View source for Thread:Portal talk:De/*/reply (2)

From translatewiki.net
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Checkliste vs. Prüfliste622:10, 12 August 2015
unclear word order620:55, 12 August 2015
Ordnung / Reihenfolge314:36, 11 August 2015
Ungrammatische Verwendung von „Ergänzt“308:52, 10 August 2015
Identifications: Identifizierungen oder Bestimmungen?023:13, 4 August 2015
Leute vs. Personen022:42, 4 August 2015
Benutzer/Nutzer vs. Mitglied022:42, 4 August 2015
Ignorierte Diskussionen022:27, 4 August 2015
Zu wenig Übersetzer322:18, 4 August 2015
Translation disagreements515:59, 7 May 2014
Kommentar auf Commons011:52, 5 April 2014
Main Page111:20, 29 December 2013
Fallback-Löschung219:20, 11 April 2013
An alle Scriptbastler009:20, 5 April 2013
de.wiki Kurier011:05, 19 March 2013
MediaWiki:Titleprotectedwarning/bar307:32, 9 January 2013
Extension:Sudo105:40, 9 January 2013
Extension:Semantic MediaWiki305:39, 9 January 2013
Extension:Semantic Forms105:39, 9 January 2013
Extension:ScurePasswords105:39, 9 January 2013
First page
First page
Last page
Last page

Checkliste vs. Prüfliste

  • "Prüfliste" is a word very seldom used for "Checkliste".
  • In german the most usual word is the adoption of the english checklist (through the usage in aviation as far as i know).
  • "Prüfliste" is old fashioned and nowadays hardly used, probably younger people would wonder if it means checklist or "list of people to examine".
  • de.wiktionary.org doesn't know "Prüfliste", it has a article for "Checkliste" which is worked out very well and mentions "Kontrollliste" as a synonym, which, by the doesn't have an article itself.
  • dict.cc mentions both possibilities but shows "Checkliste" is much more common.
  • Only on leo.org i found a page were both possibilities are close by, but even their: "Checkliste" is higher up in the list.

We have to resume "Prüfliste" is, following objective references, a deterioration.

Lib2know (talk)14:08, 4 August 2015
younger people would wonder if it means checklist or "list of people to examine".

Certainly not. That would be „Prüflingsliste“

We have to resume "Prüfliste" is, following objective references, a deterioration.

I mainly disagree. „Checkliste“ is a narrower term than both „Prüfliste“ and „Kontrollliste“, and still relatively closely bound to the aviation and space flight context, or to cases which closely resemble their proceeding. So, which one was preferrable depends on the exact context.

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)20:04, 5 August 2015

Yeah great, the well known block buster word "Prüflingsliste" ... very common, where did you find that?

And more important: were did you find "Checkliste" is still 'relatively closely bound' to aviation? It is a common used word in project planning and labour organisation as such day by day business for almost everyone (the press even publishes "Checklisten" for travelling, car maintenance and even decision making before political elections). Where is the source for the suggestion "Checkliste" is a 'narrower term'? The opposite is the case and i mentioned three sources which all prefer "Checkliste".

And why do you pick just two out of six reasoning points? Does it mean you agree with all the rest?

Lib2know (talk)22:52, 5 August 2015
Edited by author.
Last edit: 16:56, 12 August 2015

Common German onomasiology.

  • prüfen (examine) - Prüfling (the person or material or piece to be examined, ...)
  • roh (raw) - Rohling (a raw or rude person, a work or piece before any finishing, ...)
  • setzen (put) - Setzling (a plant not yet or freshly planted)
  • saugen (suck) - Säugling (a baby)
  • etc.

Well - checkliste in travel, car maintenance, preparation of some planned work or action is well in the realm that I meant to refer to, so yes, you may be right that automated word counters find it frequently. Rethinking, I may have found a clearer semantic distinction between Prüfliste and checkliste - besides the fact that checkliste is both an anglicism and Denglish and not considered a German word - both spelling and the widely missing adapted pronunciation tell us that - if you have a list which you run through quickly, expecting an OK on every position, and, if not so, have quick response usually fixing that such as insert a razor in your suitcase, or remove from you handbaggage, you have a checklist. If you can expect single steps to take longer, or routinely require to deviate in lots of detail, in-depth examinations, unmounting, laboratory work, you name it, you more likely are close to a Prüfliste.

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)15:39, 10 August 2015

Hi,

unfortunately you found no single source which shows, "Prüfliste" would be more common. But i showed sources it is the other way around. To solve this, we should at least find two other sources which prove "Checkliste" is less common. I found none and you neither.

anglicism / denglish These are phenomens when someone uses uncommon words often in doubtful meaning amid germaan sentences. This is ugly. But Checkliste is, like proven above, adopted since long and the more common Word. Example: "Ich merge zwei Tabellen" "Merge" is completely uncommon in german and not even part of basic english vocabulary, only understandable for people with a knowledge of an advanced set of english.

In german there are lots of adopted words from different languages like Baguette

"Checkliste" is commmon use every where, companies, schools, in private, only exception i found: The armee "Bundeswehr" prefers "Prüfliste" in internal papers but "Checkliste" when publishing external papers, example: "Checkliste Bewerbungsunterlagen für die Bundeswehr"

Searching "Prüfliste" on Google shows very special usage, pages about: "Psychische Belastung", Hydraulik, Pneumatic, Lernsysteme, Rolltore (all far from nature) "Checklise" is much closer to common use: Luftfahrt, 4mal "Urlaub", Checklisten für Arbeitshilfen und Ratgeber, Umzug, Gebrauchtwagen. So one more source ...

I don't think discussions about "Prüfling" will solve that. There is no use of that word for the complete iNaturalist project. May i ask, why for what reason you are so convinced "Prüfliste" is a more common word?

Lib2know (talk)13:47, 11 August 2015

Imho, the point is not, which one is used more often. This indicates nothing. "Und" is certainly even more common. This does not qualify "und" as a valid equivalent of any Englisch term.

Finding the broadest semantic overlap (within all regions, if possible) would do.

I did not even look for a source :-)

anglicism / denglish These are phenomens when someone uses uncommon words often in doubtful meaning amid German sentences

I mainly disagree. Which is irrelevant. "Checkliste" is a onomasiologically a compound of an English and a German word, but semntically, it is not a compound, since "check" is not used alone in German.

Translation is all about most unambiguously matching meaning, not about how often a word or synonym is used somewhere in an arbitrary context. Otherwise Google Translate, Bing translate, and others were not so devastating failures at some simple sentences over years.

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)17:20, 12 August 2015
 
 
 
 
 

unclear word order

With this word order it is not clear here if the persons created the fields ("Felder") or the curators ("Kuratoren"). Other changes are great. More precise:

Bearbeiten von Feldern ist nur den Personen erlaubt, die sie erstellt haben, und den Kuratoren
Lib2know (talk)22:08, 3 August 2015

Nur Kuratoren und Personen, die sie erstellt haben, dürfen Felder bearbeiten.

Still formally ambiguous but sematically obvious.

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)20:11, 5 August 2015

Your solution is shorter, but moves the subject and main verbs to the very end of the sentence. Semantically it says now clearly: Only curators and persons, which created them (=the curators), are allowed to edit fields.

What i don't understand: I made a suggestion and you made no point to criticise. So why don't you agree? But without hesitation you produce a different suggestion. Was there any mistake in my suggestion?

Lib2know (talk)23:10, 5 August 2015
Semantically it says now clearly: Only curators and persons, which created them (=the curators), are allowed to edit fields.

No. It say so syntactically. But since that reading was semantically wrong, it is a valid German sentence.

I do not understand that either - I likely only wrote my own translation down. Interesting.

Your translation is a typical non-native try having several flaws.

  • Initial article not used but others - no, no. :-)
  • Word order complicated, unnecessarily clumsy and not aiding understanding.
    • People around me reread the sentence up to four times.
    • People whom I read the sentence took considerable time until their faces signaled understanding
    • some shook their heads: That can be said more easily.
  • ", und" with an ongoing or recurring semantic thread is bad German.
  • something "ist nur den Personen erlaubt, die" is a bureaucratic kind of wording - not commonly liked.

Suggeset paraphrase:

Personen dürfen Felder bearbeiten, die sie selbst erstellt haben, Kuratoren haben Zugriff auf alle Felder.

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)15:58, 10 August 2015

Good mentions, thank you. In most parts i agree. Especially:

* Initial article not used but others - no, no. :-)
* something "ist nur den Personen erlaubt, die" is a bureaucratic kind of wording - not commonly liked.

Still, talking about "good german" it is mostly recommended to move the predicate ("dürfen", "erlauben") to the first possible part of a sentence. Having it at the very end makes understanding harder (except the sentence is very short). And still, a sentence with matching syntax and semantics might be better. Your translation sounds more common but is not precise. In a love letter it should sound nicer but an user interface should be more precise, shouldn't it?

According to that and your mentions i would conclude:

Das Bearbeiten von Feldern ist denjenigen erlaubt, die sie erstellt haben, sowie Kuratoren.

I agree either:

* ", und" with an ongoing or recurring semantic thread is bad German.

But i don't agree the enumaration as a recurring semantic thread has a higher importance here, than making clear which is the reference of the relative clause. Maybe "sowie" makes it somewhat smoother even if it doesn't change the construction as such.

Finally, though i think the sentence should be changed i won't touch this controversial item. I learned a lot on that example, your ideas and the discussions. Thank you!

Lib2know (talk)14:32, 11 August 2015
Das Bearbeiten von Feldern ist denjenigen erlaubt, die sie erstellt haben, sowie Kuratoren.

sounds good to me.

"Sowie" is smoother here indeed. This is, because it more likely implies a little Pause before it, than "und".

Whether or not a formulation with "dürfen" or "erlauben" is preferable, depends on style, and what other related messages use (which I do not know).

Thanks. Also I am happily learning from these discussions. :-)

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)17:29, 12 August 2015
 
 
 
 
 

Ordnung / Reihenfolge

iNaturalist talk:All taxa.rank.order/de Why do you prefer "Ordnung"? Whats about "Reihenfolge"?

Lib2know (talk)21:51, 3 August 2015

How about „Rang“, „Rangfolge“ or „Rangordnung“ ?

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)20:06, 5 August 2015

The usual translation might be "Reihenfolge", but maybe "Ordnung" is the terminology fitting better to iNaturalist. At least i am interested what the reason is. Cause if there is no good reason "Ordnung" might be a mistaken translation.

"Rang" etc. as translation for order sounds strange to me except in military or maybe social structures.

Lib2know (talk)22:59, 5 August 2015

"Ordnung" is great, i found the reason now:

Thanks for help.

Lib2know (talk)06:55, 6 August 2015
 
 
 

Ungrammatische Verwendung von „Ergänzt“

  • Ergänzt ein Framework zur Authentifikation und Autorisierung (Pluggableauth-desc)
    • Um was wird das Framework ergänzt? (Es wird gar nicht ergänzt, sondern komplett dem Wiki hinzugefügt)
  • Ergänzt Parserfunktionen die dynamische Variablen ermöglichen (Variables-desc)
    • Mal abgesehen vom fehlenden Komma, gleiche Frage, wie zuvor. Antwort ebenfalls: Die Parserfunktionen werden gar nicht ergänzt, sie bleiben unverändert und werden nur ins Wiki geholt.
  • Ergänzt Tags zur Umwandlung von Koordinaten (Mapsources-math-desc)
    • Gleiches Problem wie zuvor.
  • Ergänzt zusätzliche Sprachlinks im Seitenleistenabschnitt „In anderen Sprachen“ (Extralanguagelink-desc)
    • Dito.

Das sind nur ein paar Beispiele von Dutzenden gleichartigen semantisch falschen und ungrammatischen Verwendungen von „Ergänzt“.

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)20:19, 5 August 2015
Edited by author.
Last edit: 00:18, 6 August 2015

Hallo, sehr interessant, welche Sprache ist denn das "ksh" (wo diene Links hingehen)? voll abgefahren !

Ich stimme in allen Punkten zu!

Im einzelnen:

  • Beim ersten Punkt stimme ich voll zu (Link zur deutschen "Übersetzung" MediaWiki:Pluggableauth-desc/de):
    • Ergänzt passt nicht und ändert den Sinn. Allgemein würde ich ich Provide mit "bereitstellen" übersetzen. Wollte jemand "hinzufügen" sagen, hätte er im englischen möglicherweise "add" genutzt. Aber dein Vorschlag "hinzufügen" passt gut, vielleicht sogar besser.
    • Bei der Übersetzung wurde das Wort "pluggable" (~(an)steckbar) weggelassen, obwohl sogar der Ausdruck mit "puggableauth" benannt wurde. Mögichlerweise unterscheidet das sogar verschiedene Arten der Authentifizierung und sollte noch eingefügt werden.
  • Zweiter Punkt (Link zur deutschen Übersetzung/Abkürzung: MediaWiki:Variables-desc/de):
    • Hier ohne Einschränkung zu.
    • Noch mehr abgekürzt, meines Erachtens ist es mehr eine Kürzung ls Übersetzung
  • Dritter Punkt (Link zu de: MediaWiki:Mapsources-math-desc/de):
    • ich sehe keinen zwingenden Grund vom gewohnten "hinzufügen" für "add" abzuweichen.
    • Ich finde es weniger unpassend als oben, aber stimme zu, dass es nicht optimal ist.
  • Punkt 4 (Link/de: MediaWiki:Extralanguagelink-desc/de) wie Punkt drei.

Nur den Titel habe ich noch nicht ganz verstanden.

Lib2know (talk)23:41, 5 August 2015

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.


You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:Portal talk:De/*/reply (2).

There should not be any links to ksh (Colognian - Kölsch - but in part of the WMF bubble used for the broader Ripuarian lacking an own code and encompassing roughly 1000 related languages), I believe it was one of the occasional caching problems.

Purodha Blissenbach (talk)08:52, 10 August 2015
 
 
 

Identifications: Identifizierungen oder Bestimmungen?

Often "Bestimmungen" is used for Identification which is, as far as i know, it is preferable to "Identifizierungen" following the terminology and, besides, it is shorter.

Lib2know (talk)22:01, 3 August 2015

Leute vs. Personen

  • "Leute" has in german a more friendly, private and common sound than "Personen" which is more used in official reports (missing persons, accidents, crime). * Many of the readers are one of these "Personen".
  • iNaturalist is using people not persons - "translate not customize!"
  • The intention of the english original is very obvious, when they use "person" in singular and "people" in plural (avoiding (!) "persons"): iNaturalist:X people like this/de (click edit to see the complete template).
  • Most changes preferred words with Germanic root compared to the word with Latin root, here the other way around.
  • According to dict "Leute" is used more often than "Personen" (~1700:~100).
Lib2know (talk)22:26, 3 August 2015

Benutzer/Nutzer vs. Mitglied

  • Users are meant to be members of the community.
  • Just readers are not named users.
  • "Benutzer" as well as "Nutzer" fits "user" the best.
  • "Mitglied" would fit members, which would describe the facts correct.
  • "Benutzer" in German is grammatical male and a correct translation would be very long: Benutzerinnen und Benutzer
  • "Mitglied" would be, in my opinion, a good gender neutral alternative.
  • Other possibility: "Nutzende" means more or less "the using people".
Lib2know (talk)00:43, 4 August 2015

Ignorierte Diskussionen

Hallo, wegen Meinungsverschiedenheiten startete ich jeweils Diskussionen zu einigen Themen. Scheinbar sind diese schwer aufzufinden, so dass man mich bat, die Diskussionen hier her zu verschieben. Das wird gemessen am üblichen Austausch hier recht viel, darum hier der Hinweis vorab.

Lib2know (talk)22:27, 4 August 2015

Zu wenig Übersetzer

Warum gibt es fast keine deutschen aktiven Übersetzer? Das, was jeden Tag an Übersetzungen hereinkommt, kann ich alleine nicht bewerkstelligen.

\m/etalhead 18:46, 7 March 2013

Eine Antwort habe ich leider auch nicht :-( Mache doch einen Aufruf im WP-Kurier. Ich bin sicher, dass immer noch viel zu wenig Wikipedianer von den Möglichkeiten von translatewiki.net wissen.

PS: Ich sage einfach mal DANKE für deine Arbeit hier!

Raymond08:08, 11 March 2013

Ich hab mich mal daran versucht.

\m/etalhead 11:13, 16 March 2013

Im Moment bin ich noch zu neu dabei, aber es liegen schon einige Eindrücke vor. Zu gegebener Zeit trage ich das an geeigneter Stelle vor. Aber es ist noch nicht klar, wo die geeignete Stelle ist.

Lib2know (talk)22:18, 4 August 2015
 
 
 

Translation disagreements

Hello, was (the reason for) this discussed somewhere? [1] I'd like to understand why you can't find an agreement. Thanks.

Nemo (talk)14:33, 6 May 2014

Well, I think, project localisations should not get worse because of unexperienced users. Obviously, my first reverts a few days ago weren't effective.

\m/etalhead 15:19, 6 May 2014

Hi, I'm using the iPhone application since a couple of weeks and was not aware of any trouble. What's wrong with my translations?

Sebastian Wallroth (talk)16:01, 6 May 2014

It seems your message had indeed not received the target, metalhead64. :) Better use talk page or this thread, I've restored the flag for now. We can reassess after Sebastian has had a chance to understand what has to be improved.

Nemo (talk)17:28, 6 May 2014
 

The Localisation guidelines could be helpful for you. I wish I could teach you in professional translation, Sebastian.

\m/etalhead 17:40, 6 May 2014

Sebastian, let us know on this thread if it's not clear to you what was wrong with your translations after reading the document above.

Nemo (talk)15:59, 7 May 2014
 
 
 
 

Kommentar auf Commons

Hallo, ich hätte da mal ein Problem. Könnte sich jemand freundlicher Weise dazu äußern? Commons:Forum#translatewiki.net Schön Tag

Perhelion (talk)11:51, 5 April 2014

Hi. I've redirected it to Special:MainPage. Is it better like this?

Zhuyifei1999 (talk)13:36, 27 December 2013

Why not, looks good to me. :) Cheers

[[kgh]] (talk)11:20, 29 December 2013
 

Fallback-Löschung

Pywikipedia:Category-was-moved/de-ch ist identisch mit Pywikipedia:Category-was-moved/de, somit überflüssig, bitte löschen.

Geitost diskusjon08:29, 26 January 2013

Gibt’s irgendeinen plausiblen Grund für solche Dubletten, dass die gar nicht gelöscht wird?

Geitost diskusjon15:25, 10 April 2013

Liegt daran, ob bei Pywikipedia das Fallback-Handling eingebaut ist. Sicher kann ich das nur von MediaWiki und seinen Extensions sagen. Nicht jedes anders Projekt hier kann das umbedingt.

Der Umherirrende (talk)19:20, 11 April 2013
 
 

An alle Scriptbastler

Kennt jemand ein Script, mit dem man direkt von einem beliebigen Systemtext in einer anderen Sprache direkt zur entsprechenden deutschen Übersetzungsseite kommt?

\m/etalhead 09:19, 5 April 2013

de.wiki Kurier

Welcome to the new translators from de.wiki. :)

Nemo (talk)11:05, 19 March 2013

Ist eigentlich die Fallback-Source von bar de? Wenn ja, sollte man doch zum Deutschen redundante Nachrichten löschen, damit sie wie in diesem Fall auch aktuell bleiben, oder?

The Evil IP address16:18, 28 July 2010

Ja, 'de' ist Fallback-Sprache. Kannst du eine Liste der redundanten Nachrichten erstellen, damit ich die Löschung vornehmen kann?

Raymond16:36, 28 July 2010
Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 22:02, 29 July 2010
The Evil IP address22:02, 29 July 2010

Done for MediaWiki core and exact matches in mwr:70180. See remaining core fuzzies to fix.

Siebrand22:26, 29 July 2010
 
 
 

Extension:Sudo

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 00:28, 8 December 2010

Hi, ich habe die Nachrichten Unsudo ("Return to your account") und Sudo-personal-unsudo ("Return to your account") „neutralisiert“, so daß nun Unsudo/de-formal ("MediaWiki:Unsudo/de-formal/en") und Sudo-personal-unsudo/de-formal ("MediaWiki:Sudo-personal-unsudo/de-formal/en") gelöscht werden können. Dank und Gruß

kgh00:26, 8 December 2010

Done Done

Raymond22:44, 10 December 2010
 

Extension:Semantic MediaWiki

Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 17:25, 13 December 2010
kgh17:25, 13 December 2010

Done Done

Raymond20:57, 13 December 2010

Hi Raymond, bislang ist die Löschung der Nachrichten noch nicht in svn eingelaufen. Wenn Du sie da noch rausschubsen könntest … Dank und Gruß

kgh13:08, 16 December 2010

Done Done. Es hilft ungemein, die Löschung in der richtigen Installation vorzunehmen...

Raymond21:21, 21 December 2010
 
 
 

Extension:Semantic Forms

Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 20:36, 29 November 2010

Hi, ich habe die Nachricht Sf_createtemplate_aggregationdesc ("To list, on any page using this template, all of the pages that have a certain property pointing to that page, specify the appropriate property below:") „neutralisiert“, so daß nun Sf_createtemplate_aggregationdesc/de-formal ("MediaWiki:Sf createtemplate aggregationdesc/de-formal/en") gelöscht werden können. Dank und Gruß

kgh20:36, 29 November 2010

Done Done

Raymond21:39, 2 December 2010
 

Extension:ScurePasswords

Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 20:58, 17 November 2010

Hi, ich habe die Nachrichten Securepasswords-valid ("Your password is invalid or too short. It must: $1.") und Securepasswords-username ("be different from your username") „neutralisiert“, so daß nun Securepasswords-valid/de-formal ("MediaWiki:Securepasswords-valid/de-formal/en") und Securepasswords-username/de-formal ("MediaWiki:Securepasswords-username/de-formal/en") gelöscht werden können. Dank und Gruß

kgh20:58, 17 November 2010

Done Done Gelöscht und in mwr:77056 entfernt.

Raymond11:56, 20 November 2010
 
First page
First page
Last page
Last page