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

Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch

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

LoginRegistrieren
Home|About/Extras|Vokabeltrainer|Fachgebiete|Benutzer|Forum|Mitmachen!
Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
 against the entry »
« Codes and ciphers    

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
Frage:
What do subject tags count for?  
von cameron-coombe (NZ), 2018-10-08, 10:30  like dislike  Spam?  
Hey all, for the last few weeks I have been suggesting disambiguations alongside subject tags. This follows a suggestion of either BHM or Badger (I'm sorry, I've forgotten who) that such a move is necessary because subject tags are easily changeable. That is, we cannot rely on subject tags for disambiguation because almost anyone can reopen an entry and change the tag or remove it. Since I've been following this rule, however, both ddr and Wenz, who are regular contributors, have questioned me on it:

https://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=662071
https://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=1394158

(The second is helpful anyway because it shows a legitimate variation of the word within one entry). I thought then that it'd be good to talk this out and see if we can come to a consensus. For me, unless the mechanics of subject tags are changed, so that only A-voters can adjust them (but even then we will have some problems), or that an entry's confirmation depends on agreement over subject tags, then I think we are right to treat them with caution and provide extra disambiguation via brackets. I know that this can make for some clunky entries, however.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2018-10-08, 11:51  like dislike  Spam?  
 #898320
I find the disambiguation useful in both cases.
Antwort: 
von ddr (AT), 2018-10-08, 12:12  like dislike  Spam?  
 #898322
Ich finde Disambiguationen absolut notwendig, wenn auf andere Art nicht klar gestellt werden kann, in welchem Sinn das Wort zu verstehen ist, und das ist oft der Fall.
Ich finde subjects sehr hilfreich, besonders auf Seiten mit vielen Einträgen, da man das, was man sucht, mit Hilfe der subjects schneller findet.
Ich finde subjects auch eine gute Möglichkeit, das Anwendungsgebiet anzugeben, und ich halte es für ein Gerücht, dass subjects häufig geändert oder gelöscht werden. Allerdings fände ich es auch gut, wenn die subjects besser geschützt wären, z. B. nur durch VP4 oder VP5 Voter geändert werden könnten.
Ich finde viele Klammer-Ergänzungen inzwischen nur noch nervend (z. B. Rock [Rockmusik], wenn als subject music angegeben ist), aber das ist ein  harmloses, weil kurzes Beispiel, oft stehen ja halbe Romane bei den Einträgen.
IMHO sollten Einträge so kurz wie irgend möglich gehalten werden. Ein Wörterbuch ist ja kein Lesebuch.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2018-10-08, 12:19  like dislike  Spam?  
 #898323
Gerade beim Rock-Eintrag finde ich den Zusatz eigentlich gut, weil die englische Seite bei diesem Eintrag eher außergewöhnlich und nicht so leicht verständlich ist, der andere (musikalische) Eintrag auch den gleichen Zusatz hat, und der Zusatz außerdem sehr kurz ist (ein Wort).
Antwort: 
Erklärungen  #898332
von joerg (DE), 2018-10-08, 17:47  like dislike  Spam?  
Ich fand die Zusätze in beiden Fällen auch gut. Ich meine es gab hier bisher doch wenigstens den Konsens, dass Begriffe spätestens dann Zusätze brauchen wenn sie mehrere Bedeutungen haben oder bestimmte Bedeutungen nur in einem ganz bestimmten Kontext.
Antwort: 
von cameron-coombe (NZ), 2018-10-09, 04:51  like dislike  Spam?  
 #898343
Good to hear, thank you for the comments. I will continue putting the bracketed disambiguations in then, alongside subject tags.

I wonder, Paul, do you think it would be worth further restricting subject changes to those with higher VPs?
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2018-10-09, 09:43  like dislike  Spam?  
 #898349
I don't remember any problem regarding subject changes caused by not requiring a higher VP. Every system change has the potential of creating new problems nobody thought about before. So unless it's really necessary I would prefer not changing that.
Antwort: 
What SUBJECT-tags are good for? An EN-explanation of ddr's helpful summary  #898369
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-10-09, 12:11  like dislike  Spam?  
SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
1.   "+Dict.cc-+SUBJECT(s)" stands for a device proper to Dict.cc. This device is used PRIMARILY to categorize and organize entries for  whole translation-pairs. ONLY INDIRECTLY, does the assigning a translation-pair to a particular SUBJECT-field serve to disambiguate the meaning of a single term on one or the other side of a translation entry.
     In a general way, these SUBJECT(s) circumscribe the terminology used in established scholarly disciplines or in some special area of human activity; however, they are NOT always fully congruent with the discipline or activity area from which they take their name.
        For these reasona, when speaking of them, I personally use the upper-case spelling “SUBJECT”,
        adding “(s)” when the plural is meant. Where confusion might occur, I often preface the term with
        “+Dict.cc-+”*

2.   +Dict.cc+-SUBJECT(s) are entered into a special line in the entry form and must be chosen from a canonized list of permitted designations that can be called up from the edit form in either an alphabetical or a cloud presentations. The latter has the advantage of reflecting the importance of the field  based on the number of entries assigned to it. Many SUBJECTS overlap, and, while some are quite generic, others are often highly specific.  The list has been created for pragmatic reasons and thus does not represent any ideal catalog of academic disciplines or fields of human activity.

3.   In result lists and in single entry displays, +Dict.cc+-SUBJECT(s) appear as grey rectangles with white lettering, placed to the left of the middle line; In EN/DE, this puts them on the English side of the entry; nevertheless, they apply to the whole entry NOT just to the term on the EN.side. When several SUBJECT(s) are assigned to a translation equation, they are placed alongside each other.

4,   The fact that SUBJECTS apply to the whole translation-equation distinguishes them from bracketed “tags”,  which are inserted behind a term on one or the other side of an equation to disambiguate its meaning and its use within a particular context, thus separating it from uses of the  term in other contexts.
     Although in most cases, such bracketed “tags” contain definitions, usage-explanations, or examples, occasionally they may contain abbreviated designations for a particular contextual field  where the term is used in a special sense, e.g. in entry No, 402258, the DE-term “Sturm” is disambiguated with the explanatory tag [mil. Angriff]. Note that in this example, there is no need to disambiguate the corresponding EN term.
         Most Dict.cc-ler use the term “Subject-tag” when referring to the SUBJECT(s) that can be assigned
         to the whole entry as opposed to the bracketed tags that are assigned to a specific term on one
         side of a translation equation. But I find this practice misleading, and, for that reason, I prefer to
         distinguish between SUBJECT-flags and bracketed tags, which may, by chance, contain an
         abbreviation identical with a category name contained in the canonized list of SUBJECT(s). I do this
         to call attention to the fact that  the “flags” differ in appearance and location from the bracketed “tags”,
        and that they serve a different purpose.

Having said this, I think one can better understand ddr’s concise explanation of what SUBJECT-flags are good for.
1.  Disambiguations, i.e. bracketed definitions, explanations, etc., make clear, the meaning of a particular
         term in a given translation=equation.
2.  Subjects [what I call “SUBJECT-flags”] help one more quickly to recognize specific entries in long result
         lists, where they distinguish terms used in a particular context from terms commonly used in a
        wide variety of contexts.
3.  Subjects [again what I call “SUBJECT-flags”] are a useful way to indicate the specific contexts in
        which a  translation-equation is used
, and, as ddr and others pointed our in an earlier FORUM-thread,
        they enable one to build word-lists for the terminology of the field in question. This can be done, for
        instance, by calling up the list of “Fachgebiete”=”Subjects”,
4.  ddr observes that adding too much bracketed information on either side of a translation equation can be
       annoying, especially if the meaning of the term is sufficiently clear, when the context is clearly
       identified by a SUBJECT-flag. However, as paul points out in #898323  , adding a bracketed
       definition may sometimes be helpful, if the term itself is unusual or if it is used in an unusual way.
5.  ddr rightly observes, that bracketed information should be  formulated* as concisely as possible* ; it
       should only be long enough to prevent confusion about the term’s meaning and usage, anything more
       belongs to an encyclopedia.
6.  She argues that irresponsible changing  SUBJECT-assignments is probably less frequent than many
       people believe, but she supports the proposal that ONLY VP4 and VP5 voters should be allowed to
      change the SUBJECT-assignments.
-
Antwort: 
Wie Paul schreibt, können meiner Meinung nach "disambiguation useful in both cases" sein.  #898501
von Wenz (DE), 2018-10-12, 09:23  like dislike  Spam?  
Es schleicht sich aber seit Jahren ein, daß grundsätzlich beide Seiten eine Klammer kriegen. Bisher haben wir häufig nur jene Seite mit einer Disambiguierungsklammer versehen, wo notwendig und nicht grundsätzlich eine Übersetzung bei der anderen Sprachseite hingeschrieben.

Hier habe ich einfach mal die "deutsche" Bank genommen: So haben wir es im Großen und Ganzen bisher gehandhabt.
de-en.dict.cc: bank

Überall diese "Übersetzungsklammern" finde ich nicht gut - aus mehreren Gründen.

Aber meinetwegen, ...
Antwort: 
Disambiguation is needed, when terms are used in specialized senses not immediately evident.  #898517
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-10-14, 20:39  like dislike  Spam?  
As i argued above, disambiguation is needed, when, in a given translation equation, a term on one side of the equation corresponds to the term on the other side of the equation, ONLY in a special meaning and context that needs explicit definition. This is illustrated by the hit list, cited by Wenz for the German Term "Bank" [dict.cc: Bank].
-   There is no bracketed disambiguation on either side in the SUBJECT-area "Finance", because in that
         context, the terms EN "bank" and DE "Bank" always refer to a financial institution. This is a such
         a common use of the terms that it hardly needs to be made explicit by adding any bracketed
         definition.
-   Problematical, by contrast, is the entry EN "settle" = DE "Bank" {f}, assigned to the SUBJECT "furniture".
         A "settee" is a very special kind of bank or bench; it is defined as "a long comfortable seat with a back
        and arms, which two or more people can sit on"
            [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/settee.]
        Thus, in this case, the DE term "Bank" should have been given a defining disambiguation to make
        clear what kind of bench is intended to correspond to the EN term "settee".
-   The following three examples illustrate how a bracketed disambiguation is helpful, WHEN the DE term
   "Bank" is used in diverse special contextual meanings that are not so clearly indicated by the SUBJECT
    ascriptions:
         EN "banquette"  =  DE "Bank {f} [Sitzbank]
         EN "pew"          =  DE "Bank" {f} [in der Kirche]
         EN "desk"         =  DE "Bank" {f} [Schulbank]
     
Of course, one can argue that even in such cases, the user can often guess what is meant, but, in that case,  he/she probably does not need a dictionary entry at all. Dictionary entries are meant to give guidance and thus eliminate the risks of having to guess what terms mean and when they are used correctly.

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 - 2019 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum / Datenschutz
Dieses Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr Informationen!
Enthält Übersetzungen von der TU Chemnitz sowie aus Mr Honey's Business Dictionary (Englisch/Deutsch). Vielen Dank dafür!
Links auf dieses Wörterbuch oder einzelne Übersetzungen sind herzlich willkommen! Fragen und Antworten