LL-L "Language use" 2003.05.11 (06) [D/E]

Sun May 11 18:49:11 UTC 2003

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 11.May.2003 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: "Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc." <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language use" 2003.05.07 (07) [LS]

> From: Friedrich-Wilhelm Neumann" <Friedrich-Wilhelm.Neumann at epost.d
> Subject: Administratives
> Is joo ook commood, allens opp Ingelt tau schrieven!

> From: Ansgar Fehnker <ansgar at ece.cmu.edu>
> Subject: LL-L "Language use" 2003.05.08 (07) [D/E/Danish]
> Kijk, ik vindt het over het algemeen geen enkel probleem over mijn eigen
onderwerp in het Nederlands of Duits te praten, maar dan vooral omdat ik
ook in technisch Nederlands/Duits heb geleerd. En het kan ook, want de
ander weet waar ik het over heb, omdat ie dezelfde achtergrond heeft
genoten, tenminste dat hoop je. Als ik ik de gelegenheid ertoe heb vindt
ik het zelf erg aangenaam om het er eens niet in het Engels over te
moeten praten.
> Maar dat is toch iets anders om het in het plat Teglings uit te moeten
leggen. Al om niet-technisch Nederlands/Duits te moeten gebruiken is
soms al moeilijk.

Versjillende onder os sjrève in het Eengels om dör zoevuil mögelek minse
van
de lès fersteun te wjonne ën en konversaose in gank te krège.

Some of us, including myself, obviously write or try to write in English
for
assuring to be read and understood by all members of the list and
opening or
participating at a broad discussion.

Concerning technical terminology it is even more difficult, I think,
since
technical vocabulary penetrated differently in our dialects, e.g. for
South-West Limburgish (Vliermaal):

- agriculture (14th-20th century): klitsjeei, Walloon: klitchet Dutch:
kipkar

- car (20th century): ambréjaasj, French: embrayage; Dutch: koppeling

I'm sure East-Limburgish in the Netherlands has a quite different
vocabulary
for these terms.

I'm not a linguist but an engineer, and in this little country (Belgium)
and
its surroundings, one always has to do with translating. As a matter of
fact, my first job after I left Leuven university in the early seventies
was
translating technical standards from Framatome (about nuclear plant
facilities) from French into German in Essen (Germany) for the
"Babcock-Persta Armaturenvertriebsgesellschaft".

I think technical translation is a very difficult job since the scope of
content of a word, as given as translation in dictionaries, is not
always
the same in the different languages.

For some areas of technology standardization bodies issue translation
help
in pictural form, and this is very helpful, as e.g. the

Multilingual Glossary of Components of Valves
1967, Brussels, Comité Européen de l'Industrie de la Robinetterie
(English / French / German / Italian / Swedish)

A sample: below the picture of Section 4 Nr 3
"Ordinary Safety Valve (Lever and weight loaded)" etc
we find, for position 380 on this drawing,:
E: Fulcrum fork
F: Chape
G: Gelenkgabel
I: Forcella
S: Bygelskruv

This type of dictionaries is obviously very helpful. These dictionaries
unfortunately are often extremely expensive, printed in small
quantities,
and often not followed by reprints or by updates.

However, when one does not have specific vocabulary lists for an area of
technomogy, one has to help onself with general things.

What I generally use for the 4 basic languages frequently used in our
little
kingdom:

1. Basics in the language itself;

For Dutch: Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse taal, Plusversie
1.0
(version on CD-ROM ISBN 90-6648-460-8)

For French: Le Petit Larousse 2003 (version on CD-ROM barcode
3-348542-163638)

For English: the old little: Hornby, Advanced learners dictionary of
current
English, London, OUP, 1974, xxvii + 1055 pp;

For German: a 6 volume version of 1981 (still in old orthography) of
"Duden,
das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", 2992 pp.

2. Dictionaries Dutch-Foreign language:

Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Nederlands-Engels Engels-Nederlands (1997,
Windows 95 version on CD-ROM ISBN 90-6648-5337)
(replaces my big size paper version of 1991 in 2 vols, of 1691 and 1652
pp.)

Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Nederlands-Duits Duits-Nederlands (1997,
Windows
95 version on CD-ROM ISBN 90-6648-5515 )

Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Nederlands-Frans Frans-Nederlands (1997,
Windows
95 version on CD-ROM ISBN 90-6648-5426)

I had troubles with installing them under Windows 2000 and Windows XP
and
needed some patches. Now there is apparently a new version in the shop,
that
can be installed without patches, for as long as Windows XP is not
upgraded
or replaced.

How ever voluminous these dictionaries are, they are not suitable for
technical translations.

3. Technical dictionaries Dutch-Foreign language:

Though there are also (expensive) CD-ROM versions of these dictionaries,
I
bought the paper volumes for being able to continue using them after a
new
Windows upgrade:
The paper volumes cost about 225 Euro for each set of 2 vols.

Kluwer Groot Polytechnisch Woordenboek (set ISBN 90-201-2986-4)
Nederlands-Engels (sep. ISBN 90-201-2984-8), xix +988 pp + appendix
Engels-Nederlands (sep. ISBN 90-201-2985-6), xix + 1021 pp. + appendix
2d revised print 1997, reprint 2000

Kluwer Groot Polytechnisch Woordenboek (set ISBN 90-201-3009-9)
Nederlands-Frans (sep. ISBN 90-201-2329-7), xix + 952 pp + appendix
Frans-Nederlands (sep. ISBN 90-201-2330-0), xix + 806 pp. + appendix
1th print, March 2002

Kluwer Groot Polytechnisch Woordenboek (set ISBN 90-201-2886-8)
Nederlands-Duits (sep. ISBN 90-201-2331-9), xix +982 pp + appendix
Duits-Nederlands (sep. ISBN 90-201-2332-7), xviii + 937 pp. + appendix
1th print May-June 1996

Even these are too general, and too limited in content, when one has to
dig
into a particular area of technology.

4. Pictured dictionaries

It is often helpful to have a picture of the object with the correct
names
of all details arrow-linked to the picture.

For French a reference may be:

Jean-Claude Corbell & Ariane Archambault, Le Dictionnaire visuel, 2002,
Paris, La Martinière, barcode 9-782732-428994, a large size thick paper
heavyweight, of  950 pp., a French version of a Quebec original (QA
International, Montreal)

Unfortunately the scope is too broad for getting sufficient detailed
information on a particular technical subject. Logistics e.g. is limited
to
some outbound transportation terminology.

Other pictured dictionaries I know are still narrower in scope.

5. Professional dictionaries.

Where they exist, they may be helpful.

For French there has been recently published a dictionary with some
vocabulary proper to centain professions:
Pierre Perret, Le parler des métiers, dictionnaire thématique alphabétique,
2002, Paris, Robert Laffont, ISBN 2-221-09644-4, 1175 pp

However, there are just a few pages for each profession, e.g. pp.
989-994
for road transportation, and further the content, to a large extent, is
slang I preferably would not use this in translations which have to
serve as
official instructions (but I would eventually use it in oral training
sessions), some examples:
Appuyer sur la chanterelle:   Accélérer
Aquarium:    car, bus
Belle-mère:    remorque auxiliaire d'un camion
Bonbonne:    camion-citerne
La Poubelle:   Paris
Tirelire:    Péage.
Etc. etc.

6. What's left.

I like visiting expositions in the area and collect catalogues in
different
languages. When I have to translate, I put similar catalogues in
different
languages side by side, find the same product in both catalogues, …

But also here, French French is not always the same as Belgian French,
Dutch
Dutch is not always the same as Belgian Dutch…

Is the range of vehicles covered by US English "truck" completely
coinciding
with the range covered by UK English "lorry"?

A clue is often: when it is difficult to find the proper word for a
translator, it may be as difficult to find the proper word by native
people
themselves, and it's worthwhile to find out how they help themselves.

Lesson one in a booklet in French French for helping people to prepare
themselves for their drivers license exam is learning vocabulary:

Some samples:
"French people's French" - "French government's French"
Vocabulaire courant - Vocabulaire officiel

Bord de la route - accotement
Rond-point - carrefour à sens giratoire
Codes - feux de croisement
Warning - feux de détresse
Veilleuses - feux de position
Plein phares - feux de route

Quoted from " 2003 - Nouvel Examin - Code Rousseau de la route,  Paris,
Codes Rousseau, ISBN 2-7095-0739-0, 272 pp. "

When crosschecking in Belgian French manuals, for the little list above,
generally the French French "vocabulaire officiel" of above is used,
except
for "Rond-point" which is maintained, and for "Warning - feux de détr
esse"
one uses simply the "quatre clignotants"
Cf. e.g. "Institut Belge pour la sécurité routière, Manuel de formation à la
conduite - Permis de conduire B", Louvain, Garant Editeurs, 2e tirage
2000,
ISBN 90-5350-767-1, 224 pp.

So when translating into French one has to decide for what public one
translates:
- Belgian, French, Swiss, Quebec…
- People's level or official level

7. Practically.

For the moment I'm preparing safety instructions for the start-up of a
new
facility just South of Brussels, with a mixed language public.

My key help and acid test is a fork-lift driver from Frameries, a
Walloon
town close to the French border.

For the Dutch "flauwvallen" I would use my school French "s'évanouir".
But
that's not the people's language. More appealing is "tomber dans les
pommes"
.
For the Anglo-Saxons "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", for the
French
though "falling in the apples" means "fall in a faint".
Comment: Van Dale has in Dutch:
Appelflauwte […], 1646 een zo geringe bezwijming dat men eruit bijkomt
door
het eten van een appel.
No etymological reference is made to the French "pommes" used in a
similar
context.

Regards,

Roger

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================