ein Derivat von Ebonics gibt, die Jazzer-Sprache, die es fast zu einer Art Geheimcode gebracht hat. Wenn man solche "Sprachen" in dict.cc eintragen würde, könnte das EN-Wörterbuch überfrachtet werden. Vielleicht wäre es eine vernünftige Alternative, dafür stattdessen eine neue Sprachgruppe "EB" einzuführen ? Dabei könnte es sogar notwendig werden, nicht nur EB-DE, sondern auch EB-EN anzubieten.
|In the example cited.||#647474|
I'd agree with Badger. It's not considered "good English." However, it's quite common to hear it used, hereabouts. The whole "African American Vernacular" thing is being washed out around here anyway. Lots of other ethnic groups are using some of the expressions branded under that label. It's more a matter of neighborhood and socioeconomic group, than African American or not.
There are plenty of Middle English texts using "axe" to mean "ask". Ebonics is irrelevant. Below is a partial OED entry on "ask". I see there are German entries for "ick", "icke", and "i" for the pronoun "Ich" in dict.cc so I guess the question is whether "ax(e)" is common enough in contemporary English usage to include it in the dictionary here. I know I hear the form "ax(e)" fairly often.
View as: Outline |
Pronunciation: /ɑːsk/ /æ-/
Forms: α. OE ásci-an, ácsi-, áhsi-, áxi-, áhxi-, áhxsi-, áxsi-an, -gan, -gean, æcsian; ME axien, acsien, ME æxi, axi, ME acsi, acsy, oxi, oxy, oxsi, oksi, ME axen, (ME axse, exe,) ME–15 axe, ax, (15– dial. ax). Also β. ME esci-, eski-en, ME easki, ( Orm.) asskenn, ME ask-en, ME–16 aske, (ME hask, haske, ascke, axke,) ME– ask. Also γ. ME esch(e, esse, ME asch(e, ME ashe, ME–15 asshe, (north. asse, pa. tense ast).(Show Less)
Etymology: Common Germanic: Old English áscian was cognate with Old Frisian âskia ...
|Okay, let's forget about the "Ebonics"-label.||#647537|
So if we keep the entry "to axe", how do you suggest to tag it? [Middle English], [sl.], [coll.], [spv.], [WRONG for: …]? ;-)
Personally, I'd still prefer to delete it.
|Immerhin findet man für "axe a question" 150 000 G-hits||#647556|
|Just a thought.||#647561|
With 'axe' not regional or ethnic dialect, but (as Lisa said) more of a socioeconomic phenomenon, is there or could there be a tag to indicate that? I'm thinking of something like Jugendsprache, which cuts across ethnic and regional dialects.
|[sociolectal] ? [vernacular] ?||#647564|
Danke Parker11 für das Contribute. Jetzt weiß ich, was Ebonics ist :-))))))
Aber bildet euch nicht ein, daß jeder weiß, was das ist. Deshalb bin ich ja schon immer für Tags, die sofort für jedermann verständlich sind.
Wir hatten einen ähnlichen Fall im D-F-dict, contribute #635999, betr. Verlan - auch wenn sich das nun nicht ganz vergleichen läßt.
to axe [Tag] [Tag] [ask] ... = [fragen]
Die deutsche Spalte in eckige Klammern setzen, so daß dann blaue Schrift. Somit wird zwar der engl. Begriff gefunden, also okay! Jedoch werde ich nicht fündig werden, wenn ich wissen will, was heißt "fragen" auf Englisch (und somit ist die Fehlerquelle einer Falschanwendung praktisch null).
In Eile, Gruß!
People may speak in a certain way, i.e. pronounce certain words a certain way. that, however, does not mean it should be written that way.
What of 'asphalt' being sometimes pronounced 'ashphalt'; despite, its (now, at least in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary) accepted pronunciation, it remains spelt 'asphalt'. And certain people will still continue to regard the newly 'accepted' 'ashphalt' pronunciation as less than acceptable.
I have heard people say 'Westminister' for 'Westminster' (throwing in an extra syllable): without spelling the word with that extra syllable. And the list could go on.
Middle English, I say , is beyond the scope of this dictionary. Middle English should be its own separate dictionary.
How many contributors are competent in Middle English?
Contributors are meant to bring their own already existing expertise to dict.cc, not pretend they have knowledge and abilities they don't have.
I, for one, will have to settle for appearing less than omniscient because of Middle English.
Rabend's links led to the following, amongst other gems:
And what of Da Gram gots to axe a question
Da Gram gots to axe a question
1/8/2009 3:03 pm
Why does womens git mad when men say da need to lose weight? Fo da record, Da Gram don't likes fat womens.
Anything can be 'proven' on the Internet, even that 2 + 2 = 5 (lots of hits): Google: 2 + 2 =5
|This and That (Dis n' Dat?)||#647628|
--Some of the above suggestions are proposing to re-make the English language. I suggest that that is beyond the scope of this dictionary too. One should know one's limitations.
--For pronunciation, there's the audio side of things.
--As to pronouncing things one way and writing them another, what of the Irish habit of turning the English 'th' (whether in 'this' or 'think') into a 'd' or 't' sound? Have Irish dictionaries and schools done away with the 'th'? Of course, not. That's just how a large swathe of the population of Ireland speaks. They still write it in the usual way. Sorry to have to disappoint your ethnological bleeding hearts.
I don't care one way or the other whether ax(e) gets added to the dictionary or not. There are English speakers who use the pronounciation [aks] for the verb ask. Will some people learning English be confused by that? I don't know. I simply wanted to point out that there is nothing wrong with pronouncing it that way because people have obviously been doing it a long time. There are entries for ick, icke, and i for the German pronoun ich and I'm assuming they are in the dictionary to help clarify to users that those irregular forms of the pronoun exist in spoken and written German. No apologies if I've offended anyone's dogmatic notion of purity.
|Es geht meist um die Wiedergabe von direkter Rede, das ist richtig, Andy||#647636|
Wir haben hier aber auch andere solche Beispiele:
Vgl. dict.cc: ham
Ganz genau so isses
Und, wie gesagt, sogar Kalauer wie "zum Bleistift".
Also warum nicht auch to axe, selbstverständlich mit den entsprechenden Warnungen versehen (S. Beitrag Wenz). Es soll ja nur helfen, aber niemanden auffordern, selbst so zu reden.
Dann versteht man womöglich, was es mit dem von pirandot als Quelle angegeben T-Shirt-Text auf sich hat:
|Mein Beitrag hat sich mit dem von WingDing überkreuzt.||#647637|
Wir sind derselben Meinung.
Wenn wir "axe" schon unbedingt eintragen wollen, dann bitte nicht in der Grundform als Infinitiv "to axe". Das gäbe dem Ganzen einen zu offiziellen Charakter. Sondern z. B. als Teil eines Idioms, z. B. den T-Shirt-Spruch. Das haben wir ja auch bei den deutschen Beispielen, die rabend völlig zu Recht angegeben hat, so gehandhabt.
Die offene Frage sind noch die "tags". Ich plädiere für [sl.]. Das Mittelenglisch können wir, wie AngloAndy schon ausführte, getrost vernachlässigen.
Außerdem plädiere ich dafür, diese "Falschschreibungen" nur in wirklichen Ausnahmefällen einzutragen, d.h. wenn sie wirklich sehr häufig vorkommen. So ähnlich wie bei den "WRONG for: …" und "FALSCH für: …" Einträgen. Nicht, dass wir plötzlich eine wahre Inflation solcher Einträge erleben.
Einer Delete-Lösung bin ich aber nach wie vor auch nicht abgeneigt. Was meint eigentlich Paul dazu?
|ask vs. axe - American pronunciation may be to blame.||#647732|
The way Americans pronounce ask makes it sound similar to axe. Ask in British English is pronounced 'aask', so there is no confusion with the pronunciation of axe in Britain and the Commonwealth.
Maybe Americans ought to change their pronunciation (said with tongue in cheek).
4;Parker: Bin noch unschlüssig. Ich befürchte, der Eintrag könnte mehr Verwirrung als Sinn stiften.
|Dialectical spelling and dialectical meaning should be distinguished in English||#647793|
1) Phonetic Spellings in English:
Among the many good points made by Anglo-Andy in his contributions, one of the most important concerns the issue, whether we should make entries for dialectical pronunciations on the English side analogously to the way often done on the German side. On the whole, I believe it better NOT to open this Pandora's box. There are simply too many regional and sociolectic variations in English pronunciation by comparison to German and with rare exceptions, they are seldom or never reproduced phonetically in printed texts except in explicit attempts to imitate such pronunciations in direct address, where not the individual word but rather the whole statement is written phonetically. In such cases, the meaning of the individual words is generally recognizable from the context, and a dictionary entry for any of the individual words is more than likely to be missleading rather than helpful.
If by way of exception dictionary entries should be made for such spellings, then I recommend Wenz's proposal to enter them with only an explanation on the German side and on the English side indications of the dialect -- in many cases the tag "[sl.]" will suffice as a substitute -- and the meaning in square brackets.
2) Dialectical expressions in English
Leaving aside the issue of dialectical phonetic spellings, it makes sense to enter dialectical terms and expressions that have a meaning of their own. Although Old and Middle English should be treated as separate languages having no place in the DE/EN section, the list of regional tags like "Irish", "Australian" etc. can be expanded on an ad hoc basis. Thus we already have two examples of a tag "[Black American English], which is much more precise and understandable than the controversial term "Ebonics".
Okie doke. Keep the dialect pronunciations for German. They're invaluable to me and I suspect to other learners of German. Nix the English ones because apparently they're too problematic and anyone can figure them out from context anyways.
|Ich komme zwar etwas spät dazu,||#648099|
aber ich glaube, die 'axe'-Gegner vergessen einen wichtigen Aspekt: Wenn ich etwas lese oder übersetze und da 'axe' finde , nützt es mit gar nix (!), wenn man sagt, das ist falsch, das gehört nicht in ein Wörterbuch!
Sicher kann man vieles aus dem Kontext schließen, wenn man schon entsprechend Englisch kann, aber durch den amerikanischen Krimi, zum Beispiel, in dem viele 'Ebonics'-Ausdrücke vorkamen, wäre ich ohne meine Mitarbeit bei dict. und die dadurch erworbene Fähigkeit in anderen Wörterbüchern zu finden, was ich brauche, nie durchgekommen.
Und heute lesen Leute ja nicht nur Bücher (in denen axe aber immerhin auch vorkommen kann), sondern blogs und Forumsbeiträge und Rapper-Texte und was weiß ich.
Und warum darf ein Dialekt-Wort drinstehen, aber eines aus einem Soziolekt nicht? Heute werden vielleicht mehr Soziolekte gesprochen als Dialekte.
Der Prüfstein scheint mir zu sein: Gibt es das in geschriebenen Texten? Wenn ja, rein damit!
Warnen kann man dann, so viel man will, meinetwegen auch mit WRONG!
Nur leider kann ich es nicht wieder aufmachen.:))
|Plenty of book ghits||#648227|
von Lisa4dict loggedout, 2012-03-23, 12:50 Spam? 99.11.160....
Where were these books written?
Another one which jars me is when someone writes 'alot' instead of 'a lot'. It seems to happen in America a lot (pun intended).
|A possible compromise||#648300|
As a rule, I have always advocated the principle stated by ddr: any term or expression found in written texts belongs in Dict.cc,, and, like ddr, I see no reason to allow dialect usage but reject sociolect usage. Thus in my contribution above, I explicitly recommended the use of the tag "Black American English" ("African American English Vernacular" is the proper term, but it will not be immediately understandable for many Dict.cc- users; "ebionics" however should be avoided, not only because it is entirely non-intuitive but because its meaning and use are highly controversial.).
Again, I have no problem with making entries for terms and expressions having a special meaning in a dialect/sociolect. I do NOT, however, recommend doing this generally for terms that are nothing more than obvious attempts to imitate dialectical pronunciation. That would mean, for instance, reduplicating all English entries ending in "-ing" by entries ending in "-in' ", simply because this is the way these words are pronounced in many American dialects/sociolects. It would similarly mean reduplicating all entries for words beginning with "h", e.g. " to hear" by adding entries substituting an apostrophe for the initial "h", e.g. "to 'ear", because this pronunciation is common in certain British and American dialects/sociolects. Do we really need full scale entries for "dis" / "dat" (= "this" / "that"), "t'ing" (= "thing") and other terms easily identified from the context?. I think common sense should set limits here.
It is a different story, however, when the phonetic spelling of a dialect pronunciation yields a word whose meaning is not immediately evident even in context, Thus the word "potato", in some American dialects is pronounced (and spelled) "p'tater" or simply "tater". In such cases, a dictionary entry would indeed be helpful and it was no doubt considerations of this sort that led Oxford Dictionaries-pro [http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ax.] to make an entry for "to ax", taking the form: "a dialect and West Indian form of ASK". This Oxford example suggests a compromise solution for handling such terms, which is essentially identical with Wenz's suggestion, e.g.
to ax [Am] [West Ind.] [dial. spv: to ask] ... = [fragen].
NOTE: Although more complicated, writing "[dial. spv.: to ask]" is much more understandable
than writing "[dial.], [spv.] [ask]".
This way of making an entry has two advantages: on the EN side, it makes clear that what is involved is nothing more than an attempt to reproduce a dialectical pronunciation of a standard English term. On the DE side, it gives a rough indication of the meaning in German, but makes clear that the dialect spelling should not be treated as a normal English equivalent and prevents the English form from being found from the German side. It also means that for such dialect spellings only one entry will be made, even though various translations of the equivalent standard term are possible.
ADDENDUM: Don has made a good point in calling attention to the difference between such dialect terms and spelling variants and simple misspellings, however frequent, that are best handled by the "WRONG-for" type of entry.
If we were to agree on this solution for the EN side, would it not be commendable also on the DE side?
The question for me when adding terms is: Is this term really being used, or is it just some short-term word coining or some common typo? The sources and examples provided so far would rather indicate that it's a valid term that can be added to dict.cc.
Regarding the format of the input, I'd like to suggest a change to tomaquinaten's suggestion above. To be consistent, we would need to enter the German term "fragen" without the brackets, because it's a direct and valid translation, not an explanation or an incorrect translation ("WRONG for:"). Otherwise we would lose the clear square-brackets rule and this would cause us a lot of pain in the future.
Another note: If you want to consolidate the standard spelling into other tags, always use the word "for", because otherwise it's not clear which one of the terms is the specialized one (in this case it should be clear, but with less common words it's not).
I think tomaquinaten has found a good compromise and I think Paul's emphasis on the frequency of a term is important. I understand that there are terms out there that really push the limits of acceptability. I heard a teacher yesterday use the term "hecka" (a cleaned up version of "hella" as in "hella cool") and it just annoyed me to hear an educator slanging like a 6th grader. I already hate the word "hella" and "hecka" just grated on my ears even worse. I understand, though, that it's easy to adopt the language you're surrounded by. Anyway, I'm not advocating that every word uttered or written in English be added to the dictionary, but I do think that one of dict.cc's strengths is that it contains entries that help language learners understand tricky expressions that find their way into everyday language. I think it would be a detrimental to dict.cc if it took a hard line on restricting those kinds of entries.
|paul: brackets or not||#648448|
In the case of "WRONG-for"-entries, we have consistently used brackets on the German side [dict.cc: [WRONG for] and vice versa for "FALSCH für"-entries [dict.cc: [WRONG for] and with good reason: 1) as a matter of principle, even though what stands in the brackets might serve as a translation, it functions here only as a rough definition; 2) in practice, bracketing the rough definition (a) prevents the false form from being found when looking for a translation of the bracketed term and (b) prevents making more than one entry for the various possible translations of the incriminated term. Thus *the use of brackets with "WRONG for"/"FALSCH für"-entries in no way violates the "clear square-bracket rule". What is bracketed is by its natuire only a definition / explanation, even though by accident it may serve as a possible definition.
The same reasons that justified the above rule for the "WRONG for"/"FALSCH für"-entries holds equally for entires that merely reproduce a dialectical phonetic SPELLING. I have argued that these should be treated differently from *entries for dialect TERMS with a meaning of their own." The spellings "to ax", "to axe", to "aks", are clear examples of the first type, namely phonetic spellings of "to ask" as it is pronounced in a variety of American and Caribean dialects. Thus there is no need to make entries for each one of them giving all the possible translations of "to ask" nor is there any reason why someone looking for a translation for "fragen", "bitten", "fordern", "anfragen", auffordern", "ersuchen", usw. should be directed to these forms. For each of these terms, one entry patterned after the "WRONG for".-entry type will suffice:
to ax [Am] [West Ind.] [dial. spv. for: to ask] ... = [fragen, bitten].
to axe [Am] [dial. spv. for: to ask] ... = [fragen, bitten];
to aks [Am] [dial. spv. for: to ask] ... = [fragen, bitten]..
|Stimme tomaquinaten zu (19:54 )||#648455|
die deutsche Seite MUSS eingeklammert werden
|Man könnte event. auch nach dem Muster verfahren||#648456|
dict.cc: [Cockney Rhyming Slang
to aks [Am.] [dial. spv. for: to ask] ... = [Black American English für: fragen, bitten]
The clear rule about square brackets I want to suggest is the following:
Valid translation? -> No square brackets!
If it isn't a valid direct translation (which is the case for definitions as well as "wrong for" entries), then use square brackets.
If we don't have this clear rule, then we would have to change lots of entries like the German ones mentioned above (ham, dat, isses) and nobody would know which level of colloquiality would be needed to start bracketing terms.
The Oxford link above tells me that "ax" is a valid English term, even though it's not used as frequently as "ask". We have thousands of other rather "exotic" terms, which would have to be put in brackets if we would do this with "ax".
Der Vorschlag von Wenz wäre für mich okay, der gibt nämlich keine Übersetzung, sondern eine Erklärung an.
|I fully support the solution proposed by Wenz||#648679|
because it fulfills the three conditions I outlined above for entries that are merely attempts to spell phonetically dialect pronunciations of normal English words, namely:
1) it makes clear that we are dealing with a mere dialectical *spelling" as opposed to a dialectical term with a meaning of its own;
2) it prevents making multiple entries for all the possible translations of the term;
3) it prevents such entries being found in the opposite direction, e.g. from the German side, when it is a matter of a mere English dialectical spelling variant.
The fact that on the DE side a FEW entries of this type like "ham", "dat", "isses" have been treated as ordinary translation pairs should not be taken as a binding precedent for handling such terms on the EN side in the same way. Even on the DE side, such entries are rare, if one looks at the entries under [Berlin.] or [bayer.], two dialects with easily identifiable pronunciations and more or less canonized phonetic spellings, one finds almost exclusively dialect terms with a meaning of their own, not mere phonetic spellings. And if one compares the discussion of German dialect pronuncations in the FORUM with the table of translation entries, one sees how few translation entries have been made for what are merely regional phonetic variants. As the FORUM discussions make clear. even in the German dialects the range of pronunciation differences is simply too great to justify making separate entries. In English texts, by contrast, one is more likely to encounter dialect spellings than terms with a meaning of their own. And the range of possible phonetic spellings is even greater than in the German dialects. Someone who encounters the word "taters" in a text reproducing Southern or Black American dialect pronunciation is thus better served by an explanation that this is simply a dialect phonetic spelling variant for "potatoes" than by a set of entries listing all the possible German translations for "potatoes".
Making dialect entries in a dictionary like ours, be they for terms with a meaning of their own or for mere dialect phonetic spellings, will always be larely a matter of chance, dependent upon the person who happens to stumble upon an unfamiliar word and decides to make an entry.
Please log in to post an answer to this thread - or post a new question.
|nach oben | home||© 2002 - 2020 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum / Datenschutz|
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