Guide for German writers of English
Tristan Miller
I work in a German research centre, and as one of only two native English
speakers, I'm frequently called upon to proofread and correct scientific
and technical articles written by my German colleagues. Over time I've
noticed that they tend to make the same mistakes over and over again, so I
decided to write a short guide to English writing directed specifically to
German speakers. It addresses common translation problems such as "bzw.",
plus differences between German and English punctuation and diction.
I intend to make this document freely available to the public. However
before I add a prominent link to it from my web page, I would be grateful
if interested parties here could have a look over it and offer any
suggestions for additions or changes.
The PDF version is available here:
http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~miller/publications/advice.pdf
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Alan Crozier
news:6661187.g...@ID-187157.news.dfncis.de...
> Greetings.
>
> I work in a German research centre, and as one of only two native English
> speakers, I'm frequently called upon to proofread and correct scientific
> and technical articles written by my German colleagues. Over time I've
> noticed that they tend to make the same mistakes over and over again, so I
> decided to write a short guide to English writing directed specifically to
> German speakers. It addresses common translation problems such as "bzw.",
> plus differences between German and English punctuation and diction.
>
on some points. That's OK if this manual is intended to achieve a uniform
style within one company, but there is a great deal of variation in the real
world. In Britain, for example, the em-dash is often replaced by an en-dash
with a space on either side. And I don't think many publishers recommend
italics for e.g., i.e., cf.
I'm sure you could add lots of typical German mistakes. I've started
collecting typical Swedish mistakes so that I can write a book of advice
when I retire about 15 years from now. Today I added a wonderful sentence
from a book I'm editing:
"Together with Nils-Otto Sjöberg a new type of adrenergic neurone was found
in the reproductive organs."
Alan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
LEE Sau Dan
Tristan> ... my German colleagues. Over
Tristan> time I've noticed that they tend to make the same
Tristan> mistakes over and over again, so I decided to write a
Tristan> short guide to English writing directed specifically to
Tristan> German speakers.
Tristan> ...
Tristan> I intend to make this document freely available to the
Tristan> public.
Tristan> ...
Tristan> The PDF version is available here:
Tristan> http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~miller/publications/advice.pdf
Very interesting and useful -- even for my writing of English
technical documents. (How many people know the difference between
em-dash, en-dash, etc.? LaTeX users tend to be more aware of that
distinction (because LaTeX is WYTIWYM --- what you type is what you
mean), but I do know some LaTeX users who use $-$ when he really wants
an em-dash!!!)
BTW, for the first example on the last page of the PDF file on "bzw.",
I think the following are also possible, if you really want the word
"resp." to be there:
Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
second floor, respectively.
Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
second (resp.) floor.
It really takes time to get used to the German (ab)use of "bzw.", esp.
when most dictionaries only give the literal translation. :( I had
problems with it until a teacher taught me to read it as "oder". :)
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
John Woodgate
freiburg.de> wrote (in <m3ptcj8...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>)
about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Fri, 13 Feb 2004:
>BTW, for the first example on the last page of the PDF file on "bzw.", I
>think the following are also possible, if you really want the word
>"resp." to be there:
>
> Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
> second floor, respectively.
>
> Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
> second (resp.) floor.
But we DON'T abbreviate 'respectively to 'resp.' in English.
'Beziehungsweise' and 'mussen [nicht]' are the two German words that
give me most trouble when trying to edit English texts written by German
native speakers for IEC and CENELEC standards.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Stefan Heinzmann
> I read in sci.lang.translation that LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-
> freiburg.de> wrote (in <m3ptcj8...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>)
> about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Fri, 13 Feb 2004:
>
>>BTW, for the first example on the last page of the PDF file on "bzw.", I
>>think the following are also possible, if you really want the word
>>"resp." to be there:
>>
>> Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
>> second floor, respectively.
>>
>> Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
>> second (resp.) floor.
>
>
> But we DON'T abbreviate 'respectively to 'resp.' in English.
>
> 'Beziehungsweise' and 'mussen [nicht]' are the two German words that
> give me most trouble when trying to edit English texts written by German
> native speakers for IEC and CENELEC standards.
Ah, indeed! Mustn't vs. needn't should definitely be in the guide.
Another worthwile addition would be it's vs. its
--
Cheers
Stefan
James Lee
I think the statement "e.g. and i.e. must always be followed by a comma is a
bit too strong. It is not usual to use a comma in British English (Fowler
says it is "unnecessary but not wrong") and, as I understand it, it is usual
in U.S. English, but not wrong to omit it.
bzw
I like it
abbreviations
I don't see much English written by Germans, but see a lot written by Dutch
people. I wonder if the Germans share the Dutch habit of transferring common
Dutch abbreviations into English, producing incomprehensible abbreviations
such as a.o., f.e., f.i. and a.s.o. for "among others", "for example", "for
instance" and "and so on".
HTH
James Lee
Einde O'Callaghan
advanced levels.
I haven't had a look at teh document yet but it sounds useful.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Steven M (to reply, remove the cola)
<psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
>Greetings.
>
>I work in a German research centre, and as one of only two native English
>speakers, I'm frequently called upon to proofread and correct scientific
>and technical articles written by my German colleagues. Over time I've
>noticed that they tend to make the same mistakes over and over again, so I
>decided to write a short guide to English writing directed specifically to
>German speakers. It addresses common translation problems such as "bzw.",
>plus differences between German and English punctuation and diction.
Tristan,
Although I don't understand German, your guide is much appreciated.
It reminds me of the need for a similar document, aimed at native
Spanish-speakers who write in English. As a translator, most of my
source documents are written by native speakers, so my focus would be
different.
I sometimes need to assign parts of my projects to other translators,
and a document like yours would be very interesting for two purposes:
One, as a checklist for evaluating a translator who I suspect is not
working into their native language, and two, as guidance to such
translators.
(This is bound to generate controversy, but not every translation
should be done by native speakers of the target language. There's an
good explanation at this page:
http://www.accurapid.com/journal/12xlator.htm )
I should have started years ago, collecting examples of such usage.
Until I can correct this lapse, does anyone have any other such
guides?
Thanks
--
Steve M - uns...@houston.rrdirt.com (remove dirt for reply)
"Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley
John Woodgate
<c0ise7$8qu$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>) about 'Guide for German writers of
English', on Fri, 13 Feb 2004:
>Dutch people. I wonder if the Germans share the Dutch habit of
>transferring common Dutch abbreviations into English, producing
>incomprehensible abbreviations such as a.o., f.e., f.i. and a.s.o. for
>"among others", "for example", "for instance" and "and so on".
No, it seems to me (who see English from both sources) that it's largely
confined to Dutch, except perhaps for Germans who've worked for Philips.
In fact, these abbreviations seem more prevalent among my Philipine
colleagues, so may originally be 'Philips English' rather than 'Dutch
English'. I can see reasons why Latin-derived abbreviations in British
English (especially the rarer ones like 'viz.', 'i.a.' and 'sqq.') might
cause confusion and prompt their substitution by abbreviated English
words.
A trap for the unwary is that plurals like 'camera's' are perfectly
correct in Dutch, so it can be quite difficult to remember that they are
not at all correct in English. It doesn't *necessarily* imply that the
Dutch are a nation of greengrocers. (;-)
Tristan Miller
In article <m3ptcj8...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, LEE Sau Dan
wrote:
> BTW, for the first example on the last page of the PDF file on "bzw.",
> I think the following are also possible, if you really want the word
> "resp." to be there:
>
> Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
> second floor, respectively.
Yes, this is permissible albeit pedantic. The correspondence between "1"
and "first", and between "2" and "second", is strong enough that explicitly
mentioning it is not required. Most English speakers would use
"respectively" in this context only in the odd case where button 1 took you
to floor 2 and vice versa.
> Please press button 1 or 2 if you want to go to the first or
> second (resp.) floor.
No, this is definitely a Germanicism; the abbreviation "resp." is not used
in English.
Tristan Miller
In article <c0ise7$8qu$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, James Lee wrote:
> e.g. and i.e.
> I think the statement "e.g. and i.e. must always be followed by a comma is
> a bit too strong. It is not usual to use a comma in British English
> (Fowler says it is "unnecessary but not wrong") and, as I understand it,
> it is usual in U.S. English, but not wrong to omit it.
Well, the reasoning goes that the abbreviations are there to replace "for
example" and "that is"; if the full terms were used, a comma would be
necessary. I was unaware that Fowler is now permitting it, and haven't yet
encountered any professionally produced publications where the comma is
omitted. Still, I'll make note of it in my document, perhaps with the
caveat that it's more of a British practice.
> abbreviations
> I don't see much English written by Germans, but see a lot written by
> Dutch people. I wonder if the Germans share the Dutch habit of
> transferring common Dutch abbreviations into English, producing
> incomprehensible abbreviations such as a.o., f.e., f.i. and a.s.o. for
> "among others", "for example", "for instance" and "and so on".
Not in my experience, no. The only one I regularly encounter is "resp." for
"bzw.". Some blame is to be placed on dictionaries for this, as even many
respectable ones give an unqualified "resp." or "respectively" as the
translation. At the very least the dictionary needs to mention that while
"respectively" may be an appropriate translation, it is not a conjunction
in English. And I've never, ever seen "resp." used in formal text.
Loekie Ratelkous
"Alan Crozier" <alan.c...@telia.com> schreef in bericht
news:St3Xb.82573$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
>
> I'm sure you could add lots of typical German mistakes. I've started
> collecting typical Swedish mistakes so that I can write a book of advice
> when I retire about 15 years from now. Today I added a wonderful
sentence
> from a book I'm editing:
>
> "Together with Nils-Otto Sjöberg a new type of adrenergic neurone was
found
> in the reproductive organs."
>
This reminds me of a well known joke from the DOS-era:
"WHO THE HECK IS GENERAL FAILUR, AND WHY IS HE WRITING ON MY DISK"?
L.
Klaas Bähre
From: Klaas Bähre <janSCHRUMP...@gmx.net>
Tristan Miller says...
> The PDF version is available here:
> http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~miller/publications/advice.pdf
Ah, sehr interessant und lehrreich.
Ich meine aber, daß einige Ihrer Beispiele aus dem Deutschen nicht
stimmen:
"Unlike in German, there is no space around a slash."
"I want a cat and / or a dog."
Da sind die Leerzeichen auch im Deutschen falsch, auch wenn sie oft
gesetzt werden. Also nicht "und / oder", sondern "und/oder".
"z. B.", "a. a.O.", "d. h." sind auch falsch, wiederum bitte ohne
Leerzeichen: "z.B.", "a.a.O.", "d.h.". Ich weiß, daß das oft falsch
gemacht wird, aber dennoch ist es - falsch.
"Sie können uns anrufen bzw. unter der folgenden Adresse postalisch
erreichen." Das ist furchtbares Holperdeutsch. "Sie können uns anrufen
oder uns unter der folgenden Adresse per Post erreichen." (Auch kein
Meisterwerk, aber doch ein bißchen besser.)
Weiterhin viel Vergnügen
Klaas Bähre
Ekkehard Dengler
"Klaas Bähre" <janSCHRUMP...@gmx.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.1a9792ae6...@news.t-online.de...
"z. B.", "a. a.O.", "d. h." sind auch falsch, wiederum bitte ohne
Leerzeichen: "z.B.", "a.a.O.", "d.h.". Ich weiß, daß das oft falsch
gemacht wird, aber dennoch ist es - falsch.
Nein! Zumindest in gedruckten Texten werden die einzelnen Glieder der
Abkürzung gemäß den Duden-Richtlinien für den Schriftsatz durch kleinere
Leerschritte voneinander getrennt.
Grüße,
Ekkehard
MH
Dutch
> people. I wonder if the Germans share the Dutch habit of transferring
common
> Dutch abbreviations into English, producing incomprehensible abbreviations
We try to be creative and introduce new expressions into other languages...
Not only into English, also into Spanish. The expression "un momento dado"
is proof that we succeed (at least in Catalunya).
--------
MH
Tristan Miller
In article <MPG.1a9792ae6...@news.t-online.de>, Klaas Bähre
wrote:
> "z. B.", "a. a.O.", "d. h." sind auch falsch, wiederum bitte ohne
> Leerzeichen: "z.B.", "a.a.O.", "d.h.". Ich weiß, daß das oft falsch
> gemacht wird, aber dennoch ist es - falsch.
I'm going by what I read in this document:
http://www.dante.de/dante/DTK/dtk96_4/dtk96_4_neubauer_feinheiten.html
It mandates a thin space after the first period, at least when using a
decent typesetting program which allows it. When writing e-mails and
Usenet postings in plain text, however, I would omit the space to avoid
breaking up the abbreviation at the end of a line, such as: d.
h. (Looks odd, doesn't it?)
Klaas Bähre
Ah, stimmt, das habe ich nicht bedacht.
Aber zumindest scheint mir ein großer/s Spatium/Leerzeichen/Zwischenraum
wie in der pdf-Datei von Tristan immer noch falscher als überhaupt kein
Spatium/Leerzeichen.
Und in am Rechner getippten Texten wird man doch keineswegs ein
Leerzeichen verwenden? Obwohl ich fürchte, daß mich auch hier der Duden
ins Unrecht setzt: der will in seinen "Hinweisen für das
Maschinenschreiben" (Ausgaben von 1991), daß man "z. B." und "u. a. m."
schreibe. Mir scheint das veraltet und zumindest unüblich und
unzweckmäßig.
Grüße
Klaas
Thomas Adams
> Und in am Rechner getippten Texten wird man doch keineswegs ein
> Leerzeichen verwenden? Obwohl ich fürchte, daß mich auch hier der Duden
> ins Unrecht setzt: der will in seinen "Hinweisen für das
> Maschinenschreiben" (Ausgaben von 1991), daß man "z. B." und "u. a. m."
> schreibe. Mir scheint das veraltet und zumindest unüblich und
> unzweckmäßig.
Bei den deutschen Microsoft-Übersetzungen ist z.B. "z. B." üblich.
--
np : -
Thomas Adams
> When writing e-mails and
> Usenet postings in plain text, however, I would omit the space to avoid
> breaking up the abbreviation at the end of a line, such as: d.
> h. (Looks odd, doesn't it?)
It does. But it is avoidable by using HTML formatting and non-breaking
spaces. Not that I would advocate using HTML in Usenet, mind you...
--
np : -
João Luiz
Stefan Heinzmann schrieb:
> Another worthwile addition would be it's vs. its
From what I've seen up to now, this is a mistake made primarily
by native speakers, just like your->you're.
JL
René
You'll laugh; since I've moved from Colorado to Texas, I keep catching
myself typing "A" when I mean "I". A jus' kint help it.
Tim Kynerd
Do Texans really use the "Ah" sound for "I"?
Where I come from (Mississippi), a distinctly different sound is used for
long "i." This can be demonstrated by asking someone to pronounce the
phrase "Father Time." The vowel sounds are not the same.
Exception: In my mother's father's accent, you couldn't hear the
difference between "far" and "fire."
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden tky...@spamcop.net
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 7:34
Sunset in Stockholm today: 16:28
My rail transit photos at http://www.kynerd.nu
Steven M (to reply, remove the cola)
<r0yo...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:41:33 +0000, René wrote:
>
>> João Luiz wrote:
>>> Stefan Heinzmann schrieb:
>>>> Another worthwile addition would be it's vs. its
>>>
>>> From what I've seen up to now, this is a mistake made primarily
>>> by native speakers, just like your->you're.
>>
>> You'll laugh; since I've moved from Colorado to Texas, I keep catching
>> myself typing "A" when I mean "I". A jus' kint help it.
>
>Do Texans really use the "Ah" sound for "I"?
>
>Where I come from (Mississippi), a distinctly different sound is used for
>long "i." This can be demonstrated by asking someone to pronounce the
>phrase "Father Time." The vowel sounds are not the same.
>
>Exception: In my mother's father's accent, you couldn't hear the
>difference between "far" and "fire."
There are several different 'Texas' accents. In high school I read an
article giving the history of the different settlers, and it came up
with reasonable arguments that there are actually at least five
different regions in the state. It didn't talk about accents in
particular, but that would be an interesting discussion too.
In particular: I have met a few people from deep in the piney woods of
East Texas, who pronounced "tire" so that it rhymed with "tar". But
that's not true everywhere.
René
> Do Texans really use the "Ah" sound for "I"?
Well, this is east Texas, close to the Louisiana state line, i.e.
Cajun country. Also, about 50% of the town's population is black. The
request "Ah gots to git mah arl chaynged." wouldn't startle the local
car mechanics very much.
> Exception: In my mother's father's accent, you couldn't hear the
> difference between "far" and "fire."
Well, we got us a fart pawtmint, too :-)
René
> In particular: I have met a few people from deep in the piney woods
of
> East Texas, who pronounced "tire" so that it rhymed with "tar".
But
> that's not true everywhere.
Exactly. I can give you the number for the tire shop at the end of the
block, and the phone will be answered with "Expat Tar, how kinna help
you?"
René, behind the Piney Curtain.
Skitt
> Steven M wrote:
>> In particular: I have met a few people from deep in the piney woods
>> of East Texas, who pronounced "tire" so that it rhymed with "tar".
>> But that's not true everywhere.
>
> Exactly. I can give you the number for the tire shop at the end of the
> block, and the phone will be answered with "Expat Tar, how kinna help
> you?"
Wouldn't that be "hep you"?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
René
> Wouldn't that be "hep you"?
Caught me. You're right, but my fingers refused to type it.
Roy Johnson
"fire","tar" for "tire" (and sometimes for "tower") "rang" and "thang" for
"ring" and "thing", "caint" for "can't", etc. Obviously that is not
everyone, but is true of "native speakers" of the old time dialect.
But a lot of Ozark dialect is pure Shakespearean. I have put a good article
online at http://roy.w.johnson.home.att.net/ozark.hem which discusses the
Elizabethan origins of Ozarkese. I suspect the same antecedents could be
found in other pockets of America, particularly Appalachia and parts of the
south.
This article, unfortunately, doesn't preserve the above pronunciations. I
have heard them all and I can guarantee that they are accurate. I taught
history and speech in an Ozark school and I was explaining that everyone,
everywhere, has some kind of accent. Even "standard English" depends on
which standard -- British or American, etc., and in the US is usually
similar to "cultured Midwestern" (Ohio), I explained. One young man raised
his hand.
"Mr. Johnson," he said, "Ah don't thank ah got an acceyent (yes, three
syllables in "accent").
--
Roy Johnson
Researching Schnake/Schnacke of Kreis Minden and worldwide
SchnakeNet home page http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~schnake
"René" <garbageju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DAwXb.23774$3F2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Peter Beattie
> "Unlike in German, there is no space around a slash."
> "I want a cat and / or a dog."
>
> Da sind die Leerzeichen auch im Deutschen falsch, auch wenn sie oft
> gesetzt werden. Also nicht "und / oder", sondern "und/oder".
Absolutely.
> "z. B.", "a. a.O.", "d. h." sind auch falsch, wiederum bitte ohne
> Leerzeichen: "z.B.", "a.a.O.", "d.h.". Ich weiß, daß das oft falsch
> gemacht wird, aber dennoch ist es - falsch.
Absolutely not. The Duden is quite unequivocal in requiring the spaces
to be put in.
--
Peter
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Steven M wrote:
Better yet, "How kinna hep y'all?"
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Klaas Bähre
> > "z. B.", "a. a.O.", "d. h." sind auch falsch, wiederum bitte ohne
> > Leerzeichen: "z.B.", "a.a.O.", "d.h.". Ich weiß, daß das oft falsch
> > gemacht wird, aber dennoch ist es - falsch.
>
> Absolutely not. The Duden is quite unequivocal in requiring the spaces
> to be put in.
Ich habe es ja nun schon in meiner Antwort auf Ekkehard Denglers Beitrag
zugegeben: Wenn man sich an den Duden halten möchte, habe ich mich
geirrt. Ich hatte vorher nicht nachgeschlagen, sondern aus dem Bauch
heraus und nach dem Auge geurteilt - es war dumm von mir, das nicht
klargemacht zu haben, sondern das Spatium schlechthin für "falsch" zu
erklären.
Dennoch bleibe ich dabei, beziehungsweise präzisiere ich hier: wenn man
nicht die Möglichkeiten eines Satz-Programmes hat, man also das
Leerzeichen nicht besonders schmal machen kann, sehen "z. B." oder "d.
h." einfach Scheiße aus. Von dem Problem mit dem Zeilenumbruch ganz zu
schweigen. Mag der Duden da vorschreiben, was er will.
Horrido,
Klaas
Roy Johnson
Tim Kynerd
> Tim Kynerd wrote:
>> Do Texans really use the "Ah" sound for "I"?
>
> Well, this is east Texas, close to the Louisiana state line, i.e. Cajun
> country. Also, about 50% of the town's population is black. The request
> "Ah gots to git mah arl chaynged." wouldn't startle the local car
> mechanics very much.
Now I *think* that that ("ah" for a long "i") might be more typical of
blacks in Mississippi. But I'm not swearing to anything.
>
>> Exception: In my mother's father's accent, you couldn't hear the
>> difference between "far" and "fire."
>
> Well, we got us a fart pawtmint, too :-)
In my own dialect, the "i" sound in "fire" is the same, essentially (it
can't help being modified a bit by the following "r"), as the "i" sound in
"time."
I wish I knew some way to reproduce this sound for you, but I can't think
of one. But it is NOT the "ah" sound.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden tky...@spamcop.net
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 7:32
Sunset in Stockholm today: 16:31
J. J. Lodder
> abbreviations
> I don't see much English written by Germans, but see a lot written by Dutch
> people. I wonder if the Germans share the Dutch habit of transferring common
> Dutch abbreviations into English, producing incomprehensible abbreviations
> such as a.o., f.e., f.i. and a.s.o. for "among others", "for example", "for
> instance" and "and so on".
It depends very much on the environment you are in, I guess.
I rarely see translated abbreviations.
But it may be on the increase:
with the invention of the word processor
competent secretaries who knew about this kind of thing
have almost gone extinct.
More generally, translating abbreviations is always a mistake.
One should always know or verify that the abbreviation exists
and is actually used in the other language.
The other way round the Dutch don't do it:
they just take over abbreviations like LOL, IMHO, and the like
without translation or expansion.
If translated, it is sometimes done deliberately wrong.
You may see 'Baai de waai' used jokingly in internet Dutch.
WFG,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> I read in sci.lang.translation that James Lee <nos...@daag.nl> wrote (in
> <c0ise7$8qu$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>) about 'Guide for German writers of
> English', on Fri, 13 Feb 2004:
> >I don't see much English written by Germans, but see a lot written by
> >Dutch people. I wonder if the Germans share the Dutch habit of
> >transferring common Dutch abbreviations into English, producing
> >incomprehensible abbreviations such as a.o., f.e., f.i. and a.s.o. for
> >"among others", "for example", "for instance" and "and so on".
>
> No, it seems to me (who see English from both sources) that it's largely
> confined to Dutch, except perhaps for Germans who've worked for Philips.
>
> In fact, these abbreviations seem more prevalent among my Philipine
> colleagues, so may originally be 'Philips English' rather than 'Dutch
> English'. I can see reasons why Latin-derived abbreviations in British
> English (especially the rarer ones like 'viz.', 'i.a.' and 'sqq.') might
> cause confusion and prompt their substitution by abbreviated English
> words.
That's not confined to Philips. You see subcultures with particular
usages arise wherever more or less closed groups exist
who write and correct their own brand of English.
Another example is the Eurocracy English you sometimes see emanating
from Brussels.
Philips is a special case though.
Their former director, the late Casimir (in charge of the Nat Lab)
actually encouraged his employees to write 'broken English'
and to ignore niceties of 'correct' usage in scientific publications.
You may find his essay on the matter in his autobiography.
> A trap for the unwary is that plurals like 'camera's' are perfectly
> correct in Dutch, so it can be quite difficult to remember that they are
> not at all correct in English. It doesn't *necessarily* imply that the
> Dutch are a nation of greengrocers. (;-)
Even worse: the officially correct plural of baby as a Dutch word
is baby's in Dutch.
Using 'babies' in Dutch is an error
which will cost a point in the 'Groot Dictee'.
Most Dutch don't take notice of what's officially correct though.
Jan
andy
<ski...@comcast.net> wrote
>René wrote:
>> Steven M wrote:
>
>>> In particular: I have met a few people from deep in the piney woods
>>> of East Texas, who pronounced "tire" so that it rhymed with "tar".
>>> But that's not true everywhere.
>>
>> Exactly. I can give you the number for the tire shop at the end of the
>> block, and the phone will be answered with "Expat Tar, how kinna help
>> you?"
>
>Wouldn't that be "hep you"?
If they'd been to a UK "how to answer the phone" seminar it would be
"help yew" - the 'yew' is almost a double sound, which I could possibly
write on a musical score but cannot express in print! "yee_ooh" perhaps.
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]
For Austrian philately http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps
Ruud Harmsen
<r0yo...@sneakemail.com>: in europa.linguas:
>Do Texans really use the "Ah" sound for "I"?
Yes.
>Where I come from (Mississippi), a distinctly different sound is used for
>long "i." This can be demonstrated by asking someone to pronounce the
>phrase "Father Time." The vowel sounds are not the same.
Of course, clear difference. 'I' is pronounced with a clear [a:], but
the a in father is a dark [A:]. Sounds shift, but differences have to
be maintained.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/
Ekkehard Dengler
Wenn man
nicht die Möglichkeiten eines Satz-Programmes hat, man also das
Leerzeichen nicht besonders schmal machen kann, sehen "z. B." oder "d.
h." einfach Scheiße aus. Von dem Problem mit dem Zeilenumbruch ganz zu
schweigen.
Ich finde, du hast in beiden Punkten Recht. Andererseits ist Ästhetik
vielleicht auch eine Frage der Gewöhnung. Die vom Duden empfohlene
Schreibung ist mittlerweile einfach die seltenere.
Grüße,
Ekkehard
John Woodgate
ster.demon.nl> wrote (in <1g94csc.1te...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>)
about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Sun, 15 Feb 2004:
>Philips is a special case though.
That has the status of a Law of Nature!
>Their former director, the late Casimir (in charge of the Nat Lab)
A brilliant man.
>actually encouraged his employees to write 'broken English' and to
>ignore niceties of 'correct' usage in scientific publications. You may
>find his essay on the matter in his autobiography.
Ah, but a student of words: I've not read his autobiography but he wrote
a piece on 'marmalade' which shows his insight (although it's probably a
bit tedious for the cunning linguists here). In fact, I've found the
Philips publications in English up to 1980 or so very well-written and
not obviously from non-native sources. The odd abbreviations occur in
texts written for and about standards, and these obviously don't go
through the sub-editors in the Publications Department.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Roy Johnson
"Ruud Harmsen" <"ar-aitch-ay" at rudhar.com> wrote in message
news:aumu2057mi9kcaqnm...@4ax.com...
The "i" in "time" is not the same in Ozarkian as an "I" by itself. "I" is
"Ah" but "time". The way most of us pronounce "time" the "i" is a diphthong
modified by the "m". In Ozarkian we do not modify it; just use a shorter "a"
on the "ah" sound. It's impossible to produce except by speech itself. It's
close to the "a" in "at" but not exactly the same.
--
Roy Johnson
Researching Schnake/Schnacke of Kreis Minden and worldwide
SchnakeNet home page http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~schnake
>
James Lee
In fact, I've found the Philips publications in English up to 1980 or so
very well-written and not obviously from non-native sources.
"James Lee" (Editor/translator) replied:
Funny that, I left Philips in April 1980 ...
John Woodgate
English', on Sun, 15 Feb 2004:
I found the English in Hetterscheid's two books on IF amplifier design
also very good.
John Woodgate
wrote (in <c0o0kj$18kpkk$1...@ID-43526.news.uni-berlin.de>) about 'Guide
for German writers of English', on Sun, 15 Feb 2004:
>Die Begründung ist halt, daß "zum" und "Beispiel" eben zwei getrennte
>Wörter sind, und da man nicht "zumBeispiel" schreibt (jedenfalls _noch_
>nicht), gibt es auch keinen Grund, "z.B." zu schreiben.
But a good reason for eliminating the space is to prevent the
abbreviation being split across two lines of text.
Tim Kynerd
>
> "Ruud Harmsen" <"ar-aitch-ay" at rudhar.com> wrote in message
> news:aumu2057mi9kcaqnm...@4ax.com...
>> Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:51:37 +0100: Tim Kynerd <r0yo...@sneakemail.com>:
>> in europa.linguas:
>>
>> >Do Texans really use the "Ah" sound for "I"?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Where I come from (Mississippi), a distinctly different sound is used
>> >for long "i." This can be demonstrated by asking someone to pronounce
>> >the phrase "Father Time." The vowel sounds are not the same.
>>
>> Of course, clear difference. 'I' is pronounced with a clear [a:], but
>> the a in father is a dark [A:]. Sounds shift, but differences have to be
>> maintained.
>
> The "i" in "time" is not the same in Ozarkian as an "I" by itself. "I" is
> "Ah" but "time". The way most of us pronounce "time" the "i" is a
> diphthong modified by the "m". In Ozarkian we do not modify it; just use a
> shorter "a" on the "ah" sound. It's impossible to produce except by speech
> itself. It's close to the "a" in "at" but not exactly the same.
Yep, as I sit here and try it, the long "i" I use seems to be a more open
version of the "a" in "at." Thanks, Roy.
PS Still no discernible relation to "ah."
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden tky...@spamcop.net
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 7:32
Sunset in Stockholm today: 16:31
Klaas Bähre
> Korrektes Deutsch zu schreiben ist natürlich generell veraltet und
> unüblich, aber "unzweckmäßig"?
Ich habe das um Gottes Willen nicht im Sinne des permissiven "Die
Sprache verändert sich eben" gemeint, das man so oft zu hören bekommt.
Im Gegenteil halte ich es für ein großes Problem, daß es in Deutschland
mittlerweile ein ganze Menge struktureller Analphabeten mit
Hochschulabschluß gibt, daß die Fähigkeit, komplexere Zusammenhänge in
seiner Muttersprache grammatisch und orthographisch halbwegs korrekt
darzulegen, rapide abnimmt - und vor allem, daß dies nicht einmal mehr
als Manko empfunden wird.
Mir ging es um etwas anderes, nämlich um die scheußliche Attitüde der
Dudenredaktion, einerseits an den falschen Stellen permissiv zu sein und
jeder modernistischen Unsitte hinterherzulaufen (angeblich findet sich
in der neuesten Ausgabe der Eintrag "Warmduscher"), andererseits aber -
wie in diesem Fall - den bornierten und prinzipienreiterischen
Oberlehrer zu spielen. Bestärkt in meiner Dudenphobie werde ich übrigens
durch das Kapitulantentum des Duden vor der sogenannten "Neuen
Rechtschreibung".
> Die Begründung ist halt, daß "zum" und "Beispiel" eben zwei getrennte
> Wörter sind, und da man nicht "zumBeispiel" schreibt (jedenfalls _noch_
> nicht), gibt es auch keinen Grund, "z.B." zu schreiben.
Ich wußte nicht, daß es so begründet wird, hatte es aber vermutet. In
jedem Fall finde ich die Begründung nicht stichhaltig. Gut, es sind zwei
Wörter - aber es ist eine Abkürzung. Ich meine, daß man eine Abkürzung
als ein Ganzes, sozusagen als ein eigenständiges Zeichen oder
meinetwegen als eine eigene Glyphe oder als ein Symbol empfindet. Daher
scheint es mir unschön, sie durch Leerzeichen auseinanderzureißen. Daß
hier auch Sehgewohnheiten eine Rolle spielen, steht außer Frage.
Gelten lassen würde ich das Argument "Es sind ja auch zwei Wörter"
andererseits zum Beispiel bei der Schreibung von Prozentzahlen. Leider
wird man durch Excel und ähnliches immer mehr an Schreibungen wie "95%"
gewöhnt. Hier empfinde ich das Fehlen des Spatiums als falsch, denn es
bleiben ja zwei Sinneinheiten: die Zahl und das zu Zählende.
"z.B.", "d.h." und Konsorten hingegen empfinde ich als eine Einheit.
Wenn man sie auseinanderreißt, erweckt man den Eindruck, als gehe es
einem wirklich nur um die schnöde Platz- und Zeitersparnis. Zwar macht
man tatsächlich einen Tastaturanschlag mehr; aber man verwendet kein
Symbol mehr, man hackt nurmehr Buchstaben ab. Man begibt sich der
Möglichkeit, den Eindruck des Ökonomischen und Zweckrationalen durch die
Verwendung eines Symbols ein wenig abzufedern.
Überhaupt sollte man sich mit der Verwendung von Abkürzungen
zurückhalten, scheint mir. Sie wirken immer unschön - als ob man in Eile
gewesen sei. Gut, in technischen Texten und gerade in Fußnotenkaskaden
mögen sie hingehen. (Obwohl dort erfahrungsgemäß durch andere Blähungen
mehr Platz verschwendet wird, als es durch das Ausschreiben aller
Abkürzungen der Fall wäre.) In einem Text aber, der auf irgendeine Art
und Weise als an eine bestimmte Person gerichtet verstanden werden kann,
sollte man auf Abkürzungen unbedingt verzichten. Man gibt seinem
Gegenüber durch das Verwenden von Abkürzungen nämlich ungefähr zu
verstehen: "Du bist mir nicht einmal die paar Tasten mehr wert, die es
braucht, um 'zum Beispiel' statt 'z.B.' zu schreiben."
Hier mag sich mancher fragen: "Lohnt es sich überhaupt, sich über solch
ein Thema so ausführlich zu verbreiten?" Unbedingt! Was könnte es
wichtigeres geben als Formfragen?
Schöne Grüße
Klaas Bähre
René
> PS Still no discernible relation to "ah."
Well, a body's gotta type it /some/how ;)
Ingo Dierck
> > 'mussen [nicht]'
"Nicht müssen" ist in den meisten Fällen ohnehin stilistisch etwas
ungelenk. Besser ist "nicht brauchen":
"Ich muß zur Schule gehen."
"Nein, du brauchst nicht zur Schule zu gehen." (Bitte das "zu" nicht
vergessen!)
Gruß
Ingo
--
Ingo Dierck, dierck & meyer mediengestaltung
mailto:ingo....@addcom.de
Klaas Bähre
> "Nicht müssen" ist in den meisten Fällen ohnehin stilistisch etwas
> ungelenk. Besser ist "nicht brauchen":
Uff. Etwas üblicher ist vielleicht "nicht brauchen", aber warum soll
"nicht müssen" "stilistisch etwas unlenkt" sein? (Ich finde eher die
Formulierung "stilistisch ungelenk" schlecht, sozusagen "stilistisch
ungelenk", aber das ist ein anderes Thema.)
Möglichkeit 1: "Du mußt nicht zur Schule gehen."
Möglichkeit 2: "Du brauchst nicht zur Schule zu zugehen."
1 klingt vielleicht etwas grundsätzlicher - im Sinne von "Niemand zwingt
Dich überhaupt, zur Schule zu gehen, Idiotenkind" -, während 2 eher auf
einen bestimmten Tag bezogen ist - "Du brauchst heute nicht zur Schule
zu gehen, weil Du erkältet bist." Warum aber also soll 1 schlechter Stil
sein?
Außerdem bezieht sich das Beispiel auf eine umgangssprachliche,
mündliche Sprechsituation. Was soll es da nutzen, mit stilistischen
Feinheiten zu kommen?
Gerd Thieme
> "Nein, du brauchst nicht zur Schule zu gehen." (Bitte das "zu" nicht
> vergessen!)
There's a growing minority using "brauchen" as just another auxiliary
verb. Possibly, it's already a majority though it does not yet include
the dictionary makers.
Even the conservative mnemonic "Wer 'brauchen^ ohne 'zu' gebraucht,
braucht 'brauchen' gar nicht zu gebrauchen" simply shows the fact that
"brauchen" usually is used without "zu" in colloquial style.
From a descriptive point of view, "brauchen" without "zu" is widely
accepted, especially when it is negated.
Gerd
John Woodgate
online.de> wrote (in <1g986j7.1n90gr71eh2x0mN%ingo....@t-online.de>)
about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Mon, 16 Feb 2004:
>Stefan Heinzmann <stefan_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, I did (I think).
>
>> > 'mussen [nicht]'
>
>"Nicht müssen" ist in den meisten Fällen ohnehin stilistisch etwas
>ungelenk. Besser ist "nicht brauchen":
>
>"Ich muß zur Schule gehen."
>"Nein, du brauchst nicht zur Schule zu gehen." (Bitte das "zu" nicht
>vergessen!)
Well, there is not much point in telling me. The problem is that some of
my German colleagues write 'must not' in English instead of 'need not'.
I don't think they do this by translating 'braucht nicht'!
Nigel Greenwood
<...>
> I intend to make this document freely available to the public. However
> before I add a prominent link to it from my web page, I would be grateful
> if interested parties here could have a look over it and offer any
> suggestions for additions or changes.
>
> The PDF version is available here:
> http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~miller/publications/advice.pdf
Under translation problems you might discuss Jeweils.
Nigel
Tristan Miller
In article <7a31b7bf.04021...@posting.google.com>, Nigel
Greenwood wrote:
> Under translation problems you might discuss Jeweils.
I haven't encountered any such problems in my work. Can you provide an
example?
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Adrian Bailey
> > I intend to make this document freely available to the public. However
> > before I add a prominent link to it from my web page, I would be
grateful
> > if interested parties here could have a look over it and offer any
> > suggestions for additions or changes.
> >
> > The PDF version is available here:
> > http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~miller/publications/advice.pdf
"In English orthography, there is an important /three-way/ distinction among
dashes."
1. A hyphen is not a dash.
2. Most people have no knowledge of en/em dashes. To laypeople like me,
there are
dashes: "Xxx xxxxx - xxxx xxxxxx."
and hyphens: "xxx-xxxx".
"Incorrect: 'We ate eggs, ham, peanut butter and fish sandwiches.'"
Omitting the comma is not "incorrect"; your example is disingenuous.
"B.C.E. and C.E.": better without the stops.
e.g. and i.e. (etc.): the "thin space" is unnecessary. I don't agree that
your "incorrect" examples are incorrect.
"cf.": this means "compare". It does not mean "in contrast to". It can be
used to draw attention to an item which is similar.
Adrian
John Woodgate
wrote (in <Jt3Yb.25621$ul3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>) about
'Guide for German writers of English', on Mon, 16 Feb 2004:
>1. A hyphen is not a dash.
>2. Most people have no knowledge of en/em dashes. To laypeople like me,
>there are
>dashes: "Xxx xxxxx - xxxx xxxxxx."
>and hyphens: "xxx-xxxx".
>
>
>"Incorrect: 'We ate eggs, ham, peanut butter and fish sandwiches.'"
>
>Omitting the comma is not "incorrect"; your example is disingenuous.
>
>
>"B.C.E. and C.E.": better without the stops.
>
>
>e.g. and i.e. (etc.): the "thin space" is unnecessary. I don't agree
>that your "incorrect" examples are incorrect.
I agree with all of the above. While the strict rules were applicable to
traditional typesetting, the widespread use of word-processors and desk-
top publishing by people with no knowledge of those rules has inevitably
changed usage, and there is no point in trying to wind that back. Those
rules were in any case, derived from the aesthetic impressions of
printed pages, and don't work well with many modern fonts.
>
>
>"cf.": this means "compare". It does not mean "in contrast to". It can
>be used to draw attention to an item which is similar.
Ah, well, thereby hangs a (Latin) tale. There used to be two
abbreviations, 'cp.' for 'compare' (Latin 'compara') and 'cf.' for
'contrast' (Latin 'confere', although this word could also mean
'compare', among many other things). The first one seems to have dropped
out of usage, and 'cf.' is used for 'compare'.
Ingo Dierck
> Uff. Etwas üblicher ist vielleicht "nicht brauchen", aber warum soll
> "nicht müssen" "stilistisch etwas unlenkt"
... ungelenk ...
> sein? (Ich finde eher die
> Formulierung "stilistisch ungelenk" schlecht, sozusagen "stilistisch
> ungelenk", aber das ist ein anderes Thema.)
Ein _ganz_ anderes.
> Möglichkeit 1: "Du mußt nicht zur Schule gehen."
>
> Möglichkeit 2: "Du brauchst nicht zur Schule zu zugehen."
Wir sollten alle wieder mehr aufeinander zugehen. ;-)
> 1 klingt vielleicht etwas grundsätzlicher - im Sinne von "Niemand zwingt
> Dich überhaupt, zur Schule zu gehen, Idiotenkind"
Umgangssprachlich eher soviel wie "du sollst nicht". Den aggressiven
Unterton nehme ich zwar bei Dir wahr, allerdings nicht in einer
Formulierung mit "nicht müssen".
> während 2 eher auf
> einen bestimmten Tag bezogen ist - "Du brauchst heute nicht zur Schule
> zu gehen, weil Du erkältet bist." Warum aber also soll 1 schlechter Stil
> sein?
Weil "du mußt nicht" im Sinne von "du brauchst nicht" eine
umgangssprachliche, saloppe Ausdrucksweise ist.
> Außerdem bezieht sich das Beispiel auf eine umgangssprachliche,
> mündliche Sprechsituation. Was soll es da nutzen, mit stilistischen
> Feinheiten zu kommen?
Im UIrsprungsbeitrag, den ich hier in Erinnerung rufe, ging es um
Übersetzungen schriftlicher, wissenschaftlicher Texte. Soll dabei ein im
Englischen akzeptabler Stil erreicht werden, kann es ganz nützlich sein,
erst einmal das deutsche Ausgangsmaterial zu säubern.
Ingo Dierck
> Well, there is not much point in telling me. The problem is that some of
> my German colleagues write 'must not' in English instead of 'need not'.
> I don't think they do this by translating 'braucht nicht'!
Ich vermute, daß bei Verwendung des an sich falschen "muß nicht" im
Deutschen eine versehentliche Übersetzung mit dem ganz bestimmt falschen
"must not" im Englischen leichter geschieht.
Steven M (to reply, remove the cola)
wrote:
>Actually I don't know whether split abbreviations would be considered
>wrong in German. My guess is they wouldn't. Many people would
>(subjectively) consider them ugly, though. But what isn't these days?
>(Except us, of course. ;-)
>
>You can always use the non-breaking space to prevent the splitting, as
>you would have to do anyway between numbers and units.
Unfortunately, the ASCII 128 doesn't include the "non-splitting"
space.
To change the subject slightly, WordPerfect used to have a character,
I believe called an "Invisible Soft Return". You could insert it like
the optional hyphen, to provide a preferred place to split a long
string. Example: gaging/calibration. I dislike using / where an
"and" or "or" would do, but sometimes it's necessary. It usually
looks better without spaces on either side of the slash. But if you
omit the spaces, MS Word treats the whole thing as one word and will
not break it all or will break it willy-nilly.
Word 2000 has a "no-width optional break" that should do the same
thing, but there's nothing in the Help about it, and if it is supposed
to the same as the WordPerfect feature, it's broken.
--
Steve M - uns...@houston.rrdirt.com (remove dirt for reply)
"Fear those prepared to die for the truth, for as a rule they
make many others die with them, often before them, at times
instead of them." -- Umberto Eco
Tim Kynerd
I wish I could come up with a better way to convey how it sounds. I'm sure
there's an IPA symbol for it (we Southerners can't be the only people in
the world using this sound), but I have no idea what it might be, and even
if I did, I probably couldn't type it. :-)
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden tky...@spamcop.net
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 7:27
Sunset in Stockholm today: 16:36
Richard Kaulfuss
<psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
>Greetings.
>
>I work in a German research centre, and as one of only two native English
>speakers, I'm frequently called upon to proofread and correct scientific
>and technical articles written by my German colleagues. Over time I've
>noticed that they tend to make the same mistakes over and over again, so I
>decided to write a short guide to English writing directed specifically to
>German speakers. It addresses common translation problems such as "bzw.",
>plus differences between German and English punctuation and diction.
>
>I intend to make this document freely available to the public. However
>before I add a prominent link to it from my web page, I would be grateful
>if interested parties here could have a look over it and offer any
>suggestions for additions or changes.
>
>The PDF version is available here:
>http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~miller/publications/advice.pdf
>
Interesting article. However, I have to disagree with your assertion
that "it is never correct to put a comma before a subordinate
clause..." Remember that subordinate clauses encompass all
non-principal clauses, not just those that are linked by
subordinating conjunctions. Adjectival clauses are a good example of
commas being used (or not)to distinguish between restrictive and
non-restrictive types.
It might be worthwhile to include something about this in your
article, as German can't handle the distinction quite as elegantly
as English can.
--
Dick
Eric Bustad
> Well, of course that's http://roy.w.johnson.home.att.net/ozark.htm sorry
> for the typo
I thought that was part of the Ozark accent!
= Eric
MH
> O.K., I'll do that. But how do I recognize them?
> And what about those prepared to die for a lie?
They are to be feared most, but at least you can recognise them...
--------
MH
LEE Sau Dan
>> Unfortunately, the ASCII 128 doesn't include the
>> "non-splitting" space.
Lola> ASCII 128 isn't suitable for natural languages. It doesn't
Lola> even have the four different hyphens/dashes required for
Lola> English. ;-)
It doesn't even have single characters for smileys. Can't you
overcome that?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Sophie Fruehling
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> "Lola" == Lola Rosso <no....@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Unfortunately, the ASCII 128 doesn't include the
> >> "non-splitting" space.
>
> Lola> ASCII 128 isn't suitable for natural languages. It doesn't
> Lola> even have the four different hyphens/dashes required for
> Lola> English. ;-)
>
>It doesn't even have single characters for smileys. Can't you
>overcome that?
ASCII 1 and 2 do print smileys in MS-DOS. :)
Sophie
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
> Although I don't understand German, your guide is much appreciated.
>
> It reminds me of the need for a similar document, aimed at native
> Spanish-speakers who write in English. As a translator, most of my
> source documents are written by native speakers, so my focus would be
> different.
>
[ ... ]
>
> I should have started years ago, collecting examples of such usage.
> Until I can correct this lapse, does anyone have any other such
> guides?
>
I did start such a thing several years ago, collecting typical examples
of English written by French or Spanish speakers, but unfortunately
it didn't get very far. (I do a lot more of tidying up English written by
people for whom it is a foreign language than I do of actual translation,
though sometimes the only way to figure out what someone means is
to ask what they would have written in French).
This brings me to a curiosity that you (Steve M) have probably
noticed, that Spanish speakers are very fond of the word
"obtention" -- a curiosity because although most native
English speakers will say that no such word exists in English, in
fact it does exist in English dictionaries, defined with exactly the
meaning that Spanish speakers would like it to have, as the noun
corresponding to "obtain". Not only that, there is no equally
convenient equivalent to "obtención" that one can suggest as
an alternative. "Disponible" is a similar example of a word that
French speakers like to use in English, and which does appear in
English dictionaries, though hardly any native English speaker
even has any idea of what it means.
athel
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
at...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/homepage.htm
Steven M (to reply, remove the cola)
Cornish-Bowden) wrote:
>This brings me to a curiosity that you (Steve M) have probably
>noticed, that Spanish speakers are very fond of the word
>"obtention" -- a curiosity because although most native
>English speakers will say that no such word exists in English, in
>fact it does exist in English dictionaries, defined with exactly the
>meaning that Spanish speakers would like it to have, as the noun
>corresponding to "obtain".
I'm smiling as I read this. When I first started translating, I would
come across 'obtención', write it as 'obtention', then change it
because it didn't sound right in English.
A quick search through my translation memory shows that I have
translated it as 'procurement', 'acquisition', or by rewriting as some
other form of 'obtain':
S: En caso de no ser posible la obtención de la información
E: If it is not possible to obtain the information
S: la información necesaria para la obtención
E: the information necessary to acquire
>"Disponible" is a similar example of a word that
>French speakers like to use in English, and which does appear in
>English dictionaries, though hardly any native English speaker
>even has any idea of what it means.
Hmm ... I haven't seen that in English, and I can't find an example in
my dictionaries (except the OED) or online.
Reminds me of a childhood friend, a Venezuelan who sat at our piano
and asked in English, 'Do you touch?'
LEE Sau Dan
Lola> ASCII 128 isn't suitable for natural languages. It doesn't
Lola> even have the four different hyphens/dashes required for
Lola> English. ;-)
>> It doesn't even have single characters for smileys. Can't you
>> overcome that?
Sophie> ASCII 1 and 2 do print smileys in MS-DOS. :)
That not ASCII.
Sophie Fruehling
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> "Sophie" == Sophie Fruehling <sfrue...@LOVELY-SPAM.aon.at> writes:
>
> Lola> ASCII 128 isn't suitable for natural languages. It doesn't
> Lola> even have the four different hyphens/dashes required for
> Lola> English. ;-)
> >> It doesn't even have single characters for smileys. Can't you
> >> overcome that?
>
> Sophie> ASCII 1 and 2 do print smileys in MS-DOS. :)
>
>That not ASCII.
You've got a point there, of course.
Sophie
mUs1Ka
Which, in turn, reminds me of an Iranian friend, 20 years ago.
"That girl, she is not wearing a..a..a.. breast-bandage."
m.
Dietmar Schindler
> "Nicht müssen" ist in den meisten Fällen ohnehin stilistisch etwas
> ungelenk. Besser ist "nicht brauchen":
Ingo Dierck wrote in <1g99d42.18h38t11810kofN%ingo....@t-online.de>:
> Weil "du mußt nicht" im Sinne von "du brauchst nicht" eine
> umgangssprachliche, saloppe Ausdrucksweise ist.
Ingo Dierck wrote in <1g99dj5.1mx4tkqp4o73N%ingo....@t-online.de>:
> Ich vermute, daß bei Verwendung des an sich falschen "muß nicht" im
> Deutschen eine versehentliche Übersetzung mit dem ganz bestimmt falschen
> "must not" im Englischen leichter geschieht.
Das wird ja immer schlimmer: erst "stilistisch etwas ungelenk", dann
"eine umgangssprachliche, saloppe Ausdrucksweise", schließlich gar "an
sich falsch". Ich kann diese Behauptungen nicht nachvollziehen und
wundere mich, daß sie bisher unwidersprochen blieben. Quellenangaben zur
Belegung obiger Aussagen sowie eine Erklärung, wann "du mußt nicht" denn
überhaupt gut und richtig zu gebrauchen sei, wären interessant.
James Lee
Engelse Vademecum", written by P.J.J. van de Winden and published by Prisma.
I lent someone my copy years ago and never got it back. It seems to have
been out of print for many years. In my more paranoid moments I suspect that
it was suppressed by Dutch teachers of English.
James Lee
Gerd Thieme
> Quellenangaben zur Belegung obiger Aussagen sowie eine Erklärung, wann
> "du mußt nicht" denn überhaupt gut und richtig zu gebrauchen sei,
> wären interessant.
Belege wird Ingo Dierck schwerlich vorlegen können. Leicht dagegen ist
es, ihn zu widerlegen. Ein Blick in den Grimm (Bd. 12, Sp. 1251 unten)
genügt:
| drauszen muste der gast nicht bleiben, sondern meine thür thet ich dem
| wandrer auf. /Hiob/ 31, 32; sage mir an du, den meine seele liebet,
| wo du weidest, .. das ich nicht hin und her gehen müsse, bei den
| herden deiner gesellen. /hohel. Sal./ 1, 7; wir sind die herren, und
| müssen dir nicht nachlaufen. /Jer./ 2, 31; gib mir dasselbige wasser,
| auf das mich nicht dürste, das ich nicht her komen müsse zu schepfen.
| /Joh./ 4, 15; Paulus hatte beschlossen, fur Epheso uber zu schiffen,
| das er nicht müste in Asia zeit zubringen. /ap. gesch./ 20, 16; wenn
| ein so gemäszigter grad hitze die materie der körper ... auflöszt, so
| müssen sie (/brauchen sie deshalb/) nicht aus dem leichtesten stoffe
| bestehen. KANT 8, 287;
Oben in derselben Spalte findet man übrigens Belege für den älteren
Gebrauch von »nicht müssen« im Sinne von »nicht dürfen«. So oder so,
»nicht müssen« ist beste Literatursprache.
Der Irrtum erklärt sich möglicherweise aus Ingos Beschäftigung (dierck &
meyer mediengestaltung). Werbung steht nicht gerade im Rufe spachlicher
Kompetenz, und Ingos Signatur bestätigt dieses Vorurteil einmal mehr.
Gerd
Richard Loebner
from Dietmar Schindler <dS...@arcor.de> contains these words:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MUSEN sind "nicht müssen" und "nicht brauchen" nicht synonym. Das
erstere bedeutet dass etwas nicht obligatorisch ist, das letztere jedoch
das es nicht notwendig ist. Der subtile Unterschied liegt darin dass in
einem kein Verot herrscht und im anderen kein Vorteil zu erringen ist.
Das englische "must not" ist ein Gebot etwas nicht zu tun - ein total
anderer Fall (Fischkessel)<grins>
Meine 2 Cents.
--
Richard,
Crowthorne Berkshire UK
Peter Beattie
> I sometimes need to assign parts of my projects to other translators,
> and a document like yours would be very interesting for two purposes:
> One, as a checklist for evaluating a translator who I suspect is not
> working into their native language, and two, as guidance to such
> translators.
>
> (This is bound to generate controversy, but not every translation
> should be done by native speakers of the target language. There's an
> good explanation at this page:
> http://www.accurapid.com/journal/12xlator.htm )
I think Danilo's article is a bit light on argument, to be perfectly
honest. He has a point when he says there's only so much time you can
devote to improving your understanding of your own native language and
any foreign language. But he entirely misses another, vastly more
important point: Being a native speaker of any language doesn't mean
you're a competent writer of any particular type of text. Most native
speakers will never have learnt how to write a manual, a court order, or
a letter of intent.
If I have extensive experience in writing a particular sort of document,
there's no need for me to be a native speaker of the target language the
document is to be written in. In fact, most native-speaker translators
would do considerably worse with respect to that particular sort of
document.
In short: As a translator, I'll have to be up to the task at hand--and,
incidentally, be able to judge whether or not I acutally am up to it.
There might a significant correlation of translators being both
professionals and native speakers with their ability to produce adequate
translations in any field, but I more than doubt that causality runs
anywhere near the lines that conventional wisdom holds it does.
--
Peter
Sebastian Koppehel
> John Woodgate <j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>
>> Well, there is not much point in telling me. The problem is that some of
>> my German colleagues write 'must not' in English instead of 'need not'.
>> I don't think they do this by translating 'braucht nicht'!
>
> Ich vermute, daß bei Verwendung des an sich falschen "muß nicht" im
> Deutschen eine versehentliche Übersetzung mit dem ganz bestimmt falschen
> "must not" im Englischen leichter geschieht.
Was ist daran falsch? Nehmen wir folgenden Satz:
"Das Gefäß wird gefüllt, es muß aber nicht ganz bis zum Rand voll sein."
Ein einwandfreier Satz, der bedeutet: Es besteht trotz des Gebotes
einer Füllung nicht die Notwendigkeit, daß der Inhalt ganz bis zum
Rand reicht. Fallen wir nun auf den falschen Freund herein, "muß
nicht" als "must not" zu übersetzen, so kommen wir in etwa zu
folgendem englischen Satz:
"The container is filled, but it mustn't be filled to the brim."
Dieser Satz besagt nun, daß das Gefäß nicht bis zum Rand gefüllt
werden DARF, was etwas völlig anderes ist.
- Sebastian
-> a.u.g
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
>
> But we DON'T abbreviate 'respectively to 'resp.' in English.
>
> 'Beziehungsweise' and 'mussen [nicht]' are the two German words that
> give me most trouble when trying to edit English texts written by German
> native speakers for IEC and CENELEC standards.
Robert Schoenfeld, Editor of the Australian Journal of Chemistry until
his death in about 1986, wrote an article "Say It in English, Please!"
primarily for German-speaking chemists and published posthumously
in 1988 in Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English (also
printed as a final chapter in his book "The Chemist's English", 3rd edn.,
1989, VCH, Weinheim). He has the following pertinent remarks about
"beziehungsweise":
'The two ugly sisters, "beziehungsweise" and "respectively", so often
confused by translators, have this in common: They sound clumsy, and
nearly always they are useless. Let German writers ask themselves
if, most of the time, they cannot replace "bzw." by a simple "und" or
"oder". And let English writers ask themselves whether they really need
"respectively" ...'
Richard Loebner
from Lola Rosso <no....@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> On 23/02/04 10:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > 'The two ugly sisters, "beziehungsweise" and "respectively", so often
> > confused by translators, have this in common: They sound clumsy, and
> > nearly always they are useless.
> I think there are at least two mistakes in this statement by Mr Schoenfeld:
> First, "beziehungsweise" isn't nearly as clumsy in German as
> "respectively" might be in English, and second, the two words are often
> confused by German *writers*, but not by German *translators*.
> H(ans-)P(eter)
~~~~~~
I tend to agree with you, but............
> --
> I learnt the best way to avoid rejection is to reject others first.
~~~~~~
... you are a coward <g>.
RF
Cornish-Bowden) wrote:
>Robert Schoenfeld, Editor of the Australian Journal of Chemistry until
>his death in about 1986, wrote an article "Say It in English, Please!"
>primarily for German-speaking chemists and published posthumously
>in 1988 in Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English (also
>printed as a final chapter in his book "The Chemist's English", 3rd edn.,
>1989, VCH, Weinheim).
There is a summary of some of the main points in this book at
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/schoenfeld.html
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> from Lola Rosso <no....@hotmail.com> contains these words:
>
> > On 23/02/04 10:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > 'The two ugly sisters, "beziehungsweise" and "respectively", so often
> > > confused by translators, have this in common: They sound clumsy, and
> > > nearly always they are useless.
>
> > I think there are at least two mistakes in this statement by Mr Schoenfeld:
>
> > First, "beziehungsweise" isn't nearly as clumsy in German as
> > "respectively" might be in English, and second, the two words are often
> > confused by German *writers*, but not by German *translators*.
>
> > H(ans-)P(eter)
> ~~~~~~
> I tend to agree with you, but............
site just has your response, not Lola Rosso's comment, so I can only
comment on the latter at second hand. First, in the passage that I
quoted Schoenfeld didn't say (and I didn't misquote him as saying)
that "beziehungsweise" was clumsy; he just said it sounded clumsy.
Would anyone seriously argue otherwise (even people who
"tend to agree" with Lola Rosso -- how is that different from
agreeing with her?)? As Schoenfeld asked earlier in the discussion
than the bit I quoted: How can a modern language tolerate a
conjunction five syllables long?
Second, you may be right about translators rather than German
writers, though it would be nice to give some evidence to
support the claim. Reading the rest of Schoenfeld's text one has the
impression that he was mainly talking about Germans writing in
English, so maybe he made a slip in mentioning translators at all
in this context.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> from Lola Rosso <no....@hotmail.com> contains these words:
>
> > On 23/02/04 10:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > 'The two ugly sisters, "beziehungsweise" and "respectively", so often
> > > confused by translators, have this in common: They sound clumsy, and
> > > nearly always they are useless.
>
> > I think there are at least two mistakes in this statement by Mr Schoenfeld:
>
> > First, "beziehungsweise" isn't nearly as clumsy in German as
> > "respectively" might be in English, and second, the two words are often
> > confused by German *writers*, but not by German *translators*.
>
> > H(ans-)P(eter)
> ~~~~~~
> I tend to agree with you, but............
Athel Cornish-Bowden
places presents the author's ideas as if they were Schoenfeld's. For
example, it says:
'he offers persuasive arguments in Section 15.3 as to why the "American"
endings "-ize" and "-or" are etymologically more correct than their "Oxford"
counterparts "-ise" and "-our".'
However, Schoenfeld was perfectly well aware, and said in the Section
purportedly being summarized, that "-ize" is the spelling preferred by
Oxford University Press and its dictionaries. I suspect that the notion that
"-ise" is the preferred UK spelling is one of the distortions perpetrated
by a well known word processor distributed by micro$oft, but I don't use
it (and still less do I use its spelling checker), so I can't confirm this.
John Woodgate
<at...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote (in <9eb3add6.0402240431.68683bc7@posting
.google.com>) about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Tue, 24
Feb 2004:
>However, Schoenfeld was perfectly well aware, and said in the Section
>purportedly being summarized, that "-ize" is the spelling preferred by
>Oxford University Press and its dictionaries. I suspect that the notion
>that "-ise" is the preferred UK spelling is one of the distortions
>perpetrated by a well known word processor distributed by micro$oft,
Yes, 'perpetrated' is correct, but the 'ise' ending was invented by
British newspaper editors in the 1920s. I understand that Microsoft has
been informed of this, but refuses to either change its 'British
English' dictionary or, more constructively, give an option for choosing
either ending.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Michael West
> Yes, 'perpetrated' is correct, but the 'ise' ending was invented by
> British newspaper editors in the 1920s. I understand that Microsoft
> has been informed of this, but refuses to either change its 'British
> English' dictionary or, more constructively, give an option for
> choosing either ending.
Can you steer me to a source for that origin? I need frequently
to counter the charge that "-ize" is an example of American cultural
imperialism.
--
Michael West
Robert Bannister
> However, Schoenfeld was perfectly well aware, and said in the Section
> purportedly being summarized, that "-ize" is the spelling preferred by
> Oxford University Press and its dictionaries. I suspect that the notion that
> "-ise" is the preferred UK spelling is one of the distortions perpetrated
> by a well known word processor distributed by micro$oft, but I don't use
> it (and still less do I use its spelling checker), so I can't confirm this.
Despite the OUP's preferences, I think you'll find the majority of
British people, along with many outside the UK, still stick to -ise. You
can't blame everything on Microsoft.
--
Rob Bannister
Don Aitken
I don't think it can be right. Fowler, in the 1st edition of MEU,
while coming down firmly (following the OED) in the "ize" camp, says
that "most English printers" use "ise". He lists the exceptions as
OUP, CUP and The Times, of which the last two have since apostasized.
As an interesting example of conflict between authorities, Gowers,
while letting this stand in his revision of Fowler, comes down on the
other side in his own "Plain Words".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
John Woodgate
<mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote (in <diQ_b.74889$Wa.46606@news-
server.bigpond.net.au>) about 'Guide for German writers of English', on
Tue, 24 Feb 2004:
>Can you steer me to a source for that origin? I need frequently to
>counter the charge that "-ize" is an example of American cultural
>imperialism.
No, I can't give you a reference, sorry. A Google search on "-ise, -ize"
gave 316 hits, but I don't have time to follow them all up.
Alan Crozier
> I read in sci.lang.translation that Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <at...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote (in <9eb3add6.0402240431.68683bc7@posting
> .google.com>) about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Tue, 24
> Feb 2004:
> >However, Schoenfeld was perfectly well aware, and said in the Section
> >purportedly being summarized, that "-ize" is the spelling preferred by
> >Oxford University Press and its dictionaries. I suspect that the notion
> >that "-ise" is the preferred UK spelling is one of the distortions
> >perpetrated by a well known word processor distributed by micro$oft,
>
> Yes, 'perpetrated' is correct, but the 'ise' ending was invented by
> British newspaper editors in the 1920s.
Not invented. The 'ise' ending must surely have existed before the 1920s.
Many words with this ending must have entered English centuries ago via
French, where all such words are spelt 'iser', and would have retained the
's'. What you may mean is that British editors tried to achieve uniformity
in the chaos of inconsistent use of 'ise/ize' by declaring that 'ise' should
be used for all words regardless of etymology.
Alan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
Michael MacClancy
> "John Woodgate" <j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
> news:o59PoYBZ...@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
>> Yes, 'perpetrated' is correct, but the 'ise' ending was invented by
>> British newspaper editors in the 1920s.
>
> Not invented. The 'ise' ending must surely have existed before the 1920s.
> Many words with this ending must have entered English centuries ago via
> French, where all such words are spelt 'iser', and would have retained the
> 's'. What you may mean is that British editors tried to achieve uniformity
> in the chaos of inconsistent use of 'ise/ize' by declaring that 'ise' should
> be used for all words regardless of etymology.
>
See the following from http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/pub/writing
% -ise/-ize
% =========
% Both spellings are correct in British English.
%
% Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Fowler's Modern
% English Usage and American usage all favour "-ize", which is
% etymologically and phonetically more correct (for words derived from
% Greek words ending "-izein").
%
% "-Ise" is a more recent version inherited from French and is much more
% common. It is the convention in most British book and newspaper
% publishing. The Times converted overnight in the mid-1980s, at about
% the time two new broadsheets were founded (The Independent and The
% European), which have used -ise from the beginning.
%
% Using "-ise" avoids the need to learn the approximately 40 words, such
% as "advise", that are always spelled with "-ise", though these are
% mostly words which are not some root plus "-ise".
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the
stork." - Mae West
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
John Woodgate
<alan.c...@telia.com> wrote (in <NWZ_b.84035$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.n
et>) about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Wed, 25 Feb 2004:
>"John Woodgate" <j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
>news:o59PoYBZ...@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
>> I read in sci.lang.translation that Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <at...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote (in <9eb3add6.0402240431.68683bc7@posting
>> .google.com>) about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Tue, 24
>> Feb 2004:
>> >However, Schoenfeld was perfectly well aware, and said in the Section
>> >purportedly being summarized, that "-ize" is the spelling preferred by
>> >Oxford University Press and its dictionaries. I suspect that the notion
>> >that "-ise" is the preferred UK spelling is one of the distortions
>> >perpetrated by a well known word processor distributed by micro$oft,
>>
>> Yes, 'perpetrated' is correct, but the 'ise' ending was invented by
>> British newspaper editors in the 1920s.
>
>Not invented. The 'ise' ending must surely have existed before the
>1920s. Many words with this ending must have entered English centuries
>ago via French, where all such words are spelt 'iser', and would have
>retained the 's'.
In fact, there seem to be rather few of them that couldn't also
plausibly have come direct from Latin.
>What you may mean is that British editors tried to
>achieve uniformity in the chaos of inconsistent use of 'ise/ize' by
>declaring that 'ise' should be used for all words regardless of
>etymology.
You could put it that way, but 'invented' is correct where the '-ise'
ending was newly put on a word that previously was always '-ize'.
Michael MacClancy
>
> You could put it that way, but 'invented' is correct where the '-ise'
> ending was newly put on a word that previously was always '-ize'.
That's rather absolute, isn't it? Can you prove that they were previously
_always_ spelt 'ize'?
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever
they go." -Oscar Wilde
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
John Woodgate
<herzel...@o2.co.uk> wrote (in <tungequaxnar$.1b0qgcjtublfe$.dlg@40tu
de.net>) about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Wed, 25 Feb
2004:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:26:27 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:
>
>>
>> You could put it that way, but 'invented' is correct where the '-ise'
>> ending was newly put on a word that previously was always '-ize'.
>
>That's rather absolute, isn't it? Can you prove that they were
>previously _always_ spelt 'ize'?
Of course, but the proof would be very boring.
Michael MacClancy
> I read in sci.lang.translation that Michael MacClancy
> <herzel...@o2.co.uk> wrote (in <tungequaxnar$.1b0qgcjtublfe$.dlg@40tu
> de.net>) about 'Guide for German writers of English', on Wed, 25 Feb
> 2004:
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:26:27 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You could put it that way, but 'invented' is correct where the '-ise'
>>> ending was newly put on a word that previously was always '-ize'.
>>
>>That's rather absolute, isn't it? Can you prove that they were
>>previously _always_ spelt 'ize'?
>
> Of course, but the proof would be very boring.
I take it that's really a 'no'.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." - Billy Wilder
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
J.M.
>>Not invented. The 'ise' ending must surely have existed before the
>>1920s. Many words with this ending must have entered English centuries
>>ago via French, where all such words are spelt 'iser', and would have
>>retained the 's'.
>
> In fact, there seem to be rather few of them that couldn't also
> plausibly have come direct from Latin.
It's irrelevant whether or not it is plausible. The fact is that most of
these words came to English language *directly* from the French language
either because of the Norman conquest or because of the attraction France
has always exerted on her neighbors. Although it is true that these words
ultimately come from Latin, they came to English via the French language
with a distictive French flavour.
Jan
Tobias Ernst
> Weil "du mußt nicht" im Sinne von "du brauchst nicht" eine
> umgangssprachliche, saloppe Ausdrucksweise ist.
Umgangssprachlichlich ist es schon deshalb, weil es mit "Du" anfängt.
Vielleicht sollten wir das Problem an Beispielen im richtigen
Situationskontext diskutieren?
Fakt ist, daß in der deutschen Hochsprache "nicht müssen" das logische
Komplement von "müssen" ist (entweder ich muß - oder ich muß nicht,
binäre Frage), während das im Englischen nicht so ist. Fakt ist ferner,
daß "müssen" ein ganz normales deutsches Modalverb ist und ich nicht
sehe, warum seine Verneinung "stilistisch ungelenk" sein sollte.
Man könnte darüber diskutieren, ob in bestimmten Texttypen die
Verwendung von Modalverben ÜBERHAUPT stilistisch angebracht ist und
nicht eine echte Infinitivkonstruktion mit "zu" am Platze wäre. In der
technischen Dokumentation würde ich im Zweifel eine unpersönliche Anrede
à la "Es ist nicht notwendig, XXX zu tun" erwarten. "Sie brauchen nicht
..." fände ich hier nicht weniger unpassend als "Sie müssen nicht".
In normalen Kommunikationssituationen ist "brauchen + zu" möglicherweise
wegen des Infinitivs schöner als "müssen", aber auf jeden Fall ist
"müssen" richtig (im Unterschied zu "brauchen" ohne "zu"). Äquivalent
sind "nicht müssen" und "nicht zu ... brauchen" auf jeden Fall nicht:
??? Nein, Mami, ich brauche nicht aufs Klo zu gehen. ????
Gruß
Tobias
Helmut Richter
In article <c1m1sv$1kht69$1...@ID-67615.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tobias Ernst
wrote:
> Fakt ist, daß in der deutschen Hochsprache "nicht müssen" das logische
> Komplement von "müssen" ist (entweder ich muß - oder ich muß nicht,
> binäre Frage), während das im Englischen nicht so ist.
Anders ausgedrückt: Im Deutschen und Englischen sind die impliziten
Klammern woanders:
Du musst das nicht lesen. = (Du musst nicht) (das lesen).
You must not read that. = (You must) (not read that).
> [...]
> Äquivalent
> sind "nicht müssen" und "nicht zu ... brauchen" auf jeden Fall nicht:
>
> ??? Nein, Mami, ich brauche nicht aufs Klo zu gehen. ????
Hier hat "müssen" eine spezielle Bedeutung: schon "ich muss mal" ohne
Verb hätte gereicht.
Aber auch sonst hat "nicht brauchen" und "nicht müssen" eine etwas
unterschiedliche Anwendung. "Du musst nicht kommen" negiert explizit
die Erwartung, man müsse kommen, etwa:
Muss ich da kommen? - Nein, du musst nicht kommen, kannst aber, wenn
du möchtest.
"Du brauchst nicht zu kommen" hat meinem Sprachempfinden nach keine
solche implizite Erwartung. Andererseits hat es eine Nebenbedeutung
von Mühe, die sich einer nicht zu geben braucht, so dass der Satz
eines Mathematikers
x muss dabei nicht >0 sein.
passender klingt als das wenigstens mündlich durchaus übliche
x braucht dabei nicht >0 zu sein.
Das wäre ein Beispiel, wo "braucht nicht" im Gegensatz zu "muss nicht"
zur Umgangssprache gehört.
Helmut Richter