KudoZ home » English » Art/Literary

representant

English translation: group member

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:representant
English translation:group member
Entered by: aebe
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

12:55 May 28, 2003
English to English translations [Non-PRO]
Art/Literary
English term or phrase: representant
In the Old Wemster representant is still a normal English word, meaning an individual who is part of a group. It's not the same as representative, who is active
representing a group. A representant is only passive a member of a group.

Question, can I still use the word representant
aebe
Local time: 12:14
I wouldn't
Explanation:
as it's open to misinterpretation.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-28 13:23:37 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It\'s best to stick to words that you can find in a normal dictionary, thus if you feel that representative isn\'t descriptive enought, just use \"passive member\".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-28 16:33:46 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Well, now that you\'ve told me it\'s Webster and not Wemster, I agree that it\'s a \"normal\" dictionary ;-) Nonetheless, \"representant\" isn\'t in the Oxford Paperback Dictionary, nor the American Dictionary of the English Language. Similarly, it\'s in none of my bilingual English-Italian or English-French dictionaries, so it\'s certainly not a word that is commonly used. My point stems from this: if it\'s not commonly used, not all your readers will understand it, and if it\'s not featured in many dictionaries, then they may have trouble discovering its meaning. As you can use easily understandable alternatives such as goup member, why run the risk?

Best wishes

Sarah

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-28 16:34:37 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, of course I meant \"gRoup member\"!
Selected response from:

Sarah Ponting
Italy
Local time: 13:14
Grading comment
Dr. Giuli Kvrivishvili: agree - and maybe group member
Better was t say not agree, for group number is indeed the best, and most easy to understand phrasing. In more technical literature, yes that's possible as well, I maybe will use instance as well. I understand Sarah that your latest sentences are the most important now. Are my questions too difficult?
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
4 +8I wouldn't
Sarah Ponting
3 +2Not an answer - points to Sarah, please.David Moore


Discussion entries: 6





  

Answers


26 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +8
I wouldn't


Explanation:
as it's open to misinterpretation.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-28 13:23:37 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It\'s best to stick to words that you can find in a normal dictionary, thus if you feel that representative isn\'t descriptive enought, just use \"passive member\".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-28 16:33:46 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Well, now that you\'ve told me it\'s Webster and not Wemster, I agree that it\'s a \"normal\" dictionary ;-) Nonetheless, \"representant\" isn\'t in the Oxford Paperback Dictionary, nor the American Dictionary of the English Language. Similarly, it\'s in none of my bilingual English-Italian or English-French dictionaries, so it\'s certainly not a word that is commonly used. My point stems from this: if it\'s not commonly used, not all your readers will understand it, and if it\'s not featured in many dictionaries, then they may have trouble discovering its meaning. As you can use easily understandable alternatives such as goup member, why run the risk?

Best wishes

Sarah

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-28 16:34:37 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, of course I meant \"gRoup member\"!

Sarah Ponting
Italy
Local time: 13:14
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in pair: 67
Grading comment
Dr. Giuli Kvrivishvili: agree - and maybe group member
Better was t say not agree, for group number is indeed the best, and most easy to understand phrasing. In more technical literature, yes that's possible as well, I maybe will use instance as well. I understand Sarah that your latest sentences are the most important now. Are my questions too difficult?

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Elise Jansen
5 mins
  -> thanks, Elise

agree  Mike Birch: depending on your context (historical text?), you could italicise
6 mins
  -> that's a possibility. Thanks, Michael

agree  Kardi Kho: I wouldn't either ;)
17 mins
  -> no , your context woulòd have to be extremely specific for it to work. Thanks :-)

agree  Ammerins Moss
19 mins
  -> thanks

agree  Kim Metzger
23 mins
  -> thanks, Kim

agree  DGK T-I: agree - and maybe group member
48 mins
  -> yes, that's another option

agree  walzl: there is so many words in other languages that do not have a " pair" word in English, and vise versa...
1 hr
  -> thanks

neutral  David Moore: I don't quite see that....open to misinterpretation? I feel that may be a bit exaggerated
1 hr
  -> it's open to misinterpretation in the sense that many people wouldn't understand it and if it's not featured in the common dictionaries, then it could possibly be hard for them to discover the meaning ;-)

agree  J. Leo
4 days
  -> thanks
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

2 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +2
Not an answer - points to Sarah, please.


Explanation:
Just by way of a little more background the Shorter (!) OED of 1983 gives "representant" as "a person representing another or others"; a similar definition appears in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary of 1976 and neither suggests that the word, used in that way is either obsolete or obsolescent. Therefore I would say, in principle you can use the word, although I would side with Sarah et al. here, as it sounds odd anyway.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-28 15:06:04 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I take it that was the old We*b*ster you were talking about....

David Moore
Local time: 13:14
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in pair: 864

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Sarah Ponting: I agree with your point, but it sounds so strange that I doubt whether all your readers would know what you're talking about :-)
1 hr

agree  DGK T-I: I wondered what the old Wemster was too, and didn't like to say because I thought I'd be showing my ignorance! If it doesn't exist, it's such a nice name that it ought to......
5 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search