https://www.proz.com/kudoz/dutch-to-english/finance-general/1848176-waarvan.html
This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
waar zitten onze cliënten zoal
PAV

Glossary entry

Dutch term or phrase:

waarvan

English translation:

representing (in this context)

Added to glossary by Jack den Haan
Mar 31, 2007 14:53
17 yrs ago
1 viewer *
Dutch term

waarvan

Non-PRO Dutch to English Bus/Financial Finance (general) Dutch pension fund
·Profiel Co-op
Het huidige profiel van het pensioenfonds luidt:
Co-op is een ondernemingspensioenfonds, met per ultimo 2006
- 1.250 actieve deelnemers, waarvan 3.565 gepensioneerden, 3400 slapers, 90 deelnemers WAO/WGA
Proposed translations (English)
3 -1 representing (in this context)
3 +5 of whom
3 -1 amongst these
3 -1 of which
Change log

Mar 31, 2007 14:55: writeaway changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"

Mar 31, 2007 17:11: Kate Hudson (X) changed "Language pair" from "Dutch to English" to "English to Dutch"

Mar 31, 2007 18:44: Henk Peelen changed "Language pair" from "English to Dutch" to "Dutch to English"

Discussion

jarry (X) Apr 3, 2007:
@den Haan: I am too busy right now to report you to the moderator for your insulting and unprofessional conduct but will do so as soon as my workload allows.
Els Spin Apr 2, 2007:
Hoi CJ :-), exactly! By the way, did you notice the rather round numbers? As if it were guesswork.
CJG (X) Apr 1, 2007:
Hoi Els! Tried adding the numbers but that doesn't work either. I think my advice to asker to check with client is best, before we all get ourselves tied up in knots about this.
Els Spin Apr 1, 2007:
I am with Jarry. And if after correction (12.500?) the total number of specified participants is lower than the number of active participants, I would use 'including' rather than 'of whom' also.
jarry (X) Mar 31, 2007:
Since the number don't add up I would go for 'including'.
CJG (X) Mar 31, 2007:
To me, the obvious answer would be 'of whom', but the numbers don't add up. Could the numbers be wrong?

Proposed translations

-1
22 hrs
Selected

representing (in this context)

The source text possibly refers to the number of companies or organisations actively participating in the pension fund, and a specification of the number of persons they represent. As always in cases like this, I would check with the client.

PS: 'Including' -- as one subscriber suggests in the Notes to/from Asker -- does not make much sense if the sum of those included is (much) larger than the total number of 1250 ;-)
Peer comment(s):
disagree jarry (X) : I am too busy right now to report you to the moderator for your insulting and unprofessional conduct but will do so as soon as my workload allows.
17 hrs
1250 *companies* or *organisations* could well represent 7055 persons, and that's exactly what I'm referring to. Not far(-)fetched at all. Can't you read, or aren't you quite awake yet? // Time you started realising that yourself...
Something went wrong...
3 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "thank you. I am asking my clietn to check his numbers."
-1
44 mins

amongst these

.
Peer comment(s):
neutral CJG (X) : I see you changed your answer again in light of my comment above./ Are you saying you haven't changed your answer this evening? I am sure you said 'of which' in your second answer./This is your third answer, isn't it?
1 hr
No, I had "amongst these" all along. 2. Ok, I see what you mean. I had amongst these all along, then I added "of which" and then I removed it again and just left what I have now. Equally divided.
disagree Kate Hudson (X) : Not in this context....
1 hr
You'll need to convince me.
Something went wrong...
+5
16 hrs

of whom

As I said above, this would seem to be the most obvious. I advise you check with client re numbers, though.
Peer comment(s):
agree Kate Hudson (X)
10 mins
Thanks, Kate
agree Siobhan Schoonhoff-Reilly
2 hrs
Thanks, Siobhan
agree writeaway : yes-as you say, the numbers just don't add up. don't see how any word can really rectify that/seems you also should have invented a novel translation for waarvan that takes it into uncharted waters. :-)
2 hrs
Thanks
agree Andre de Vries
1 day 8 hrs
Thanks
agree earthreptile
1 day 8 hrs
Thanks
Something went wrong...
-1
10 mins

of which

i.e. 1,250 participants, 3,565 of which are pensioners, 3,400...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days1 hr (2007-04-02 16:08:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Please note - this should have read 'of whom' not 'of which'. As has quite correctly been pointed out participants, pensioners, etc. are human.
Peer comment(s):
agree Meturgan : Nothing else would do.
1 hr
Thanks.
neutral writeaway : people usually aren't referred to as "which" afaik/the disagree is unfair, especially considering the person 'instructing' you entered the same error herself and then hid it. and of course the antecedent "is" human ;-)
5 hrs
You're quite correct: 'of whom' would be better
disagree Mercuri@ : Yes, the which is a problem...Antecedent is non-human.
17 hrs
I agree - it's already been pointed out - see above
disagree Andre de Vries : why are pensioners non-human ?
2 days 59 mins
I agree - it's already been pointed out - see above (p.s. I have met a few pensioners that SEEM inhuman.)
Something went wrong...