Alle Sprachen    |   EN   SV   IS   RU   RO   FR   IT   PT   NL   SK   HU   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
 patient information leaflet »
« Fehlt im Wörterbuch: no questions asked    

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
"Never heard or read the word" is the weakest and least convincing argument against an entry.  
von BHM (DE), 2018-01-12, 12:20  like dislike  Spam?  
There may be a myriad of reasons why someone hasn't come across a word or phrase or perhaps can't remember that he did, among the more important ones social class and region.

I'm sure I've never used a similar argument. I simply googled the word to see if it was used and in what sort of context. Apart from that, I would never have assumed that the German vocabulary is restricted to what I know. Or, alternatively, I left the entry to others.

The case in point is the word "dirties" ( I had given quite a few contextual links, but that did not seem to be of any importance.

So I will reopen the entry and add even more links. Perhaps there are a few native speakers that also use the word or know someone who does.
Rare/Archaic?  #885386
von kkava (US/DE), 2018-01-12, 12:51  like dislike  Spam?  
von kkava (US/DE), 2018-01-12, 12:56  like dislike  Spam?  
The book reference is from 2009, so I guess the author was trying to be cute or something.
von aphoenix (US), 2018-01-12, 13:55  like dislike  Spam?  
The word is not in Merriam-Webster. nor in Oxford online.  When we tell you that we have never read or heard the word, we are trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to tell you that anyone who uses that word is going to encounter blank stares or laughter. It is entirely possible that within the book author's family, they referred to their laundry as "cleans" and "dirties", but that does not mean that anyone outside the family would not be puzzled by that usage.  Googling "the dirties" finds a film entitled "The Dirties", in which "the dirties" are people, and a band called "The Dirties".  In other links, the context is first established:  eggs, cattle, diapers, bottles, etc.  There are also entries in which "dirties" stands for "dirty deeds" (could use an entry), or risqué ones.  These meanings are the ones most people would think of if the discussion were not about the movie, the band, or a very specific item whose identity is established earlier in the discussion.
aphoenix: If you go by Merriam-Webster or Oxford online, you can at least delete 10 to 15 per cent of the entries.  #885396
von BHM (DE), 2018-01-12, 14:06  like dislike  Spam?  
And if you think it's used in a family context only, why not mark it [in family context only].
Perhaps it needs a BE tag.  #885397
von Lllama (GB/AT), 2018-01-12, 14:11  like dislike  Spam?  
Google: "your dirties" site:uk

It could mean anything used/dirty, and although not common, would be easily understood to mean dirty washing in context.
von ddr (AT), Last modified: 2018-01-12, 14:25  like dislike  Spam?  
Collins kennt es zumindest für schmutziges Geschirr:

Following Llamas link it seems to be pretty common in BE for dirty washing.
[coll.] und [dirty laundry] reicht.  #885406
von Wenz (DE), Last modified: 2018-01-12, 14:53  like dislike  Spam?  
Wir haben im Deutschen ugs. in solchen Fällen und differenzieren häufig auch nicht weiter. Höchstens noch mit einem zusätzlichen [regional] ...
Link Buch 2015 ist Tamara  Rose Blodgett und wohl Amerikanerin.
von kkava (US/DE), 2018-01-12, 14:53  like dislike  Spam?  
ngrams can be misleading, but there doesn't seem to be a strong BE bias.
Hard to see such an expressive word excluded.  #885412
von callixte (US), 2018-01-12, 16:09  like dislike  Spam?
Ray Harwood - 2016 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
With Jan, of course. He'd ring his mother after he'd eaten in the solitude of his own room, on account of not wanting anybody to see the wine. The pasta was good and he felt refuelled. He'd just poured a third glass of wine when there was a knock at the door. It would be the lady for the dirties, he expected. “Sure! Come in.” “You're sounding more like a doctor with a busy surgery now you're the hero of the place.” “Cas! I thought you were the lady to collect the dirties.” “Who says I'm not?
Agreed: that's not a valid argument for deletion  #885413
von narionk (US/DE), 2018-01-12, 16:23  like dislike  Spam?  
There are many words in my native language (English) I don't know, and that doesn't make them any less acceptable or proper. I have learned many new English words by using and working on over the last few years.

"Dirties" seems to me like the kind of word one could spontaneously come up with to distinguish the "dirty" members of a group from the "clean" members of a group (the "cleans" – why not?). In the context of laundry, I'm used to many similar terms already being used in AE: "darks", "lights", "whites", "reds", "wools", "delicates", etc. It looks like the original entry already had the [coll.] tag, which seems appropriate. I would perhaps advocate for a more general translation on the German side, though.
Betr. narionk ... German side: Dreckwäsche (f) [ugs.]  #885419
von Wenz (DE), 2018-01-12, 16:57  like dislike  Spam?  
Ist mMn umgangssprachlich.
Aber so richtig krass finde ich die sprachliche Paarung (dirties - Schmutzwäsche) nun wirklich nicht.
krass   #885420
von aphoenix (US), 2018-01-12, 17:33  like dislike  Spam?  
Ooh, excellent word.  One can allow the reader / listener to choose either meaning 2a or 2b, whichever they prefer.  Seriously, thanks for the new word!  (Interestingly "crass" has a very different meaning, which I've included below.)

1. in seiner Art besonders extrem
2a. (besonders Jugendsprache) in begeisternder Weise gut, schön
2b. (besonders Jugendsprache) schlecht, furchtbar"

"Definition of crass

1 a : gross [disgusting], especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination
b : being beneath one's dignity: crass concerns of daily life
c :  —used as a pejorative intensifier: crass flattery,  crass propaganda
2 : guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values: crass commercialism, crass measures of success"
The (potential) Vocabulary of any language is larger than the terms actually documented in the dictionaries or by G-hits!  #885434
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-01-13, 01:23  like dislike  Spam?  
Dictionaries document only a small segment of the vocabulary of any given language, depending on what criteria they use for deciding to include a word or a meaning, they aim to reflect priorities of the community of users to which they address themselves. Every language, however, has its own rules for inventing new words -- usually in the form of compounds -- or attributing new, more specific or analogous meanings to existing words.

For  the word-formation rules of German see :   -   -
For word-formation rules in English, see   -  -   Wikipedia(EN): Word_formation .

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

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

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

IN SHORT: "I've never heard it" or "I can't find it in a dictionary or in Google" are NOT valid arguments for rejecting a proposed entry here in Even one single plausible example of the use of a proposed term SUFFICES to justify the term's inclusion here. To avoid cluttering up the dictionaries with novelties for the sake of novelties, we have the RULE that for the source term, at least one example should be cited  If possible, this should be taken from a publicly accessible Internet source (one or more G-hits), but it is also possible to cite a printed or even an oral source by giving a short quotation together with author, short-title and year of publication. Reservations about the currency or legitimacy of the term can and should be expressed by adding appropriate usage tags or a usage warning.
     Often, however, there is no documentable equivalent term that can be given as a translation on the target side. In that case, it is permissible and indeed desirable to "invent" an equivalent translation term following the grammatical and semantic word-formation rules of the given language -- such inventions should not be confused with "free" or "loose translations". In that case, instead of citing a source, the author of the proposed translation should provide an explanation, why no standard equivalent is available and why his proposed creation is a grammatically and semantically correct equivalent of the source term, reflecting not only its directly denotated but also its indirectly connotated meaning.
... and heaven help the poor soul ...  #885435
von aphoenix (US), 2018-01-13, 02:52  like dislike  Spam?  
who chooses a completely inappropriate translation from because someone felt it was important to include every possible word, whether it would be appropriate for use in polite or educated company, in business, or in an academic paper.  I'm sure he or she will be grateful that you chose to include a word that made him or her look ridiculous.
Ich muss zugeben, ...  #885436
von Hilli (DE), 2018-01-13, 04:27  like dislike  Spam?  
... dass auch ich gelegentlich schon in Comments das Argument "ist mir noch nie untergekommen" verwendet habe. Meist wenn [nordd.] oder [ostd,] getaggt und der Begriff aus seltsamen Quellen stammt und mMn. schräg klingt.
Hier im konkreten Fall wird zunächst eine deutsche Quelle [] angeführt, was (allein für sich genommen) nicht ausschließt, dass dies eine wundersame Alleinübersetzung ist, die möglicherweise kein English speaker versteht. ... und die Books-Quellen deuten an, dass das zumindest sehr kontextabhängig sein könnte.
Nun kommen da zwei Amis daher und sagen: "Noch nie gehört" - wohlgemerkt: als Comment! 4;aph fragt sogar an, ob "dirty clothes {pl} ??" gemeint sein könnten. Von 4;BHM eine Woche lang keinerlei Reaktion, keine Ergänzung, ...
Wenn solche Zweifel von native Speakern angemeldet werden, kann man ja mal gucken, ob diese Zweifel berechtigt sind oder ob nicht doch eine ergänzende Erklärung in eckigen Klammern den Eintrag verständlicher macht [sprich: den Kontext verdeutlicht]. Das würde vielleicht auch schon mal ein "ungerechtfertigtes" Delete und heftige Empörung vermeiden ...
Nun ist also - durch andere - ein Eintrag entstanden, der mich dennoch ein wenig verunsichern könnte: die engl. "Bekleidung, besonders Unterwäsche" wird im Deutschen mit "Schmutzwäsche" übersetzt. ... auch saubere / nagelneue???

... fragt - leicht verunsichert - der Hilli

von narionk (US/DE), 2018-01-13, 04:36  like dislike  Spam?  
4;aphoenix: In the case discussed here, the source word "dirties" was tagged with [coll.] from the beginning. If someone chooses to use a word that is tagged "colloquial" in a formal business or academic context, the fault is their own. Besides, there is nothing "ridiculous" about misusing a word as a result of insufficient mastery of the language.

The presence of colloquial expressions in a dictionary such as is especially important because you often won't find these expressions in other dictionaries. Indeed, this is one of the features that makes so valuable. If you come across the word "dirties", don't understand it, and try to look up its meaning, you will now find at least some explanation of its meaning on
von narionk (US/DE), 2018-01-13, 05:13  like dislike  Spam?  
4;Hilli Da hast Du recht, die Bedeutung von "dirties" ist doch sehr kontextabhängig. Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass das Wort nicht ins Dict gehört.

"[Clothing, esp. underwear]" finde ich auch irreführend, eine passende Verdeutlichung können wir aber beim Eintrag diskutieren.
narionk  #885439
von aphoenix (US), 2018-01-13, 05:17  like dislike  Spam?  
4;narionk, um, yes, apparently "dirties" means "clothing, esp. underwear."  This will be especially useful to people who read the expression "do their dirties", meaning "do their dirty deeds" (Google) or "do the dirties" ( or "never be afraid of their dirties" (duties, 1800s sources)
Google).  Note that each of these meanings is established as opposed to context dependent.  

I believe that there are situations where examining the context will be far more reliable than looking a word up in a dictionary.  If the topic is sth. and washing, one can assume that "dirties" refers to the sth. to be washed.  Since one can take any pair of opposing adjectives and use them to refer to objects having one or the other characteristic, one could quickly fill the dictionary with confusing entries.  Some laundry must be washed in cold water.  Some should be washed in hot water.  Should we enter "colds" and "hots" to refer to them? (Please don't.  I've never heard... oh, sorry.  I'm sure someone somewhere has called them that. ;-)
We all have our areas of expertise  #885440
von polarjud (US), 2018-01-13, 05:28  like dislike  Spam?  
I think my vote was probably wrong in this specific case, but I don't agree that there is anything problematic about stating this reason for voting to delete.  Words that are labeled as colloquial but are unfamiliar to native speakers are certainly suspect.  With this phraseology, I tell people my exact reason.
narionk: Keine Frage, der Eintrag gehört ins DICT  #885441
von Hilli (DE), 2018-01-13, 06:25  like dislike  Spam?  
... aber der Eingeber kann selbst auch etwas dazu tun, dass bestehende Zweifel ausgeräumt werden. Man kann sicher streiten, ob eine Woche Wartezeit zu knapp ist oder nicht. Aber wenn auf zweifelnde Kommentare gar nix kommt, kann schon mal ein Delete daraus resultieren. Wenn ich meine Votes beobachte und ggf. ergänzende Erklärungen anfüge, wo sie im Nachgang doch erforderlich zu sein scheinen, kann ich viel Druck aus dem Kessel nehmen und sowohl mir selbst als auch anderen Stress und schlechte Gefühle ersparen ...

aphoenix  #885443
von narionk (US/DE), 2018-01-13, 06:59  like dislike  Spam?  
Your sarcasm is not appreciated; there is no need to be rude here.

I don't think I quite got my point across, so I'll try again. This thread is not about whether "clothing, esp. underwear" is a proper clarification of the term "dirties"; indeed, in my response to Hilli, I already expressed my opinion that it is an insufficient clarification. If you agree that it's a poor clarification, then you may suggest changing it. I was simply arguing that some kind of entry for the word "dirties" could be useful to have in the dict.

The fact that a word or phrase has more than one meaning is also a poor reason not to make an entry. If additional entries can be used to express the other meanings of a word, they can be added. The entry "cry | Schrei" isn't going to help someone who reads the expression "a far cry from...", but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the dict.
von aphoenix (US), 2018-01-13, 07:17  like dislike  Spam?  
4;narionk, As it happens, I did not see your post or Hilli's regarding "clothing, esp. underwear", before I posted mine.  I'm sorry you do not appreciate my attempts at humor.  I don't appreciate your accusation of rudeness either.  I can assure you that you did get your point across.  I simply don't agree with you.  However, I will spare you the assumption that I need to repeat myself in order to get my point across.
Hilli  #885445
von narionk (US/DE), 2018-01-13, 07:41  like dislike  Spam?  
Es ist mir noch nicht völlig klar, dass ein Delete die richtige Lösung in solchen Fällen ist. Dennoch stimme ich all deinen letzten Kommentaren zu. Jeder Eintrag braucht seinen "champion" (i.S.v. "Verfechter").
von narionk (US/DE), 2018-01-13, 07:48  like dislike  Spam?  
4;aphoenix It's fine; just please try to make your intentions clear if you're using sarcasm for humorous effect, as it's very easy to misunderstand for something else. I wouldn't have spent the time making counterarguments if I had known you were not serious about what you were saying.
aphoenix ( #885435)  #885447
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-01-13, 08:17  like dislike  Spam?  
Nobody here is advocating indiscriminate entries of false or misleading entries. The answer to the problem, however, is NOT to exclude less common meanings or applications of terms BUT instead to properly tag them to indicate the circumstances and situations in which they can appropriately be used.
   Such entries in a bilingual dictionary are extremely important, because, in the one language, a given concept may have a distinctive specific name, but, in the other, only or additionally a contextually dependent generic name. This is the case with the notion of "dirty laundry" that launched this discussion, In DE the specific name "Schmutzwäsche" is standard usage, but in EN, in addition to the  formal and standard expression "dirty laundry", one can also use, colloquially as a noun, the abstract generic plural adjective "dirties", the specific meaning of which is determined by the context. This is indeed one of the principle differences between German and English. The DE word-formation rules make it easy to construct, even ad hoc, immediately and intuitively understandable specific terms for objects. EN, on the contrary, must often rely on abstract, generic terms, whose concrete meaning is then determined by the context.

    You are right, aphoenix, in recommending that readers/listeners should attend to the context to understand the meaning of such terms before consulting a dictionary.. We EN native speakers are quite used to doing this, especially because our monolingual EN dictionaries generally do not list all of the possible specific contextual applications of abstract generic terms. Especially, they often omit altogether the pluralized adjectives used as abstract collective substantives,
   Those who are learning EN as a foreign language are often less adept at recognizing such contextual meaning and wil need more often to consult a dictionary. Furthermore, it is one thing to intuitively recognize the meaning of an abstract-generic term  from the context and it is quite another thing to identify an appropriate translation for  such a term. Often the translator must do a good bit of mental work before he discovers an appropriate translation by consulting mono- and bilingual, universal or spcialized dictionaries dictionaries and /or by searching text corpora (for example by googling the Internet with diverse filters). And in many cases he is forced to create his own, original  term following to the semantic and grammatical word-formation and syntax rules of the target language. In a bilingual dictionary meant NOT ONLY for beginners BUT ALSO  for those proficient in both languages, e.g. professional translators, it is important to include such less common translation pairs, providing them with sufficient semantic and usage tags to prevent the less proficien  userst from using them inappropriately Indeed, as narionk points out in   #885439 and as ddr and I and many others have repeatedly pointed out in previous FORUM-discussions, one of the greatest STRENGTHS of* is that it provides translations for less frequently used or even ad-hoc created terms as well as for abstract-generic terms when these are used specifically in a particular context.  
     Obviously, in such cases every effort should be made to provide dictionary warrant or at least publicly available text-corpus evidence, e.g. G-hits, for the existence of the source term, but in some instances that cannot be done, and then it SUFFICES to document the existence of the source term with a single example sentence cited from the Internet or from a printed or even an oral source. In the latter cases, one should provide the author's name, a short-title. and the publication year or at least the name of the speaker/speakers  and the approximate year or period of time when the term was heard. On the target side, documentation in the form of dictionary or text-corpus citations should be provided if possible, but  in the case of spontaneous ad-hoc creations  this is usually not possible. Then, in place of documentation, one can provide argumentive justification by explaining how the ad-hoc construction follows the language-specific rules of grammar, semantics, and syntax.
von aphoenix (US), Last modified: 2018-01-13, 08:14  like dislike  Spam?  
4;narionk, Well I am serious about voicing my concern that many readers will be misled and/or mystified when they try to use the entry to interpret a sentence in which the meaning is quite different, but I was not intending to be rude about it.  Sorry.
von kkava (US/DE), 2018-01-13, 10:01  like dislike  Spam?  
I think the entry is good now. At least much better and clearer. Let's focus on some more deserving entries now.
von ddr (AT), 2018-01-13, 10:05  like dislike  Spam?  
Der deutsche Sprachraum ist wesentlich kleiner als der englische, und ich habe in der BRD und in der Schweiz gelebt, schaue viel deutsches und manchmal Schweizer Fernsehen und bilde mir ein, einigermaßen belesen zu sein. Trotzdem kommt es vor, dass ich ein Wort noch nie gehört habe, und nicht nur bei Veraltetem, Regionalem oder typisch Bundesdeutschem, typisch Schweizerischem - bei Fachbegriffen sowieso. Erst dieser Tage bin ich über ein als österr. gekennzeichnetes Wort gestolpert, das mir vollkommen unbekannt war. So ein Unsinn, dachte ich. Als ich nachschaute, musste ich feststellen, dass das Wort gang und gäbe ist. Mir ist es einfach nie untergekommen.
Will damit sagen, ein bisschen googlen schadet nicht, bevor man ein Delete vorschlägt. Das sollte IMHO immer die ultima ratio sein.
Wenn ich meine Votes beobachte und ggf. ergänzende Erklärungen anfüge, ... 06:25  #885455
von Wenz (DE), Last modified: 2018-01-13, 11:07  like dislike  Spam?  
4;Hilli, alles gut und schön - natürlich kann man seine offenen Einträge durchsehen. Wenn aber sehr viele offen sind und noch dazu über Monate hinweg, hallo, ... schau mal (z. B. bommi, nitram)
Bei mir sind es im E-D zwar zur Zeit nur 65, aber trotzdem - meinst du, daß ich tatsächlich noch die Zeit habe und diese 2-3x wöchentlich durchschaue (meist hat sich eh nix oder nicht viel geändert).

...und ggf. ergänzende Erklärungen anfüge (06:25) ...
Ja, auch das mache ich. Allerdings bisher selten mit großem Erfolg. Die bekannten Personen, die DEL Comment oder DEL lieben, sind selten Argumenten zugänglich und meistens kommt eh ein Sackzumacher und dem ist das, was ich geschrieben habe, zu 99% vollkommen wurscht.
polar/aph: bei dieser Gelegenheit noch einmal die Bitte! (partial lot - Teillos)  #885464
von Wenz (DE), 2018-01-13, 14:07  like dislike  Spam?  
Wolltet ihr bei diesem Eintrag das Deletion nicht selber wieder rückgängig machen? Nichtbeteiligte können es leider nicht! Ich habe zwar einen anderen Eintrag noch gemacht für Teillos in der Annahme, daß ihr partial lot wieder zum Leben erweckt.
Und es wäre lieb, wenn ihr eure DEL-Einträge noch einmal überprüft und etliche davon wiederherstellt. Es ist einfach schade um die verlorene Terminologie (aus welchen Bereichen bzw. Spezialgebieten auch immer).
von ddr (AT), 2018-01-13, 14:21  like dislike  Spam?  
Ich verstehe sowieso nicht, warum man immer gleich deletet. Vor allem, wenn es um Fachausdrücke geht. Nicht verifizierte Einträge sind doch kein Problem. Und für den einen oder anderen User können sie vielleicht einmal nützlich sein, und wenn sie ihn nur auf eine richtige Spur bringen.
ddr Das verstehe ich auch nicht.  #885477
von narionk (US/DE), 2018-01-13, 19:33  like dislike  Spam?  
"Nicht verifizierte Einträge sind doch kein Problem." Genau! Oder hat jemand doch ein gutes Argument dagegen?
aphoenix ( #885448): Careful disambiguation and tagging are the best ways to prevent misunderstanding and misuse  #885481
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-01-13, 20:54  like dislike  Spam?  
NOTE: I have been writing this reply in the course of the whole day; only when i posted it, did i see that the discussion continued in my absence. Please excuse me, therefore, for not replying to issus raised in the course of the intervening discussions.

You rightly express your concern  that "many readers will be misled and/or mystified when they try to use the entry to interpret a sentence in which the meaning is quite different", but the best response to this concern is to insist on proper disambiguation and tagging ON BOTH SIDES of the translation equation, thus identifying context-specific meanings. e.g. via bracketed disambiguations and indicating usage restrictions with tags like coll. slang- Am. etc. and, when appropriate, explicitly warning against improper usage when this threatens.
   In my experience, it is NATIVE SPEAKERS who most often fail to recognize the need for disambiguation  on  their own native language side, because they are accustomed to recognizing contextual meaning and meaning-restrictions intuitively; by contrast, they are more likely to recognize the need for disambiguation on the opposite side, especially  when  they have to look up the opposite term in a dictionary. Furthermore, native speakers are inclined to dismiss/delete terms or meanings that are not part of their own active vocabulary, although they have no trouble recognizing them as legitimate when they encounter them in a given context -- such terms are part of their passive vocabulary, and their recognition is triggered by the context. For this reason, as I have said in earlier FORUM-contributions, I strongly recommend  that,  when making or evaluating dictionary entries, native users,should consult the ADVANCED LEARNER'S DICTIONARIES for their OWN language, because these dictionaries give more detailed information about the precise scope and usage of terms than even the major dictionaries that otherwise count as normative: see FORUM #804813 and especially   #784898. Frankly, I continually to learn much about my own first language by consulting these dictionaries and more and more I rely on them when writing in English, especially when I need to choose between synonyms that I find using a thesaurus or that spontaneously come to mind.

Thank you for your apology for appearing to be rude in replying to narionk; such apologies help to prevent FORUM-discussions heating up emotionally. I for my part want to apologize for appearing to sound professorial or supercillious in my over-long FORUM-contributions. Unfortunately I do not have Paul's gift of putting things short and sweet. My training makes me sensitive to the complexity of the issues we discuss here and to the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments used to propose or reject solutions. Thus I believe that, in the long run, the only way we can reach consensus and avoid talking around each other  is to lay all the aspects of  the issue on the table in a systematic way and then to evaluate each suggestion and each supporting argument or objection equally in a systematic way- That is what I try to do in my lengthy contributions, but I am fully aware that my prose is complex and verbose, so. If someone else can do it better, I would gladly yield place to them.
    Often, when I see that a discussion has bogged down and no consensus is in sight,I have appealed to Paul to decide the matter himself: I don't do this, because I have an authoritarian mind-set, but simply because in a community project like our dictionary, fundamental questions about practice need to be setteled pragmatically. and when no agreement can be reached, someone has to decide. And the best person to do that is Paul, since he is the author and proprietor of  We should keep in mind that there are different fundamental philosophies of dictionary-making, and different attitudes are reflected in divisions within our community of contributors and voters, with some opting for a prescriptive-exclusive policy while others advocate a descriptive-inclusiveist policy. If I understand him correctly, Paul, in founding,committed himself to the descriptive-inclusivist philosophy, and thus older Dict.-lers like ddr, Wenz, and myself consistently advocate the inclusivist position in the discussions here in the FORUM as well as in discussions of individual entries. Among those who have joined our community in recent years, there are not a few who repeatedly call for a more restrictive, exclusivist approach. And not a few advocates of such a restrictive-exclusivist policy have left our community because they are frustrated by their inability to  push through this position against the concerted opposition of us older, who hold for an inclusivist position. They regard our inclusivist approach as being unserious and unhelpful
 . For those interested in the difference  between these two approaches, I recommend the websites found under Google: descriptive versus prescriptive
tomaquinaten: Ein herzliches Dankeschön geht an Dich, unser dict-Urgestein!  #885497
von Wenz (DE), Last modified: 2018-01-14, 10:48  like dislike  Spam?  
Ich freue mich, daß Du die wesentlichen dict-Punkte rekapituliert hast.
Etwas Magendrücken habe ich bei den Ausführungen über "...insist on proper disambiguation and tagging ON BOTH SIDES of the translation equation, thus identifying context-specific meanings. e.g. via bracketed disambiguations ..."

1) Woher soll ein Neuer so genau wissen wie er ein Sprachpaar exakt nach dict-Norm aufbauen muß? (Unvollständiger "Aufbau" rechtfertigt KEIN Delete.)
2) Betrifft auch meine Wenigkeit: Woher soll ein Eingeber wissen, ob es noch weitere Bedeutungen gibt ... ALSO jetzt konkret mein derzeitiges Anliegen, das unter den Nägeln brennt:
2018 ist das Jahr der Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft. Ich hatte schon mal kurz vor der Europameisterschaft angefangen, die Terminologie anhand der drei offiziellen Sprachen der UEFA einzugeben [meistens gekennzeichnet mit Football / Soccer und Subject Sports], habe aber dann frustriert abgebrochen, da es zu viel Ärger gab. Mit Fußball kenn ich mich aus. Aber um alles in der Welt, wie soll ich denn wissen, ob das engl. Wort oder die engl. Wendung auch in einer anderen Sportart (z.B. Rugby, American Football) verwendet wird UND vor allen Dingen, daß dieses Wort auch exakt der deutschen Bedeutung zuzuordnen ist???!!!!
Ich bin der Meinung, daß man das nicht verlangen kann. (Unvollständiger "Aufbau" rechtfertigt KEIN Delete.)
Antwort auf Wenz  #885497 um 10:48:  Keine Panik! Niemand wird überfordert!!!  #885527
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-01-14, 18:56  like dislike  Spam?  
Danke für dein Kompliment, Wenz. Ich hoffe, die ausführliche, systematische Darlegung diene zur Versachlichung der Diskussion hilftn endlich einen Konsens in dieser so oft debatierten Frage zu bilden.

Sei getrost, der Satz  "...insist on proper disambiguation and tagging ON BOTH SIDES of the translation equation, thus identifying context-specific meanings. e.g. via bracketed disambiguations ..." sollte niemanden überfordern. Es bedeutet lediglich, dass bevor man für DELETE votiert, sollte man sich anstrengen, den Sinn eines  problematischen Eintrags durch Disambiguierung und Erklärung -- eventuell auf beiden Seiten -- klarer zum Ausdruck zu bringen.

     Dass ein Eintrag Disambiguierung und Erläuterung braucht, fällt einem meistens nicht sofort ein; weil der Autor und uch der Ja-Voter den spezifisch intendierten Sinn intuitiv erfasst und ist deswegen zunächst blind für die Möglichkeit, dass jemand anders diese Bedeutung nicht ebenfalls spontan erkennen kann. Meistens wird einem die Notwendigkeit der Disambiguierung erst hinterher bewußt, wenn jemand anders Zweifel an die Richtigkeit des Vorschlags meldet. Und, wie ich ausgeführt habe, ist es gerade der Native Speaker, der -- ich spreche hier aus eigener Erfahrung -- oft als letztere die Notwendigkeit eine Disambiguierung auf seine eigene Sprachseite erkennt.
    Natürlich wird man etwas schlauer, wenn man den muttersprachlichen Ausdruck in einem muttersprachlichen Wörterbuch nachschlägt, insbes. in einem Advanced learners' dictionary, und deswegen empehle ich, gerade allen Muttersprachlern dies zu tun. Aber selbst dann, geht das Licht nicht immer sofort an. Dafür haben wir hier in" den Voting-Mechanismus. Nur durch die Neinstimmen und vor allem durch deren mitgelieferten Begründungen  werden die Schwächen eines Eintrags offenbar und es werden dadurch Verbesserungsvorschläge hervorgerufen.

Nur wird der Voting-Mechanismus pervertiert, wenn sich zwei VP5-Voter zusammentun und direkt hinter einander  für DELETE votieren -- eventuell sogar ohne ausführliche und ausreichende Begründung ihres Votums zu lieferen -- bevor der Autor oder andere Voter die Gelegenheit bekommen, den Eintrag durch Disambiguierung und Erklärung zu verbessern. Gewiss werden durch ein solches "kurze Prozess-Politik"  manche sinnlosen  und irreparablen Einträge -- vor allem die von Anfängern -- direkt in den Mülleimer gefegt. viel Ballast wird abgeworfen und viel Müll beseitigt. Der berüchtigte Backlog wird dadurch schneller abgebaut oder zumindest am Weiterwachsen verhindert. Aber wenn Einträge von erfahrenen und gewissenhaften mit diesem Fall-Beil-Methode ebenfalls ohne gebührende Diskussion beseitigt werden, ist etwas falsches im System.

Ich plädiere NICHT dafür, das Voting-System zu ändern; ich möchte ABER die Haltung dazu und die Handhabung ändern.
Wenn es sich um Einträge von bekanntlich erfahrenen und gewissenhaften handelt, SOLLTEN DIE VOTER DAVON AUSGEHEN, dass der Autor sich etwas sinnvolles dabei gedacht hat und man soll deswegen den Versuch machen, durch formale Korrekturen und durch Disambiguierung und Erläuterung den mangelhaften aber an sich brauchbaren Eintrag zu retten. Das ist ja das, was GL 3,3 vorschreibt, nur manche Leute verstehen dieser Regel so, als ob DELETE-Voten trotzdem Vorrang vor Verbesserungsvorschläge haben. Und es gibt leider immer noch einige unter uns, die DELETE-Voten als Mittel der Pädagogik oder der Vergeltung misbrauchen.

Zweitens plädiere ich für größere Anstrengungen bei der Begründung von Voten. Gerade DELETE-Voten erforderen eine stärkere und ausführlichere Begründung als Ja-Stimmen. Argumente wie "hever heard it" sind, wie der hiesige Diskussionsthread zeigt, wenig wert. Aber auch das Fehlen eines Ausdrucks in gängigen Wörterbüchern beweist wenig, vor allem wenn es sich um ein Ausdruck einer Fach- Regional- oder Gruppensprache handelt. Und bekanntlich verzeichnen auch die besten "normativen" Wörterbücher nur ein Bruchteil der Mehrwortausdrücke und -phrasen einer Sprache. Ebenfalls begrundet das Fehlen oder nur eine niedrige Zahl von G-hits und niedrige N-gram-Werte lediglich die Qualifizierung des Ausdrucks als  rar oder selten. Statistiken allein sind wenig wert, vor allem, wenn sie nicht auf einem entsprechend umfassenden, systematisch gesammelten Text-Korpus basieren. Unsere Gemeinschaft ist einfach nicht in der Lage, wie die professionellen Wörterbuchmacher aus einem umfassenden, systematisch gesammelten Text-Korpus Werturteile über Empfehlenswertem und Weniger-Empfehlensweretem zu unterscheiden. Und solange Paul nicht für eine normativ-exklusivistische statt für die jetzt gelthende deskriptiv-inklusivististische Politik entscheidet, sollen wir mit DELETE-Voten zurückhaltend sein.
  . Um die Legitimität eines Ausdrucks zu begründen oder bestreiten kommt man letztendlich nicht um eine Argumentation auf der Basis von Grammar und Semantik.  Aber auch hier sei getrost. will ich niemanden  überfordern. Eine eingehende Argumentation für einen Eintrag ist nur selten erforderlich. Allgemein reicht der Hinweis auf einen Eintrag in einem zuverlässigen zweisprachigen Wörterbuch. Man kann sich auch auf  parallele Eintragungen in den massgeblichen einsprachigen Wörterbüchern für beide Seiten berufen. Nur manchmal ist ein erklärender Satz dazu hilfreich. Nur in seltenen Fällen, und dann meisten nur, wenn diese angefochten sind, ist eine ausführliche semantische und grammatikalische Begründung von nöten. .
Danke nochmal, tomaquinaten!  #885565
von Wenz (DE), 2018-01-15, 12:40  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