| Übersetzungsforum Englisch-Polnisch | Page 2 of 2 >> |
Polish-English Translation ForumThis is the place to post your translation requests in English or Polish and to help others with your skills and knowledge. Important: Always give the context of your enquiry! | | Search | Guidelines | New Question |
Term: | FYI: Guideline 18 changed yesterday, as announced in previous thread. | » answer |
I'm just re-posting this to make sure it gets seen by everyone! See also #610105 After some discussion by e-mail we changed the guidelines and the standard abbreviations. The GL text is now as follows: For clarity, the case used with prepositions and verbs should be indicated with the corresponding inflections of kimś and coś and case tags, using pre-programmed tags (e.g. kogoś/coś [acc.] or kogoś [gen.]). If a verb can be used with both direct and indirect objects, both cases should be indicated in the correct or usual order (e.g. dać komuś [dat.] coś [acc.]). | ||
Term: | Irregular plurals | » answer |
This has been on my mind for a long time. Polish nouns are sometimes treated in the plural in ways that drive a non-native speaker crazy trying to look up the original form in a dictionary. If you came across a word such as "mężowie" without knowing it beforehand, you might never think that what you should be looking for is "mąż". I therefore propose that we should henceforth consider making separate entries for nouns that change not only their endings but also an internal vowel or a final consonant, particularly if it is a fairly short word with the change close to the beginning. This would not entail re-opening old entries, and it would not be obligatory, it just adds another option. There are some sites where perfectly regular and obvious plurals are being entered massively, particlarly EN-NL, and Paul... » show full text | ||
Answer: | Yes, feel free to add plural noun translations (see also GL section 6)! | #611637 |
Translation entries don't have anything to do with inflection entries, contribute-wise. Only when a user searches for a word, the dict.cc search results page combines both types of entries into one page to present all the information currently useful to the user. So, if you enter "mężowie" and the English counterpart in the translation section of dict.cc, this will not interfere with the inflections in any way. | ||
Term: | Case after verbs and pronouns | » answer |
I thought that we had decided that, because Accusative and Genitive are not the same across all genders, we would use [+ acc.] and [+gen.], instead of form often used in dictionaries, i.e. "kogoś". They would certainly be more helpful to non-native Polish speakers. Similar case with "kimś". I don't think that this is explicit in the Guidelines, but they are the forms pre-programmed on the site. Can we settle this before the matter gets out of hand? To change the form we have been using would entail a dreadful amount of work on old entries, and would make dict less useful. If it is decided to use "kogoś" and "kimś", I think that the case should be stated in addition, because it is needed. | ||
Answer: | RE: Case after verbs and pronouns | #610107 |
I totally agree with Barbara. It doesn't make sense to non-native Polish speakers to see an entry e.g. "pocałować". With such an entry, the person is able to translate something from Polish to English, but not the other way round. | ||
Answer: | Agree, | #611425 |
the argument is right; and we've (at least kinda) standardized the [+ acc.] etc. forms... So if everyone agrees - we could include the preference for these forms over kogoś etc. into the guidelines!! | ||
Answer: | Guideline section added to the bottom of the GL page! | #611632 |
For clarity, the case used with prepositions and verbs should be indicated with the corresponding case tags ([+acc.], [+gen.]), rather than with inflections of kimś and coś. If a verb can be used with both direct and indirect objects, both cases should be indicated in the correct or usual order (e.g. dać [+dat.] [+acc.] instead of dać komuś coś). | ||
Answer: | Guidelines changed! | #614366 |
After some discussion by e-mail we changed the guidelines and the standard abbreviations. The GL text is now as follows: For clarity, the case used with prepositions and verbs should be indicated with the corresponding inflections of kimś and coś and case tags, using pre-programmed tags (e.g. kogoś/coś [acc.] or kogoś [gen.]). If a verb can be used with both direct and indirect objects, both cases should be indicated in the correct or usual order (e.g. dać komuś [dat.] coś [acc.]). I hope this way it'll work out! | ||
Term: | New Guideline | » answer |
I should like to initiate a discussion on how we should handle the addition to GL 8 regarding transitive and instransitive verbs. In brief, my current thoughts on the matter: As it is not obligatgory to mark intransitive verbs with [intrans.], I think that we should ignore this. Polish verb sites look cluttered enough even without it. However, this means that we need to become very conscientious about indicating the transitive verbs in some way. Transitive verbs: I think that it would be in accordance with the spirit of the instructions to continue to place [dok.] and [niedok.] at the end of the line. How shall we handle the transitive verbs? [trans.] is not used, but it should be indicated that the verb is in fact transitive by showing sth. or sb., with the equivalent in Polish, OR by providing an actual... » show full text | ||
Answer: | transitive verbs | #604206 |
by khasara, 2011-06-21, 14:23 Spam? 178.1.61... why call them trans.or intrans.or dok. or whatever when they are called in Polish przechodnie and nieprzechodnie? | ||
Answer: | Terms | #604218 |
The dok. / niedok. decision was made nearly two years ago. Those are the Polish terms. The trans. / intrans. was discussed at length on other sites and decided ages ago. On EN-PL, those of use who have been doing the greater part of the work since the site was founded decided that for Polish it was better to indicate that a verb was transitive by giving an example showing the case used, and that it was not necessary to indicate intransitive verbs, as there were already enough problems with Polish verbs. Most non-native speakers of Polish would not have a clue what was meant by "przechodni" etc, and the native speakers probably would not need to be told. | ||
Term: | serious translation needed | » answer |
by MIKEXR, 2010-11-05, 22:37 Spam? 67.170.140... JAN: Basiu po twoim wyjezdzie okazlo sie ze jestem w ciąży. Nie wiedzialem jak Ci o tym powiedzieć. Pisze do Ciebie bo przecież nasze dziecko musi miec oboje rodziców. Mike już wie Czesć Co u ciebie jak tm nowa praca Pozdrawiamy Ja i ono BASIA: Nie!!! Jak moglo do tego dojsc? przeciez bylismy ostrozni! Kurcze, Jan, chyba bedziesz je musial sam wychowac...jedyna co moge zaoferowac, to wsparcie duchowe...wiesz, ze w tej kwestii zawsze mozesz na mnie liczyc U mnie wszystko w porzadku uwielbiam moja nowa prace Lekarz super, bardzo jest ze mnie zadowolony i codziennie mowi mi, ze swietnie mu sie ze mna pracuje wiec, dobrze jest A co u ciebie? Pewnie cie teraz ciagnie do ogorkow kiszonych i sledzikow... Pozdrawiam serdecznie, buziaki w zderzaki!! !Basia ♥ --- I need this into english if possible?? | ||
Answer: | Sorry. | #553941 |
1. This Forum site is so little used that you are not likely to get an answer for months. 2. Sorry; my Polish is not good enough to help you. 3. The general rule is that you make an attempt at translation yourself, no matter how poor the result is. (And preferably better than an automatic goodle translation; these are usually pathetic.) 4. If you register as a contributor, you will be able to make direct contact with contributors who might be able to help you. But we are all busy with our own lives, and you might not get all that much help. (I accessed the site today only because I pressed the wrong button.) | ||
Term: | bycie sobą; poznanie | » answer |
by Monade, 2010-08-24, 21:04 Spam? 80.171.10... prosilabym o przetłumaczenie: - bycie sobą - poznanie, np. w zdaniu: mogę ci przekazać moją wiedze, ale nie moje przeznanie. Dziekuję z góry! | ||
Term: | lekkie obudowy | » answer |
This is something Pemug SA lists in the breakdown of its revenues. It very probably relates to construction and possibly to steel and/or some sort of facade. Any suggestions? Lightweight facades? | ||
Term: | Floods | » answer |
Let us all spare a thought for our Polish colleagues who may be affected by the floods. | ||
Term: | OED and English spelling | » answer |
Some of you may be well ahead of me, but I have only just found this site. Wikipedia(EN): Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling) It lists common spelling variants for words, and shows that the standard advocated by the Oxford English Dictionary is often NOT the standard adopted by The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian and the BBC publications. In other words, the major British media and publishers reject the OED as being too American and not current best practice. Food for thought. This was meant to go into the EN-DE forum, but I got lost, so I'll leave it here as well. | ||
Answer: | My experience of school in Britain | #520305 |
is that I got taught the variants commonly used in the newspapers rather than the variant in the OED. Finding what the OED considered the main spelling occasionally came as rather a shock as a consequence. | ||
Term: | 19th Century "é" = 20th Century "y" and/or "e" ? | » answer |
For example, from a 1879 work, DE REBUS AC STATU DUCATUS PRUSSIAE TEMPORE ALBERTI SENIORIS, MARCHIONIS BRANDEBURGENSIS, ILLO VERO MORTUO ALBERTI JUNIORIS DUCAS PRUSSIAE AN. 1566-1568. : Przedstawienia stanów nie odniosły spodziewanego skutku. Albrecht dal im ostrą odprawę. Pobór jednak uchwalono. W kilka lat późniéj stany, dbając o czystość wyznania według formuły augsburskiéj, znów śmieléj wystąpiły do księcia z prośbą o przywrócenie dawnéj ustawy kościelnéj. Było to w końcu r. 1562. Zatarg między Albrechtem a stanami z powodu spraw kościelnych jątrzéć się poczynał. But Microsoft Word spell-check, GoogleTranslate, and dictionaries can't interpret the "é". Does it change any of the meaning if I change all of the "é" to "y" or "e"? Thanks. | ||
Answer: | é should be e in this text. | #514125 |
except in jątrzéć, which I think should jątrzyć | ||
Term: | ? | » answer |
anonymous, 2010-03-05, 19:10 Spam? 89.104.1.... ? | ||
Term: | Comparative/Superlative for adjective inflections | » answer |
Hi people! I was going through Polish inflections this morning and wasn't quite sure on how we should treat comparatives of adjectives like optymistyczny? Apparently, the form optymisticznejszy does exist but, according to one native expert I spoke to this morning, is almost never used (and gives way to bardziej optymisticzny.) The same applies for cudowny vs. cudownejszy, for example, or okropny vs. - I guess - okropnejszy (I couldn't find a single Google result that actually used the word.) How would you go about handling these forms? My proposal is that we use the "|| - | -" only to indicate that there are no comparative and superlative forms, and in other cases just list the four positive forms and then, if there is any actual use thereof which could be interesting to the average dictionary user, the -szy comparative and superlaive. If not, than not. (I wouldn't list the "bardziej" + positive forms in the inflections bar, as they can be easily looked up by looking up the meaning of bardziej and of the adjective in the positive.) Are you fine with this? All suggestions welcome. Pozdrowienia, muhamed | ||
Answer: | That sounds about right to me. | #499335 |
It's not completely ideal for people trying to learn Polish, but the inflections bar is actually too small to cope with the issues of Polish inflections anyhow, so this is no worse than what happens with nouns. | ||
Term: | wpięcie | » answer |
Does anyone know what wpięcie means? I found it in the sentence: Powszechne stają się kamery umożliwiające bezpośrednie wpięcie w sieć Grupy. Cameras have become widespread, allowing direct ??? in(to?) the Group's network. | ||
Answer: | wpięcie | #497609 |
by mieczj, 2010-02-20, 09:58 Spam? 83.8.61.... "wpięcie" is noun from verb "stick", probably also "stick"(?) | ||
Answer: | Thank you | #497673 |
Answer: | connection | #498696 |
by www.tetfa.com, 2010-02-23, 12:06 Spam? 94.127.109.... You can not stick a camera into a networt, you can just connect it to the network. | ||
Answer: | That was what I'd hoped. | #498703 |
I did it as connection. Ta for that. | ||
Term: | Words that have two word classes in one language only | » answer |
What do we do if a word has two word classes in one language, but only one in the other? For instance od - since. You can use since as either a conjunction or a preposition, but to my knowledge (and assuming I have understood Word Reference correctly) http://www.wordreference.com/plen/od , od can only be used as a preposition. As there is no option to label one side of the entry with one word class and the other with another, what do we do? Should we label the entry od - since [prep.] [conj.], or should we label it just [prep.]? To add to the confusion, word reference does translate the conjunction since with the preposition od, however the example it gives to do this, in my view uses the "since" as a preposition, not a conjunction. Using Google translate, I'd guess that the correct translation of since as a conjunction is od kiedy, so, assuming this is correct,should the entries in fact be: od [prep] since od kiedy [conj.] since ? | ||
Answer: | Word classes | #478995 |
Hi Laura! My view on this is that the word class field should simply include all possible word classes that a word can have in the meaning to which the translation pair refers to. We should simply list all the correct word classes in the word class field separated by a single space (examples: conj prep, adj past-p, etc.). If one of the word classes can be inflected, than it should be listed first (as this helps the inflections function). There seems to be a lot of confusion on conjunctions versus prepositions versus adverbs depending on where you look and whom you ask, and IMHO this isn't such an important issue. (On this note: distinguishing word classes really does matter - as in, well, all other dictionaries - when, for example, you take the English word beat. beat {verb} is Polish bić; beat {noun}... » show full text | ||
Answer: | Hmmm | #478998 |
I'm not sure I understand what you want. Just to check, although beat can be a noun and a verb in English, you wouldn't want the entry: beat [noun] [verb] bić or alternatively the entry since [conj] [prep] seitdem (seitdem being a conjunction, but not a preposition, but since being usable as either). Or is this precisely what you want? I'm not clear from your answer. There is only one place I have been able to find od listed aas a conjunction, and that's in the Google Translate dictionary: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate_t?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&te... but here it means than. So, although since and od can potentially both be used as conjunctions, as conjunctions they are not translations of each other (assuming Google Translate is correct on this). I will try and check this out with some native speakers. | ||
Answer: | #479014 | |
Yes, that kind of is what I would want to say, but I'm afraid this may become a long and rather boring answer if I explain in detail - sorry for making it such a sausage. "Beat" as a noun cannot mean "bić" in Polish, so that the first entry you propose is exactly what we shouldn't have in the dictionary. But taking German and English as an example, "seit" and "since" can both be a conjunction and a preposition in the same meaning - which is why their word class is simply entered as prep conj. Same goes, for example, for word pairs where the adjective and adverb forms are the same (then adj adv), and so on. That's kinda what I wanted to say - having two word classes listed, if they're both corrected, is completely OK. On a more complicated note: if "od" can be used as a preposition there where the... » show full text | ||
Answer: | Thanks, | #479016 |
I think I understand. I too like Google Translate. Despite its many flaws, it's the best automatic translator out there that I know of and a handy tool if you add it to some existing language knowledge. | ||
Answer: | Problems | #479088 |
Nie miała baba kłopotu, kupiła się prosię. (Or something like that.) Laura, I'm lost after the first two or three sentences. | ||
Answer: | I asked Agnieszka | #479094 |
who looked it up. Od is defintely just a preposition. I think that therefore the appropriate entry is since [prep] od. Since as a temporal conjunction (e.g. since I moved house...) is going to need another entry. | ||
Answer: | Here's an interesting one | #479098 |
word reference agrees that od can be used as a conjunction, but it doesn't mean since, it really does mean than: http://www.wordreference.com/plen/od so definitely putting conj in the since - od entry would be confusing and likely to lead to wrong assumptions. | ||
Term: | Progress Report | » answer |
I have been promising for a week or two – ever since we reached the 3 000 verified votes mark - to put a “state of the nation” letter on the EN-PL forum, but I was working too hard to concentrate on it. First, I should like to say that I had no authority to tell people what to do with their entries and votes. However, I could see that there was going to be dreadful trouble ahead if the number of entries was allowed to increase at too fast a rate before the contributors had managed to build up enough voting power to verify votes almost as quickly as they were made. Since I had no authority, I should like to thank our small group of contributors for their splendid voluntary cooperation, which has had the result that the EN-PL site is the only one where the English site is on a higher percentage rating that the... » show full text | ||
Chat: | Thanks, Catesse! | #478997 |
Term: | Pronouns | » answer |
With pronouns that aren't in the nominative (like "me" in English or "go" or "mnie" in Polish), are we supposed to be entering these all individually in dict.cc or will the inflections bar handle this? If we are supposed to be entering them separately, can I propose we adopt one of the following 2 format options: go [acc.] [gen.] him or, entering them separately as: go [acc.] him go [gen.] him Without the case data, I think the Polish side would be entirely useless to non-native speakers. Maybe we also need extra data on the English side. For instance him [direct or indirect object], although I think the English side might be less confusing without. I suggest that we don't mark nominatives at all (unless a pronoun covers a nominative and another case), as it can be assumed that individual nouns in the dictionary are in the nominative unless part of a phrase or unless specified otherwise. | ||
Answer: | pronouns | #477979 |
Hi Laura! We should indeed create entries for pronoun forms outside of the nominative case, as it is beyond the scope of the inflections bar to handle the whole variety of grammatically possible forms. I believe that your first suggestion - with an indication of all Polish cases to which the form corresponds on the Polish side and no additional information on the English side; apart from the major potential for confusion which you're right about, the indication of the case on the Polish side is in itself the most important practical and useful information for people learning the language. | ||
Answer: | Thanks | #477987 |
Term: | Plurals | » answer |
(Comment made below before I was able to access to CONTR. category) I've seen a few Polish plurals tagged [plurale tantum], i.e. noun that only exists in the plural. Are we using this tag? Also, these words tend to have been marked {m. pl.} to indicate the underlying tense (which is important to know when using the word). I agree that this information ought to be presented, but I would like to know if this is the preferred form for doing so before I vote in favour of these entries. | ||
Answer: | Laura: new tags | #468719 |
Please do note that, after a series of discussions in various new languages and with some of the Polish contributors, we have new added plural tags for each of the genders - you can find these in the guideline section. Entries tagged {m}{pl} or merely {pl} should therefore be updated. The [plurale tantum] is, just like the [dual], a manually entered tag, which can be used, but has to be entered manually. AFAIK the technical Polish term for plurale tantum is - surprise surprise - plurale tantum, and it includes some words you wouldn't expect to include (say, Helsinki - which is weirdly plural in Polish), so I'm personally in favor of using the tag :) | ||
Answer: | Ta | #468720 |
Oh yes, just spotted {m.pl} etc. Useful. (If only Polish adopted German's nice simple approach to the plural - honestly, until I learnt Polish, I never thought I'd find myself describing German grammar as simple). | ||
Term: | CONTR. Polish Plurals | » answer |
4;Paul, my drop down menu for forum category doesn't have a CONTR for Polish, so I'm having to use CHAT. Back on plurals: I've seen a few Polish plurals tagged [plurale tantum], i.e. noun that only exists in the plural. Are we using this tag? Also, these words tend to have been marked {m. pl.} to indicate the underlying tense (which is important to know when using the word). I agree that this information ought to be presented, but I would like to know if this is the preferred form for doing so before I vote in favour of these entries. | ||
Chat: | Laura: It should have one as soon as you've submitted 10 votes. | #468716 |
It might help to reload the page. | ||
This translation forum contains 28 questions and 76 translations (= 104 entries).
Please report spam using the link next to the date information of an entry!
Please report spam using the link next to the date information of an entry!
| back to top | home | © 2002 - 2012 Paul Hemetsberger | contact |
Polish-English online dictionary (Słownik polsko-angielski) developed to help you share your knowledge with others. More information!
Links to this dictionary or to single translations are very welcome! Questions and Answers
Links to this dictionary or to single translations are very welcome! Questions and Answers