German: example of use: (Un)GesetzlichkeitEnglish translation: (il)legality 
KudoZ The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators ... More  |
|
German to English translations [PRO]
Social Sciences - Linguistics / German use of parentheses (round brackets) | | German term or phrase: example of use: (Un)Gesetzlichkeit | | I show a made-up example to illustrate a use of parentheses (round brackets) by German writers, which at first confused me until I worked out its function. The writer uses parentheses as a sort of shorthand "or", to make the sentence cover two cases simultaneously, while avoiding repetition of the core term. In this example both legality and illegality could be covered in a single phrase. The leading part in parentheses can be a prefix that alters the meaning, or an adjective or adverb. It is quite different from the more familiar use of parentheses to enclose an aside or some additional secondary information. So far as I know, it is specific to German writers, especially scientists. How and when did it come into use? Has it been carried over from a mathematical notation? Is it used in other languages? - I haven't seen it in English. Any explanations or comments, especially from German speakers, please? |
| | Clarification request(s) and responseKen Cox: 9:37am Oct 9, 2007: I agree that the device of enclosing a word in parentheses to express a form of 'optional or' is uncommon in English, but it is relatively common in German and quite common in Dutch. The example you gave is slightly different, and it is used in English.
Teresa Reinhardt: 3:58pm Oct 9, 2007: Don't agree at all - "Mit dieser Methode haben wir verschiedene (lösliche) Substanzen untersucht". The writer means that they have investigated both soluble and insoluble materials - this means that only soluble substances were examined; it's just not
Teresa Reinhardt: 3:59pm Oct 9, 2007: very important in the context of what will be said about them; sort of an aside "by the way, they were soluble"
d_williams: 4:34am Apr 30, 2008: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this device can be used to indicate the possibility of plurality in English, can't it? e.g.:
d_williams: 4:34am Apr 30, 2008:
"Identify the Registrar(s) with whom the domain name(s) is/are registered at the time the complaint is filed;"
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm
|
|
| | Selected response from:
 Teresa Reinhardt
United States
| Note from asker to answerer| Selected automatically based on peer agreement. |
|
11 mins confidence:  peer agreement (net): +3 |
| (il)legality
Explanation:
I don't quite understand; if you google even the exact same term in English, you will find lots of native E. examples of the same usage
e.g., at www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v4/n1/15/
| Teresa Reinhardt
United States
Works in field
Native speaker of:  German, English
PRO pts in category: 10
|
| Note from asker to answerer| Selected automatically based on peer agreement. |
| Notes to answerer
Asker: Thanks Teresa and the others. I take the point that the device is also used in English, perhaps especially in legal documents, a field that I never touch as a translator. It did occur to me after sending the question that, for example, the optional plural at the end (s) is very common in English. But unlike all of you, I rarely come across an optional parenthesis at the beginning of an English word, which probably tells something about the limited subject range that I deal with (science/tech).
Asker: Thanks everyone, but I still think there is a point to be made about a difference between German and English usage, which I haven't yet succeeded in conveying. In Teresa's example the writer uses "(il)legal" to emphasize doubt about whether it's legal or not. That usage is different from what I meet in German texts. Take this sentence: "Mit dieser Methode haben wir verschiedene (lösliche) Substanzen untersucht". The writer means that they have investigated both soluble and insoluble materials. In English, if I read "We have used this method to study various (soluble) materials", I would assume that only soluble materials were investigated - in fact the parentheses are unnecessary. Maybe I'm wrong about this perceived difference in conventions?
|
|
|
| |
The translation workplace 
