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


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

Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
 zero revenue model »
« unto itself    

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
Some recent comment quotes I find troubling  
von polarjud (US), 2012-08-28, 03:49  like dislike  Spam?  
I found this quote from one of our VP5 contributors recently: "Please stop self-translating!"
The same contributor also recently posted this comment: "Your google link provides no evidence of a connection between the two words."  Another contributor offered the comment, "Is this some sort of a joke?
The Google search results link has nothing but links back to this entry and, at least for the first 5 pages."

Maybe I have taken the wrong meaning from these comments, but they suggest to me at least a slight hostility to to first-time translations.  If that were to become the standard policy on this site, I would regret it.  I have always felt rather badly about our disregard of the intellectual property rights of the creators of Oxford-Duden and other dictionaries offered for sale.  If Paul were to pay someone to copy them all entry by entry, it would be a clear violation of copyright, but somehow if dozens of volunteers do it on a piece-meal basis for free, then it becomes fair use.  If this site has a moral basis, it is the promotion of first-time translations before they be incorporated into published dictionaries.  As such, we should be prepared for zero ghits on the combination of the German and English sides of a proposed translation pair.  When there are lots of ghits, that makes it easier, of course, but it is no reason to vote against the entry or offer biting comments to other contributors.
I agree.  #671165
von Badger (US), 2012-08-28, 04:37  like dislike  Spam?  
I don't think should simply turn into a collecting basin for dictionary translations (and bilingual texts, though I find those more important). I contribute very few "personal" translations, because my familiarity with (spoken) German pretty much ended in 1953, but I think they are extremely valuable when well supported. "proz" is (to me) an excellent model.
I think we will always need some sort of relieable sources.  #671171
von parker11 (DE), 2012-08-28, 06:51  like dislike  Spam?  
Das muss nicht unbedingt ein anderes Dictionary sein. Aber ganz ohne Backup sollten self-translations nicht möglich sein. linguee ALLEINE ist übrigens keine ausreichende Quelle, IMHO.
I'm with polar and Badger.  #671178
von ddr (AT), Last modified: 2012-08-28, 08:47  like dislike  Spam?  
I always considered it the pride of to be able to offer a translation that no other dictionary offers. I thought it was up to the combined knowledge and experience of the community to decide if the trans was correct and useful or not.  And I also had frequent qualms about copying from other dictionaries, especially from online dicts. (A printed one I had at least paid for at one time. Feeble excuse.)
But things have developed in a different direction. The fact that in most cases only two voters decide on right or wrong admittedly makes rather a small basis for 'collective intellegence' and a new generation of contributors seems to rely increasingly on the www. only. Even pinching from other dictionaries often seems not good enough anymore.
This is of course okay for technical terms, but often a bit tiresome, boring and uncreative for 'normal language'. And it takes so much time! Of course, the information to be found on www. has exploded over the last few years, but I'm still not convinced that 'everything' can be found there and some things may be found in just one or two 'ghits'.
We won't turn the tide, I'm afraid, but lets not discourage people  from trying to create a translation for the so far untranslated and let's use our own brains to decide if they were successful or not.
von Wenz (DE), 2012-08-28, 09:45  like dislike  Spam?  
Ich bin gegen freie Übersetzungen bei wissenschaftlicher / technischer Fachterminologie. Das gilt BESONDERS auch für unsere Medizin-/Anatomie-Einträge!
(( Und ich bin im Großen und Ganzen gegen wahllose "Überkreuz-Übersetzungen", was diese Subjects angeht. ))
Wir haben das wunderbare Werkzeug der eckigen Klammer. Diese Klammer sollten wir nützen, wenn wir z. B. eine Eigenübersetzung kreieren für einen erstmalig zu übersetzenden Begriff, z. B. einer neuen Technologie.
ddr: whose brains?  #671198
von parker11 (DE), 2012-08-28, 10:57  like dislike  Spam?  
The brains of any blind voter, mass voter, VP2 newbie? I don't think so. Wenn, dann nur von erfahrenen VP5 Usern, aber ich denke, diese Einschränkung lässt sich programmiertechnisch von Paul nicht vornehmen.
von Paul (AT), 2012-08-28, 11:31  like dislike  Spam?  
Creating translations is fine, as long as they are useful for the users and, of course, correct in the meaning and level of language. is not about copying established dictionaries, it's about cumulating and sharing knowledge from as many different sources and brains as possible, for the benefit of as many people as possible.

Giving source information helps others to judge and vote for the correctness of entries. If there are no "easy" sources (which contain the term in both languages at once), the best practice would be to post two links to two different trustworthy websites in the comment field, one for each language, that show the word/phrase in context in the respective language. Voters would have to use their brains to decide if the terms match. This process doesn't have anything to do with dull copying, to the contrary - it's creating value.
Danke, Paul, anders habe ich es auch nicht gemeint.  #671209
von ddr (AT), 2012-08-28, 12:25  like dislike  Spam?  
Obwohl: Gerade habe ich eine für mich nicht besonders ausgefallene Wendung im Google eingegeben (jede irgend mögliche Variante) und keinen einzigen Ghit gefunden; auf Deutsch. Nicht, dass ich das im dict. eingeben wollte, habe nur Beispiele für 'jede irgend' gesucht. Man findet eben NICHT alles, nicht einmal in einer Sprache, geschweige denn in beiden.
4; Parker
Die newbies überstimmen wir ja leicht, außerdem müssen die ja nicht per se blöd sein, die Blind- und Massenvoter sind offenbar ein Problem, aber das lässt sich IMHO nicht dadurch lösen, dass wir nur noch google-sprachliche Einträge akzeptieren.
von Paul (AT), 2012-08-28, 12:33  like dislike  Spam?  
"jede irgend mögliche" liefert bei mir 1670 Treffer, und zwar in Verbindung mit "Geschichte", "Information", "Bitte", usw. Wenn es darum geht, die Verwendung von "irgend" zu belegen, kann man auch mit diesen Einträgen arbeiten.
von ddr (AT), 2012-08-28, 14:05  like dislike  Spam?  
Das weiß ich auch, Paul. Es geht darum, dass einige hier meinen, es muss genau der Beispielsatz, die Beispielwendung im google zu finden sein, und zwar zweisprachig und möglichst oft. Und das funktioniert außer vielleicht bei stehenden Wendungen nicht, oder wenn, dann nur nach unangemessen langem Suchen. Oder vielleicht bin ich unfähig, dieses Medium richtig zu benützen. Aber seltsamerweise kommen von den Ghit-Fanatikern selten Gegenvorschläge, die googlen.
jede irgend  #671223
von Wenz (DE), 2012-08-28, 14:14  like dislike  Spam?
PAUL: Sollte es nicht so sein, daß ein Eintrag nur im ORIGINAL (plus event. Klammererklärung) UNDELETED werden kann.
Hier ist aber ein komplett  neues Sprachpaar entstanden. Hast Du das damals bei der Der-Wrecker-Geschichte nicht geändert?
Außerdem die Verifizierung: 4 EigenPunkte von Nitram und 5 Pkt. ddr = 9 Pkt.!
Bitte ändern entsprechend gültigem Reopen-Verfahren:
1) Änderungen der Kernaussage nicht möglich (nur Klammerzusätze)
2) 25 Pkt. und Listung in den Reopened Entries.
von 5dotstoadime, 2012-08-28, 14:27  like dislike  Spam?  92.41.59....
I am reading your comments with great interest, also the slight condescending remarks about newbies with a voting power of 2 who might not all be "bloed", and the voting should be done by "experienced" VP5s.
Experienced in what? Most of you are deluded here, draping yourselves in accolates like professional level in this or that. You professional level means nowt, it is just bullshit, I looked into it. Look at some people here, professional, translators, and they are on this site every other day asking questions.
If you displayed this kind of experienced and professional level in another job working for my girlfriend and me, you would get fired within two days.
von Paul (AT), 2012-08-28, 14:31  like dislike  Spam?  
Es ist kein neues Sprachpaar entstanden, im Gegenteil: Nitram hat auf die ursprüngliche Kritik reagiert und  versucht, das "jede irgend" in eine Beispielphrase zu verpacken.
Das mit der Verifizierung schaue ich mir an.
Paul: Natürlich ist es ein "neues" Sprachpaar. Es ist nicht mehr der Originalwortlaut.  #671226
von Wenz (DE), 2012-08-28, 14:42  like dislike  Spam?  
Also diese Aussage von Dir häng ich mir übers Bett!!!!!

Erinnere Dich doch an die Vorgängerdiskussionen. Irgendwie fing das mit Voting-Sicherheit etc. ja schon beim heißen Eintrag "Fröhliches Thanksgiving" an.
Dazwischen gab es x Beispiele.
von Paul (AT), Last modified: 2012-08-28, 15:03  like dislike  Spam?  
Es ist nicht mehr der Originalwortlaut, aber es geht noch immer um die gleiche Übersetzung, und zwar um "jede irgend" = "any and every". Nitram ist nur dem Wunsch von Parker nach einer Erweiterung des Eintrags nachgekommen, damit die Anwendung des Ausdrucks besser verständlich wird. Es geht noch immer um die gleiche Information, die ins Wörterbuch eingebracht werden soll.
Den Fehler bei der Verifizierung habe ich behoben, sollte nicht mehr vorkommen.
Sorry, ich habe nicht bemerkt, dass das ein undelete war.  #671232
von ddr (AT), 2012-08-28, 15:18  like dislike  Spam?  
Können wir irgendwie das Wortpaar jede/r/s irgend//all and every retten?
GL und korrekte Vorgehensweisen sind zwar wichtig, aber die Info ist eigentlich noch wichtiger.
ddr 12:25:  #671249
von parker11 (DE), Last modified: 2012-08-28, 17:25  like dislike  Spam?  
Ich habe die VP2 User nie als blöd bezeichnet und werde das auch nie tun. Ich war selbst auch mal einer und jeder andere hier auch. Ich war damals als VP2 auch nicht blöd, aber bestimmt noch nicht mit den Guidelines so vertraut wie heute. Ich spielte hier auf die Unerfahrenheit mit dem voting system und den Guidelines von dict an.
von ddr (AT), 2012-08-28, 19:38  like dislike  Spam?  
Parker, das hatte ich ja gar nicht angenommen, es hätte nur so (miss)verstanden werden können. Aber für die Entscheidung, ob eine trans plausibel ist, ist die Kenntnis des voting systems und der guidelines ja nicht soo entscheidend.
I am with Wenz, Parker, ddr, polar and Badger, etc.  #671277
von joerg (DE), 2012-08-28, 21:22  like dislike  Spam?  
Ich denke der große Vorteil hier ist, dass eben das Wissen vieler Voter, auch deren, die nicht Übersetzer sind, hier zusammenfließt, dieses Dictionary deshalb in der Lage ist viele Fach- und Wissensgebiete abzudecken und dieses eben sowohl durch persönliche Kenntnisse, andere Quellen (Bücher und Fachzeitschriften, Vorschriften, Gesetzestexten, etc.) und andere Wörterbücher gestützt wird. Dabei geht jeder Eintrag bis zur Verifizierung den Weg der kritischen Betrachtung vieler unterschiedlicher Voter. Und dieser weg ist mit der Verifizierung nicht abgeschlossen, sondern der Inhalt von wird ständig kritisch hinterfragt. Deshalb habe ich grundsätzlich kein Problem mit "Eigenkreationen" die wie auch immer hinreichend belegt sind. diese mindern nicht das Niveau von
A nice exchange  #671294
von polarjud (US), 2012-08-29, 02:42  like dislike  Spam?  
I knew that Paul wanted to see original translations on his creation, but it is always nice to see this confirmation.  Wenz did not write any of the comments I lifted, but it sounds like she agrees with the sentiment.  Let me offer as a further example of the need to embrace first-time translations and radically different from available web translations an example from a technical field in which I am an expert.  I have spent 33 years in population surveys for the government.  The terms "structure survey" has no meaning in my field.  Yet we have an entry for it that appears to have been contributed by me.  There are plenty of ghits for it as well.  All of them come from mistranslations of the German Strukturerhebung which I think track back to a website of hte European Union.  They seem to like coining words.
Thank you Paul for your clear statement of policy concerning admissable translations and the requirements for their justification.  #671705
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2012-08-31, 21:58  like dislike  Spam?  
With my late contribution to this exchange, I would like to explain this policy in more detail, especially concerning the standards concerning justification, since I fear that some misunderstandings exist especially among those who have attained VP5 in the recent past. The points I make here are explained more fully in the sections on what constitutes a good translation and what constitutes adequate justification in my handbook.

1. The strength of lies in the fact that it does NOT content itself with presenting the one single "best" translation, such as may be found in a printed bilingual dictionary, but rather it offers a wide variety of potential correct translations, among which user himself can and must select the  "best" translation that fits the particular context. In this sense, simultaneously functions as a thesaurus of synonyms, and, in this function, it is particularly useful to professional translators, who are able to appreciate the subtle differences of meaning that make now the one, now the other translation most suited to a particular context. For learners of the language, this variety is often confusing, but Paul's word-list statistics can indicate to them which translations are most frequently used.
2. Even though compound terms and other word combinations can in principle be translated by looking up the translation of their individual components, it is useful to include such "literal" translations in, especially when the term on one side of the translation equation is written as a single compound term, e.g. "Rohstoffeinnahmen" or when it is useful to distinguish between more or less synonymous valid literal translations and literal translations which are not valid.  Here too, as an online dictionary, has the advantage of being unhampered by considerations of size. It can include far more translations than any printed work or even most online commercial dictionaries.
3. As to justifying a translation, it is false to demand too narrow criteria.
a)  Citing translations found in standard bilingual dictionaries is but one of several ways to justify a translation and it is not always the best one, since these dictionaries, especially the printed ones, are sometimes dated and occasionally even offer questionable or erroneous translations ( e.g. the older Langenscheidt dictionaries often translated specific terms with generic terms), but above all because they  include only a relatively small number of the terms needing translation, omiting in particular terms wthat are too specialized or too new. Thus, the standard dictionaries omit, for the most part, the technical vocabulary of specific subject fields for which specialized bilingual dictionaries often exist. By including such terms, makes their translations available to non-specialists who do not have personal access to the special sources for such fields. For many fields, however, such specialized dictionaries are unavailable or hopelessly inadequate, thus it is all the more important to include their translations in
b)  Bilingual Google researches which turn up translations in bilingual online dictionaries or in bilingual sources like Linguee do not as such prove a particular translation to be correct, since they are often erroneous or only apparently relevant, but they can provide helpful suggestions, that may or may not need additional verification.
     To justify an entry, however, it is NOT necessary to prove that the translation as such is already in use by finding it in reputable sources. It IS necessary to prove only two things:
(1) that the terms themselves used on each side of the translation, i.e. the individual words or combinations thereof,   are EITHER actually in use OR AT LEAST plausible according to the the syntactical and semantic rules of the respective language
(2) that the meanings of the terms on both sides of the equation correspond to each other.
        To prove the real existence  of such terms, g-hits can be helpful, if they are critically evaluated to exclude irrelevant instances. Decisive, however,  is not the number of such hits but their seriosity. One serious and relevant g-hit often suffices to demonstrate the term's existence. However, even the absence of g-hits does not mean that the term does not exist or is not worthy of incorporation into In such cases, it is sufficient to cite even a single occcurence of the term in a reputable non-digitalized source, for instance, the text currently being translated by the person making the entry, or indeed some plausible fictive example making clear its meaning.  In this connection, the direction of translation is important. Stronger evidence is usually needed to support the target term than the original term, especially when the target term is in a language, in which the translator is less competent. But here too, a single reputable digital or printed source can often suffice.
         In addition, however, it is often legitimate to create a new but plausible combined term that cannot as such be verified in any digital or printed source, provided that the new creation follows the syntactic and semantic rules of the respective language for compounding terms. English permits combining terms either by using hyphens or genitive and prepositional constructions. German allows relatively free combination by agglutination of existing words as well. Combinations of this type are quite common in speaking and writing, although few of them find their way into even the unabridged dictionaries of the respective languages, mostly due to restrictions of space rather than for linguistic reasons. Making such combinations is part of the art of a good translator, and  makes it possible to share such genial combinations with others.  Nevertheless, as Wenz pointed out, such free combinations should be created sparingly and only by translators who are thoroughly competent in the vocabulary of the subject field, since technical fields often prefer a borrowed foreign term to a term constructed by combining elements of the standard language. Furthermore, the meaning of the newly created term must be immediately evident in itself, it not, it is preferable to provide a bracketed definition instead of a translation on the terget side.
        To prove the equivalence of meaning, the best method is to cite the definitions given in reliable monolingual dictionaries for the respective languages. For this purpose, it is best to consult unabridged dictionaries like the Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Duden dictionaries, though the online versions of such dictionares are generally available only on a paid subscription basis. Abbridged but extensive versions are, however, available for free on the Internet. In using such dictionaries, it is often necessary to look up synonyms as well, to be sure one has grasped the specific meaning of the term proposed for use. Particularly helpful are the so-called advanced learners' dictionaries, which make a point of providing clear definitions and usage hints intelligible to non-native speakers and offer useful disambiguations of synonyms. For English, the Macmillan dictionary at is particularly helpful. For German, there is the Langenscheidt Großwörterbuch: Deutsch als Fremdsprache, which unfortunately exists only in print form with a CD-Rom included. Mere reference to such dictionaries, however, is often insufficient; often it is necessary to cite the given definition verbatim and eventually to add a personal explanation of why the proposed translation is appropriate.
Nicely put, tomaquinaten  #671712
von polarjud (US), 2012-09-01, 04:06  like dislike  Spam?  
I do agree that parallel entries from monolingual dictionaries are best.  That is probably not an option though for idiomatic phrases.  For these, nothing can substitute for the personal experiences of people who have spent time living in both cultures or who have immersed themselves deeply in the literature and film of each culture.  Their votes and contributions are far more valuable than anything that can be extracted from dual-language Google searches.  Face it, Google engineers are already doing that on a massive automated scale.  There is really no point in us trying to reproduce it case by case.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, tomaquinaten!  #671769
von Paul (AT), 2012-09-01, 15:59  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 - 2020 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