Alle Sprachen    |   EN   SV   IS   RU   IT   FR   RO   PT   HU   LA   NL   SK   ES   HR   BG   FI   NO   CS   DA   TR   PL   SR   EL   EO   |   SK   HU   FR   PL   NL   SQ   RU   NO   ES   SV   IT   DA   CS   PT   HR   RO   |   more ...

Tysk-dansk ordbog

BETA Online-Wörterbuch Deutsch-Dänisch: Begriff hier eingeben!
  Optionen | Tipps | FAQ | Abkürzungen | Desktop

Übersetzungsforum Dänisch-DeutschSeite 2 von 6   <<  >>
Types of entries to display:     Linguistic Help Needed   Chat and Other Topics   Dictionary and Contribute!  

German-Danish Translation Forum

Hier kannst du Fragen zu Übersetzungen stellen (auf Dänisch oder Deutsch) und anderen Benutzern weiterhelfen. Wichtig: Bitte gib den Kontext deiner Frage an!
| Suche | Richtlinien | Neue Frage stellen
Tenses of nouns in Danish » antworten
von madshk (DK), 2009-07-31, 12:11  Spam?  
There are a couple of entries and corrections like this in the database: ("rygsølje" elaborated with the definite tense)

Actually, I would say that words ending in "e" where you add "-n" or "-t" in the definite tense are perfectly intuitive and "regular" and therefore do not need the definite tense spelled out. But you could probably find exceptions.

Apparently (I'm not an expert) there are no official "regular nouns" in Danish and many words are "regular" in the singular tense but "irregular" in plural. So perhaps it would be an idea to adopt most Danish dictionaries' way of including several tenses of any noun, most often abbreviated. Translated into the way of listing things this would come to something like:

rygsøjle {fk} [-n, -r., -rne]
» vollständigen Text anzeigen
Looks good. Full words are preferred.  #450295
von Paul (AT), 2009-07-31, 12:22  Spam?  
Only full words can be searched for, so the third form would be best. However, if this would lead to very long entries (entries that take two lines or more within the search results pages), it can also be counterproductive.
If more than 5% (or max. 10%) of the entries would take more than one line, I would opt for the short form (non-searchable inflections). What do you think? Would this be the case?
Alternatives  #450300
von sesc (DE/SE), Last modified: 2009-07-31, 12:53  Spam?  
Just as an idea: I think in principle you could make the search work for Nordic definite noun forms that are not specified (in length), by adding some checks and correspondingly building an extended query like e.g. this(assuming MySQL - which I happen to be familiar with - on your backend):
$querystr = "SELECT * FROM daen WHERE da LIKE '%{$term}%' ";
if (strcmp(substr($term, -1), 't')) { // user might be looking for a def. intetkøn
 $term2 = substr($term, 0, -1);
 $querystr .= " OR (da_genus = 'n' AND da LIKE '%{$term2}%') ";
} elseif (...) { // etc., some more cases for fælleskøn, plurals
In either language that should only add a handfull of cases to the search handling.

On the other hand, the full-word listing oughtn't to create excessively long entries very often, if we stick to the existing rule of listing singular and plural versions separately (I assume that you still want us to do that, Paul?).

Cheers /Sebastian
You're assuming correctly, sesc. Except I'm not using "like" for search ... ;-)  #450306
von Paul (AT), 2009-07-31, 13:10  Spam?  
I use the MySQL Fulltext search index, as "like" is much too slow for larger tables.

However, special treatment would work, that's right. But think about 18 languages (currently), then think of 100 or more (later) and keep in mind that every language can later be combined with any other and I don't know the language the keyword is in. This might result in a huge code base of special treatments I'd have to build up and maintain. Also, complex SQL queries result in poor performance (server costs). I'd rather prefer to keep things simple for as long as possible.

However, if most of the entries don't get too long when using full words, that's already the solution.
Point taken, paul :-)  #450309
von sesc (DE/SE), 2009-07-31, 13:24  Spam?  
And I have learned something cool about SQL's capacities (knew there would have to be sth. like that but never had to dabble in fulltext handling so far). Cheers for that! ;-)
I agree that with modern server capacities, saving full words to a database is not a problem.
Conclusion?  #450320
von madshk (DK), 2009-07-31, 14:53  Spam?  
So, the verdict is: plural versions listed separately; indefinite and definite forms always listed and always as complete words?

rygsøjle {fk} [bf. rygsøjlen]
hus {n} [bf. huset]
artikel {fk} [bf. artiklen]

and, as different entries (with the corresponding German / English plural forms):

rygsøjler {pl} [bf. pl. rygsøjlerne]
huse {pl} [bf. pl. husene]
artikler {pl} [bf. pl. artiklerne]

I kind of like having the singular / plural forms together to avoid confusion (and extra work :-), but I definitely think more than 5 or 10% of the lines would get too long that way.

This certainly helps the entries not being to long - but some sort of quick-entry help would be great to avoid everyone's fingers getting crumbled from typing " {pl} [bf. pl. " manually all those times.

-- Mads
Almost ...  #450322
von Paul (AT), 2009-07-31, 15:03  Spam?  
Singular and plural nouns separate, yes.
But I don't think adding "pl" twice would be necessary. So, for the plural forms, I'd opt for

rygsøjler {pl} [bf. rygsøjlerne]
huse {pl} [bf. husene]
artikler {pl} [bf. artiklerne]

By the way: You don't have to type out "{pl} [bf. ]" manually. There are buttons for these tags next to the corresponding form fields.
bf.  #450337
von sesc (DE/SE), Last modified: 2009-07-31, 16:10  Spam?  
Sorry for rocking the boat... but since we seem to agree on adding the definite form pretty much everywhere, couldn't we adapt the same format as in the adjective entries? e.g.:
  hus {n} | huset
(A subheader in the end-users' table, below the headings Adjectives, Nouns etc., explaining the meaning of the respective |-separated format, could remove any remaining ambiguity.)
I feel a wee bit uneasy with having different conventions for what in essence is the same thing, just in different categories, and also with using comments for something that basic and universal(ly specified).

EDIT: Just saw your answer in the other thread. Okay, I think I see your point. Makes entering/revising a bit more complex, but by essentially adapting the adjective format to the noun format, the guideline you suggest also fulfills my wish. :-)
Sehr gut!  #450340
von Paul (AT), Last modified: 2009-07-31, 16:13  Spam?  
Plurals  #450341
von sesc (DE/SE), 2009-07-31, 16:18  Spam?  
What about entering singular and plural forms as a "split request"?  I think I did that once or twice last night (don't remember in which dictionary).  That way the number of separate entries to be confirmed is kept somewhat smaller, and things that really belong together can be processed by the reviewer in one go.

Besides, the other day I also thought about liking to have sg. and pl. connected in the dictionary, and started wondering if linking entries would be a viable option. But maybe that would again add undue complexity and performance penalty to searches? Interested in your opinion, Paul!
Difficult.  #450356
von Paul (AT), 2009-07-31, 16:53  Spam?  
I don't have the singular-plural connection in German-English. That's why the buildup script asks for singular and plural forms independently. But people can still search for "houses" to find "Häuser".
However, the possibility of linking entries would still be good, also for features like synonyms or maybe even antonyms. Unfortunately I don't have a solution handy at the moment.

TU Chemnitz has these links, but I don't want to present's search results like this:
This somehow looks untidy to me, I find it much harder to scan the page for the type of word I'm looking for.
You mean, entering as 'split' is difficult to implement?  #450370
von sesc (DE/SE), Last modified: 2009-07-31, 17:51  Spam?  
> the buildup script asks for singular and plural forms independently

Agreed - when the buildup script has already asked for the plural, then we have to continue with the entries we've got.  But I've encountered many words where the plural is still missing (maybe entered on a contributor's personal initiative). Would it be within the accepted set of usage rules if we took such a singular entry and added the plural by means of a split request?  And likewise to enter a new noun splitting it directly into sg. and pl.?

I agree also with your not wanting to mimic the TU-Chemnitz format; your tables here are a lot more tidy and easy to navigate in, I have found!  So I would have to think some more for ideas on how an eventual linking of entries should be presented.
von Paul (AT), 2009-07-31, 18:02  Spam?  
If you add singular/plural forms to already entered terms, the buildup tool cannot detect possible duplicates as long as the entries aren't verified (split again). So this might result in problems.
von sesc (DE/SE), 2009-07-31, 18:06  Spam?  
Ah, I see the hitch. Alright, I'll desist from splitting for the time being. :-|
nach oben | home© 2002 - 2018 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum
Dieses Dänisch-Deutsch-Wörterbuch (Tysk-dansk ordbog) basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr Informationen!
Links auf dieses Wörterbuch oder einzelne Übersetzungen sind herzlich willkommen! Fragen und Antworten
Werbung ausblenden