Language desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 21[edit]

Please translate the following German to English.[edit]

Hi, Man versetzte ihn dann als Chef des Stabes zum Marinebefehlshaber Westfrankreich

Can you please translate the above. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate says it means, "He was then appointed head of the staff of the naval commander in the province of Westphalia." Does that fit with the context where you're seeing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Chef des Stabes" would be Chief of Staff and "Westfrankreich" western France. So the whole sentence would be: He was then appointed chief of staff of the naval commander for western France. --Xuxl (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Google gave me Western France, not Westphalia. Not sure what happened when Bugs tried. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to figure. If I use the entire sentence, it comes back "Westphalia" but if I use Frankenreich by itself it comes back "France". I guess this kind of thing is why Google Translate is not considered terribly reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best approach, I'm sure you would agree, would have been to wait for an editor who has the relevant language skills to come along, rather than provide what you yourself acknowledge was a "not terribly reliable" translation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no indication that the OP had or not tried Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely beside the point. If you yourself consider Google Translate to be "not terribly reliable", why would you rush in to share whatever it came up with? Particularly given that you could not check it, not having any German language skills. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that. Google Translate usually is better than that, and it was pretty close to correct when I used it ("They then transferred him as chief of staff for Navy Commander West France"). So, it's a good "first pass" at a translation, with German experts later being able to refine the nuances it missed. Now, if a German expert had already answered, then I might agree that adding a machine translation wouldn't help much, at that point. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Westphalia???? Where does Google Translate get that from? The translation is something like "He was then transferred as chief of staff to the navy command(er) for Western France." I'm not very familiar with military terminology in either language, so you may want to cross-check the terms. --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Marinebefehlshaber" is Naval Command (not Commander). —Stephen (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, Befehlshaber is the person, the commander. It seems that, in military parlance, the personal form is used to refer to the command, though. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have came here is I've already used Bing and Google translate, and found them to be useless in this particular instance. I use them multiple times per day. I'm not looking for a google or bing translation when I come here. I'm hopefully looking to bump into a German, or German speaker who cam give me an excellent translation. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, thanks for your prompt response, and the help. Bing and Google are helpful for the majority of the time, and each has a particular use case and particular strengths. Without them I wouldn't be able to do the work, but for complex military terms, they are pretty useless. scope_creep (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When posting a translation Q, I suggest you include any translations you already have, and in what way you find them lacking. This will help us better tailor our responses. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seekers of translations may have better luck at wikt:Wiktionary:Translation requests. —Tamfang (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of the definite article[edit]

Suppose that a reporter talks about some specific negotiations, why is it correct to say, for instance, "we are just receiving reports that negotiations have been broken off" (instead of "... that the negotiations have been broken off)? After all, as stated before, he is referring to specific negotiations. So why don't we use the definite article here?--Cleph (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could, but it's pretty common to omit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Negotiations" are somewhat like "data", in that it's difficult to have just one (a datum). That is, wherever there are negotiations, there are likely multiple items being discussed, and whether you considered the discussion of each item under consideration to be a negotiation on it's own, or merely part of the overall negotiation, is just semantics. StuRat (talk)

@StuRat: I guess I see your point. However, we are still assuming that the reporter is not talking about negotiations in general, but particular (known) negotiations (e. g. between a trade union and a company). So, from a logical perspective, there would still be an indication to actually use the definite article here to my mind. And I'm still wondering why it is rather omitted instead in cases like these (similar with sentences using expressions like proceedings, hearings, talks, but also with singular constructions like here!). Isn't there a rule to that?--Cleph (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret the structure as referring to "some" negotiations/hearings etc. The fuzziness of what exactly "a negotiation" is is relevant in that one can't clearly say whether the negotiations which have already happened are the same as the ones which are continuing, or other negotiations. So whether they are specific or not is indeterminate, and the article is optional. Henry ^Flower 13:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Henry Flower: Thank you, but why exactly are you referring to "a negotiation" (singular) here? I'd say we don't need to consider the singular form here to make it specific.--Cleph (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sturat mentioned it. I think his point is relevant to the indeterminate nature of the negotiations. Henry ^Flower 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I do get about Sturat's post is the first sentence. Yet, I'm not exactly sure about why he then comes up with speaking of "each item" etc. This is probably a bit too "hair-splitting" if you ask me since, as I recall, our reporter is dealing with specific negotiations between A and B – whatever their details may be! Hence, even if the subjects of these specific negotiations change, the latter will still remain clearly defined as negotiations between A and B taking place at a certain time, place etc., won't they? Besides, regarding his sentiment that each item is "merely part of the overall negotiation", this also argues for applying the article (though again he uses the singular here), right?--Cleph (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the singular/plural bit is a red herring. English uses the plurals "negotiations" and "talks" in the abstract in the same way as the singular "contact". We would say "contact has been broken off" without a definite article, and similarly "negotiations have been broken off" and "talks have been broken off" without needing "the", though it would also be correct to include the definite article to emphasise that specific negotiations are meant. Dbfirs 19:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The plural/singular difference matters here because we can either be talking about one specific item, where "the" would normally be appropriate, or a more general (plural) group of items, where it doesn't. For example, we would say we are "going to the meeting today", if there's only one, or "going to meetings today", if there are several and you aren't referring to any specific set. However, if you are referring to a specific set, then "going to the Standards Committee meetings" would be right, or you could omit "the", if only attending some of them. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point you are making, but "negotiation" has been used in the singular "without determiner" according to the OED since 1614. Dbfirs 23:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: I may resume once more the Google Books example linked above: "Graduation will take place on..." Why no article here?--Cleph (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The graduation..." would mean a single, specific person's graduation ceremony. You could say "The graduation ceremony...", since that refers to them all collectively as a single, specific event. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but would't e. g. "Graduation takes place on October 26th" refer to a single, specific event, too?--Cleph (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, when you omit "ceremony" it seems to default to talking about an individual person's graduation. Not sure why, but it does. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humph. I guess I have to object once more, since the wording you chose before ("refers to them all collectively as a single, specific event") does not imply that it has to be an individual person's graduation! You seem to be heading towards the same line of argument as with the "negotiation" example, which I found similarly awkward to tell the truth...--Cleph (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to clarify. "The" is normally used when referring to a specific event or individual, not any one of a number of similar events or individuals. So, I would say "I'm going to a concert" not "the concert", unless we had previously discussed which concert I am going to, in which case I would be referring to that specific concert, not one in general. Now, this is closely related to the concepts of plural and singular. If there's only one such event, then I must be referring to that specific one, and "the" is appropriate. For example "I was at the Hindenburg disaster". But, if there are multiple such events, like concerts, then I might refer to a specific one or not. A complicating factor is that many plural items can be grouped together as one singular item. So, "I went to see the dog" would refer to a specific dog, while "I went to see a dog" means any dog, and "I went to see a pack of dogs" means any pack, while "I went to see the pack of dogs" again refers to a specific pack. And this is all about US English. UK English may differ. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German Africa Prize[edit]

I'm about to start creating a draft article about the "German Africa Prize". The article at de:WP uses three different spellings: "Deutscher Afrika-Preis", "Deutschen Afrika-Preis" and "Deutsche Afrika-Preis". It looks like that article needs to be fixed, but which spelling is correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are all correct, they're just in different grammatical cases. For use in an English article use the form "Deutscher Afrika-Preis". --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right, the German article needs fixing... --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wrongfilter, I might be back later to get the translation checked, but not today, it's bedtime for me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Wrongfilter (or anyone else fluent in German) please check my draft for translation errors: Draft:German Africa Prize, German WP source article. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]