the noun "spam" in German
Odysseus
(e.g., spamming). We all have a vague notion what spam is.
According to two English dictionaries that are online (Merriam-Webster On-line
Dictionary and the Amerian Heritage Dictionary), spam is defined as something
which must exist in volume. There is no such thing as only one spam message,
according to the English language ditionaries I checked. If I send one email
messge to one person, that cannot be spam, as the term is defined in English
according to the two dictionaries I checked.
I looked up the German noun "spam" in a German online dictionary, then used a
computer to translate the German definition into English. I do not know if I
used a good German dictionary or if the computer translated the dictionary
definition well into English. The German definition does not seem to require
volume. In German, a solitary email message, not sent as part of a mass
mailing, can be spam.
In conclusion, the Internet noun "spam" means something different in English and
in German.
Is that conclusion right? In particular, does the German dictionary definition
of the Internet noun "spam" require a volume mailing? Can a solitary email
message, not sent as aprt of a volume mailing, be spam according to German
dictionaries?
BeeD...@webtv.net
I don't know of any Müll that could come in a non-quantity form.
"Müll" somehow is always 'plural' to me and doesn't come in a
'singular' form. There is no "ein Müll"!
"Der Müll muß weggebracht werden."
It indicates to me, that there is more than one particle of "Müll"
involved.
I suppose it is always in the eyes of the beholder whether or not 'spam'
or 'Müll' has arrived in a useful quantity.
BeeD...@webtv.net
Is there such an animal?
"One garbage was found under the car." {lol; ?}
"One hundred garbages were found under the car." {lol; ?}
or is just a 'relative quantity expression' and a 'relative quantity
description' of a more relavant:
Garbage was found under the car.
A little garbage was found under the car.
A lot of garbage was found under the car.
or a more definite:
1.4576 kg of garbage was found under the car.
Are the words garbage, spam, Müll etc. perhaps subjects that can only
stand in context on their own, but need a descriptive verb when referred
on a specific level?
"Garbage was found under the car", "Müll war überall zu finden",
"SPAM was overpowering my email inbox" seems general, relative and
strechable unless more descriptive adjectives are added to it.
andy
BeeD...@webtv.net wrote
>Can "Garbage" come in a 'singular' form in English?
>Is there such an animal?
>
don't come as discretely countable items.
On Spam, as a recipient but not a sender I regard even one item as spam,
which I define as "an email unwanted by the recipient". This does not
depend on whether the sender only sent it to me, or sent the one message
to 100 people, or sent 100 identical messages, one to each of 100
people. So I could have a conversation: "Any emails?" - "Only a spam.".
This could equally be "Only spam", and if I got 57 at once (not
uncommon...) I'd say 'spam' not '57 spams'.
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]
For Austrian philately http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps
tandp
Odysseus schrieb:
The word "Korinthenkacker" does occur to me, and it's in the Duden.
MfG
Tom
Michael Hemmer
> In message <18219-3EC...@storefull-2153.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> BeeD...@webtv.net wrote
> which I define as "an email unwanted by the recipient". This does not
> depend on whether the sender only sent it to me, or sent the one message
> to 100 people, or sent 100 identical messages, one to each of 100
> people.
As a recipient you cannot even know whether or not the same mail has
been sent to other people as well. There is, however, a well-known type
of unsolicited and unwanted mail where this can be safely assumed.
That's what is called spam, and I don't really think that it depends on
the country you live in.
Michael
Sebastian Koppehel
> andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Spam, as a recipient but not a sender I regard even one item as spam,
>> which I define as "an email unwanted by the recipient". This does not
>> depend on whether the sender only sent it to me, or sent the one message
>> to 100 people, or sent 100 identical messages, one to each of 100
>> people. So I could have a conversation: "Any emails?" - "Only a spam.".
>> This could equally be "Only spam", and if I got 57 at once (not
>> uncommon...) I'd say 'spam' not '57 spams'.
>
> The view that a single undesired message sent to a single person is spam
> is an extreme (and I would say untenable) position in the US, but not
> unknown.
Another point is that when I receive an email with the subject, say,
"Could You Use Extra Cash?", "1/2 Off V1agra!", or, perhaps the most
typical, "[厘救狼 拳力] 祈狼痢 弊赤 焊继唱夸?" I will simply assume
that I am not the only one to receive that mail, although I don't have
any proof. It's just the _kind_ of mail that usually is sent to a
large number of recipients.
> The verb forms are easy enough to transplant into German: "spammen,"
> "der Schurke spammt," "man hat mich gespammt," usw. It's not as obvious
> how "Spam" as a noun would be treated -- what its gender is, whether it
> needs a plural, and so on.
| From: "Harald Effenberg" <sp...@effenberg.de>
| Newsgroups: de.newusers.questions
| Subject: Re: Spam oder Spams???
| Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 22:43:21 +0200
|
| > Wie heisst es [SPAM] eigentlich in der Mehrzahl?
|
| Spam ist Mehrzahl, w鋜's Einzahl, w鋜's kein Spam.
|
| Viele Gre,
| Harald
- Sebastian
--
Wir ernten, was wir nicht ges鋞 haben, und wir s鋏n, was wir nicht ernten
werden.
(An einem Forsthaus)
Dick Shinarie
dictionaries.
Imagine that a creditor sent a truthful email message to his debtor, "Your debt
to me is long overdue. Pay me in 10 days or I'll reluctantly sue you." This
was the sole email message that the creditor ever sent or that the debtor ever
received. The message was commercial, unsolicited, true, and unwanted. The
message was not part of a bulk mailing. According to two online, English
language dictionaries, the message is not spam. If an ISP has English language
rules prohibiting customers from sending spam, those rules do not prohibit the
above-desccribed email message (according to definitions found in two, online
dictionaries).
According to German language dictionaries, is the above-described email message
spam?
Frank Thomas
in Germany the mentioned letter would not be understood as being spam as
there exists a commercial relation - the credit - before the sending of the
mail. So, this is no spam.
I guess the debate about the definition of spam is difficult as direct mass
mail using the postal service as a vendor technology for unsollicited
commercial contacts exists since the mid 19th century in Europe. Noone
would have defined printed matter, sent in large numbers, as spam in today's
understanding. The difference is the new level of unsollicited contacts, and
the fact that the receiving side has to pay for commercial message if the
receiver uses a dial-up connection.
/Frank Thomas
"Dick Shinarie" <Dick_...@newsguy.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
bafag...@drn.newsguy.com...
Henning Schlottmann
>
> This is a question about dictionary definitions for German language
> dictionaries.
>
> Imagine that a creditor sent a truthful email message to his debtor, "Your debt
> to me is long overdue. Pay me in 10 days or I'll reluctantly sue you." This
> was the sole email message that the creditor ever sent or that the debtor ever
> received. The message was commercial, unsolicited, true, and unwanted.
There are two definitions in regard to 'spam' in a broader sense, that
are relevant here: One is the traditional, technical definition of spam
as unsolicited commercial bulk mail. It ist generally used in a
technical context such a a formal complaint to the ISP, whose network
was used for sending out the mails.
The other is derived from a legal definition: Under german business law,
sending unsolicited commercial e-mail whith advertises a deal outside
the range of business of the recieving party is considered unlawful
competition. This is without regard of the number of e-mails sent.
So there are two relevant sides of unwanted e-mail. One for complaints
with ISPs, technical and worldwide, one to deal with a german sender of
the mail(s) directly or over consumer protection organisations, based on
german law.
Unfortunatly very few people have the understanding of these
differences, so even in dictionaries these two definitions are mixed.
Ciao Henning
BA
> >
> > Imagine that a creditor sent a truthful email message to his debtor,
"Your debt
. .
-------------------------
This would not be bulk mail, which I gather is often implied in the
English word "spam." We have sbubdivisions like UCE and UBE (Unsolicited
Commercial and Bulk E-mail), but you said yours would be the ONLY e-mail.
Your only intent is to make a record with a particular person, whom you have
a right to contact, not to mail-bomb anyone or everyone.
I'm sure the Germans will come up with an excellent word for spam. They
have a nack for making contemptable things sound ugly and spell ugly.
BA
George Hardy
> SPAM
Just out of curiosity, is "spam" known as a food in Germany?
GFH
Einde O'Callaghan
The real question is: Is it really food anywhere? ;-)
Gruß, Einde O'CallaghaN
Paul Schmitz-Josten
<7c7350d8.03052...@posting.google.com>:
>> SPAM
>Just out of curiosity, is "spam" known as a food in Germany?
Not "spam" as a brand, but "Corned Beef" as a general product - though I
haven't seen it for quite a while.
Ciao,
Paul
andy
<alos...@web.de> wrote
OK, with added whatevers in both cases :)
Jack Cleaver
> I didn't look it up in a dictionary but as far as I remember the
> discussion in Germany the mentioned letter would not be understood as
> being spam as there exists a commercial relation - the credit -
> before the sending of the mail. So, this is no spam.
>
> I guess the debate about the definition of spam is difficult as
> direct mass mail using the postal service as a vendor technology for
> unsollicited commercial contacts exists since the mid 19th century in
> Europe. Noone would have defined printed matter, sent in large
> numbers, as spam in today's understanding. The difference is the new
> level of unsollicited contacts, and the fact that the receiving side
> has to pay for commercial message if the receiver uses a dial-up
> connection.
>
> /Frank Thomas
Most definitions of spam include the requirement that the message be
"bulk". Also, most definitions specifically exclude any consideration of
whether the recipient wants the message or not; which makes sense - the
state-of-mind of the recipient obviously shouldn't change the nature of
the message.
Nor does the prior commercial relationship effect whether the message is
spam. An online bookseller (for example) is spamming if he sends out
bulk ads to people who haven't asked to receive them, even if they have
bought books there.
As for paper spam: I nowadays take the same view of it as electronic
spam. It makes no difference to me whether the practice originated in
the 19th century or in the Stone Age.
By the way: whoever sent out the message seems to be clueless; there's
not much point in sending out a legal threat by email. If he doesn't
know his debtor's physical address, then he's going to have trouble
suing. And if he does, then registered post is the normal method of
delivering a legal threat, and is much more credible.
--
Jack.
"No spam is perfect."
George Hardy
Spam, a trade name for 'spiced ham', was the only 'meat'
(It was mostly fat.) that Americans could get during WWII
without ration coupons. Yes, Hormel continues to make and
sell Spam. I was served (but usually did not eat) so much
Spam during WWII that just the thought of it is enough to make
my stomach upset. It seems that I am not the only one with that
reaction; hence the new meaning for "spam".
I appreciate that all Germans old enough to remember those times
would have been very happy to add Spam to their diets.
GFH
Einde O'Callaghan
My question wasn't meant very seriously.
I also have memories of spam, although much later (in the 1960s) in an
institutional setting (in my case a boarding school). But it didn't
happen very often, as only the most masochistic among us actually ate
the stuff. I think they served it when they wanted some extra swill to
feed the pigs. ;-)
Since the Pythons were British-based spam was obviously a well-known
concept in Britain, too. Although whether it was made by Hormel in
Britain I don't really know.
For an article (in German) about the origin of the word in it's present
meaning you could take a look at
http://www61.gmx.net/de/cgi/antispamtipps?LANG=de&AREA=namensgebung
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
George Hardy
> I also have memories of spam, although much later (in the 1960s) in an
> institutional setting (in my case a boarding school). But it didn't
> happen very often, as only the most masochistic among us actually ate
> the stuff. I think they served it when they wanted some extra swill to
> feed the pigs. ;-)
>
> Since the Pythons were British-based spam was obviously a well-known
> concept in Britain, too. Although whether it was made by Hormel in
> Britain I don't really know.
One of the most amusing cartoons from WWII shows two Russian
soldiers standing in front of a pile of cases of SPAM. The
soldiers are trying to look up the word in an English-Russian
dictionary. The cartoon reflected the opinion of many people --
what is it?
GFH
Dietmar Schindler
>
> Just out of curiosity, is "spam" known as a food in Germany?
Yes, at least to me from "Weird Al" Yankovic's song.
http://www.davesfunstuff.com/27alb007.htm#s12