Thread history

From Portal talk:De
Viewing a history listing
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Time User Activity Comment
20:55, 12 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) Comment text edited  
20:43, 12 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to unclear word order)
17:29, 12 August 2015 Purodha (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to unclear word order)
14:34, 11 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) Comment text edited  
14:32, 11 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to unclear word order)
16:01, 10 August 2015 Purodha (talk | contribs) Comment text edited  
15:58, 10 August 2015 Purodha (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to unclear word order)
00:03, 6 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) Comment text edited  
23:10, 5 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to unclear word order)
20:11, 5 August 2015 Purodha (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to unclear word order)
22:57, 4 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) Moved (Suggestion at Thread:Support/Discussions_ignored#Discussions_ignored_48078)
22:11, 3 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) Comment text edited (Suggestion)
22:09, 3 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) Comment text edited  
22:09, 3 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) Changed subject from "unclear" to "unclear word order"  
22:08, 3 August 2015 Lib2know (talk | contribs) New thread created  

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