Oft sind Übersetzungen einfach zu lang und passen nicht ins dafür vorgesehende Feld, gleich auf der Startseite von OpenStreetMap befindet sich so ein Fehler. "Start mapping" wird "Mit dem Kartieren anfangen" und passt daher nicht mehr in die Zeile und wird umgebrochen.
Bin noch relativ frisch hier, bin mir deshalb nicht so sicher: Wie wird hier mit Du/Sie umgegangen? Gibt es eine verbindliche Liste, wo "Du" und wo "Sie" zu verwenden ist? Für MediaWiki ist das ja noch relativ leicht nachlesbar (de "Du", de-formal "Sie"), aber bei Übersetzungen beispielsweise für iNaturalist habe ich gar keine Anhaltspunkte gefunden, welche Form da verwendet werden soll. Das kann ja je nach Projekt auch durchaus unterschiedlich sein. Soweit ich sehen kann wird de-formal nur für MediaWiki, dessen Extensions und Wikimedia verwendet (zumindest liest sich die Seite zu de-formal für mich so).
„Diese Datei wurde als frei von jeglichen bekannten Einschränkungen des Urheberrechts, einschließlich verbundener und benachbarter Rechte erkannt.“
This not only is not a correct translation of the english original „This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.“, this is even more wrong, as it says the exact opposite of what it is supposed to say:
„„Diese Datei wurde als frei von jeglichen bekannten Beschränkungen durch das Urheberrecht einschließlich verbundener und benachbarter Rechte erkannt.“
The actual german text says „there are no restrictions of (the applicability of) the law“, which ist not the same as „there are no restrictions (for the usage of the specific work) under the law“.
And, by the way, it also should read „Beschränkungen“ and not „Einschränkungen“, and there should be no comma after „Urheberrecht“.
This remark may also apply to similar german texts.
This message is not grammatically wrong. This particular usage of the genitive is called w:de:Genetivus subiectivus. Your suggestion is adds confusion because it only partly replaces the genitive, while keeping the genitive "verbundener und benachbarter Rechte".
While the message is grammatically correct, it is very badly written and almost incomprehensible. I am not sure how to find out the context where it appears so we can find a more comprehensible wording.
As I did not argue at any point that the message text was grammatically wrong, I really don't see your point in defending the grammar. The grammar is not the problem here, the problem is the content. The message text conveys a wrong statement about the legal situation. The very information given by this message text is false.
The grammer is the content is the grammar. «Einschränkungen des Urheberrechts» can mean either ‘restrictions under the law’ (genitivus subiectivus) or ‘restrictions to the law’ (genitivus obiectivus). The latter just couldn’t possibly make any sense, so it is pretty obvious that it must be the former.
The current translation is very ungrammatical: «Diese Datei wurde festgestellt als frei von bekannten Beschränkungen [...].» The predicate «wurde festgestellt» cannot take «diese Date» as a subject.
startetd here: iNaturalist:Are you sure you want to remove manager/de
- In german we use Manager commonly as an adoption of the english word.
- The word we more usually translate to "Verwalter" would have been Adminstrator.
- According to de.wiktionary.org the main meaning of manager is leading function in an organisation.
- "Verwalter" is only a good translation for Manager:
- if managers in iNaturlaist have NO leading function.
ok, since there is no discussion about that the reasoning seems to be accepted. I change the translations from "Verwalter" to "Manager".
To be added: a "Manager" in German has often a very bad connotation. They are overpaid, incompetent, irresponsible, arrogant, encroaching on the rights and competences of their appointhers. A "Verwalter"s as an individual could be all of that, too, but does not normally have these connotations, rather contrary ones.
The English term administrator in the context of computer systems and networks cannot be translated as "Verwalter", only as "Administrator".
Thus I do not see the above choice as a lucky one :-)
Administrator is used in the context already for another role, so not available.
I don't agree about the connotaion: Manager is used in the press not with a bad connotation as far as it is: daily press (spiegel, FAZ, Zeit, Handelsblatt, business categories, business magazines, Wirtschaftswoche). Typical usage in articles is "Topmanager", "Spitzenmanager". SPON runs even a column to emphasize good performances of the middle management ("Nach Dikatat verreist"). One of the major business magazines is named Manager (http://www.manager.de/).
Exceptions are commentary ("Kolumnen"), especially of left wing bloggers (SPON without Fleischhauer). The other exception is reporting on law suits on managers.
On Wikipedia they use "bureaucrats" for a special role ;-) there i would agree on a negative connotation when i never heard the word with a good connotation :-D Did you?
What about a more positive Word which stresses the leading function either: "Leiter"? Or, cause of managers relation to projects on iNaturalist, it could be more precise: "Projektleiter"?
I think most would like a role with that name, probably more than "Verwalter" and even "Manager".
I am really not sure whether this is the right place for raising the following question about the German localization. If there is a more appropriate place, please point me to it.
On d:de:Spezial:Einstellungen#mw-prefsection-personal-i18n, there is the question: Welches Geschlecht hast du?
I think the wording of this question is misleading. We do not want to know the users' gender. That is something a commercial data miner would want to know, but not Wikimedia. What we want to know is how a user wishes to be referred to.
I propose changing MediaWiki:Yourgender/de to: Wie soll auf Wikipedia über dich berichtet werden? Accordingly, I would change MediaWiki:Gender-female/de and MediaWiki:Gender-male/de to short examples such as: Benutzerin ... sie ... auf ihrer Diskussionsseite ... and: Benutzer ... er ... auf seiner Diskussionsseite ...
Now with regard to the third option, "geschlechtsneutrale Anrede" (MediaWiki:Gender-unknown/de), I think this is deeply flawed in the current implementation. Choosing this option is exactly equivalent to choosing the option "gender-male". There seems to be no difference in the vast majority of cases because the magic word GENDER either has only two options or – worse – the third option is identical to the first option.
This is very misleading to the users' intentions. If someone chooses this option because they wish not to give away any hints regarding their gender, then they will be very disappointed when they find out that Wikipedia disregards this choice and refers to them as if they were male.
- we either start writing real gender-neutral messages – changing messages such as MediaWiki:Group-user-member/de to something like
- or we be honest about MediaWiki:Gender-unknown/de and explicitly state that this option is equivalent to choosing the masculine form.
I am well aware of the generic masculine form. However, there is no formal difference between generic and non-generic masculine. They have exactly the same grammatical form: the masculine, which is certainly not a "geschlechtsneutrale Anrede". Giving a choice between a) generic masculine, b) non-generic masculine and c) feminine makes no sense, because a) produces exactly the same outcome as b).
- Now with regard to the third option, "geschlechtsneutrale Anrede" (MediaWiki:Gender-unknown/de), I think this is deeply flawed in the current implementation...
No. This may be so for the German translation that you refer to. In the Colognian translation, teh masculine grammatical gender and the unknown grammatical gender are never identical. Translated to German, the masculine grammatical gender is rendered e.g. like:
- M: "der username hat ..."
while the unknown grammatical gender is always rendered like:
- U: "der Mitmacher username hat ..."
I believe your criticism of the German wording is valid. I suggest trying to convince German translators. I am one but very inactive on German. Try the talk page of Portal:de. If you get no replies at all, let me know on my talk page, please.
This is Portal talk:De ☺. I am indeed specifically referring to the German translation. Your reply is the only one I got so far.
The Colognian translation appears to suffer from the same problem as the German translation. The default option gender-unknown consistently gives you the masculine form. Therefore, the option gender-unknown does not keep the promise that it will conceil your gender (MediaWiki:Gender-unknown/ksh: “ohne dorschblecke ze lohße, ov de ene Kääl udder e Weesch bes”). Instead, the MediaWiki messages will refer to you as if you were male.
For example, in MediaWiki:Group-user-member/ksh, the option gender-unknown will give you the “generic” masculine form Metmaacher (Mitmacher) which is identical to the masculine form and different from the feminine form Metmaacherėn (Mitmacherin); or in MediaWiki:Group-arbcom-member/ksh, it will give you the “generic” masculine form Schiedsmann which is identical to the masculine form and different from the feminine form Schiedsmannfrau (really ☺?). As an exception, the German equivalent MediaWiki:Group-arbcom-member/de does not suffer from this problem because it uses the form Mitglied des Schiedsgerichts which does not reveal the user’s gender.
When the option gender-unknown of the Kölsch translation puts dä Metmaacher in front of the user name (e.g. in MediaWiki:Flow-notification-mention-email-subject/ksh), it will give you something else than the option gender-male, but again, the “generic” masculine form dä Metmaacher is identical to the masculine form and different from the feminine form. This means the MediaWiki messages will still refer to you as if you were male.
Disregard my previous posts which I have deleted as spam. I have adjusted you failed attempt to change MediaWiki:Yourgender. In general software cannot write anything about you, at least I do very much hope so. Perhaps after the datamining you very much critizise in your first post. Though I think all these changes are awkward I guess we have to find a compromise. I guess this is a good one.
I would have said software can and does write about you, but I see your point.
I think, however, that ansprechen is still somewhat misleading. It is true that the setting determines how a user will be addressed. But more importantly, it determines how a user will be referred to in public – either as "der Benutzer" by default, or as "der Benutzer", or as "die Benutzerin" (which is a very confusing choice, so no wonder the right words are difficult to find).
Also, the impersonal angesprochen werden hides that this setting concerns the system messages. "Wie möchtest du angesprochen werden?" sounds almost as if other users would look up this setting in order to address you correctly. That is why I chose "die Wiki[pedia]-Software" as the grammatical subject of the question. I agree with you that it was not a good choice. But how about "die Benutzeroberfläche"? When you look at w:de:Spezial:Einstellungen#mw-prefsection-personal-i18n, you will see that "Benutzeroberfläche" is being mentioned immediately before. Therefore, it has already been introduced.
I would therefore suggest something along the lines of: "Wie soll die Benutzeroberfläche von dir berichten?" or: "Wie soll die Benutzeroberfläche auf dich verweisen?"
Bitte denkt dran, das es immer noch um Übersetzungen geht. Aktuell sind es keine Übersetzungen mehr. Bei "gender" geht es nie um das echte Geschlecht, dafür gibt es im englischen ja "sex". Daher bezieht sich "gender" aus meiner Sicht immer auf das von der Person gelebte Geschlecht. Hier muss man keine Beispiele angeben. Siehe auch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, wo von sozialem und biologischen gesprochen wird.
Ich würde die letzte Version von MediaWiki:Yourgender/de nehmen und die anderen Dinge wieder rückgängig machen.
(Ich schreibe hier deutsch, weil es ja deutschsprachige Portal ist und wohl wenige andere Mitlesen).
- "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.
- 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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
- "Checkliste" im Duden
- "Prüfliste" is not to be found on the Duden Website.
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?
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.
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
Nur Kuratoren und Personen, die sie erstellt haben, dürfen Felder bearbeiten.
Still formally ambiguous but sematically obvious.
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?
- 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.
Personen dürfen Felder bearbeiten, die sie selbst erstellt haben, Kuratoren haben Zugriff auf alle Felder.
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!
- 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. :-)
iNaturalist talk:All taxa.rank.order/de Why do you prefer "Ordnung"? Whats about "Reihenfolge"?
How about „Rang“, „Rangfolge“ or „Rangordnung“ ?
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.
- Ergänzt ein Framework zur Authentifikation und Autorisierung (
- Ergänzt Parserfunktionen die dynamische Variablen ermöglichen (
- Ergänzt Tags zur Umwandlung von Koordinaten (
- Gleiches Problem wie zuvor.
- Ergänzt zusätzliche Sprachlinks im Seitenleistenabschnitt „In anderen Sprachen“ (
Das sind nur ein paar Beispiele von Dutzenden gleichartigen semantisch falschen und ungrammatischen Verwendungen von „Ergänzt“.
Hallo, sehr interessant, welche Sprache ist denn das "ksh" (wo diene Links hingehen)? voll abgefahren !
Ich stimme in allen Punkten zu!
- Beim ersten Punkt stimme ich voll zu (Link zur deutschen "Übersetzung" MediaWiki:Pluggableauth-desc/de):
- 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.
Da es mich interessierte, habe ich gerade mal nachgeschaut:
scheint ein Fachterminus zu sein, den man im deutschen (bisher) nicht übersetzt.
Hier findet sich etwas kluges über die Übersetzung von "authentication". Es wäre aber ungenau das "pluggable" einfach wegfallen zu lassen und eine wörtliche Übersetzung würden selbst Fachleute kaum verstehen.
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.
- "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).
- 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".
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.
Warum gibt es fast keine deutschen aktiven Übersetzer? Das, was jeden Tag an Übersetzungen hereinkommt, kann ich alleine nicht bewerkstelligen.
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!
Hello, was (the reason for) this discussed somewhere?  I'd like to understand why you can't find an agreement. Thanks.
Well, I think, project localisations should not get worse because of unexperienced users. Obviously, my first reverts a few days ago weren't effective.
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?
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.
The Localisation guidelines could be helpful for you. I wish I could teach you in professional translation, Sebastian.
Hi. I've redirected it to Special:MainPage. Is it better like this?
Gibt’s irgendeinen plausiblen Grund für solche Dubletten, dass die gar nicht gelöscht wird?