wachtboek

English translation: log book

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)

Dutch term or phrase:	wachtboek
English translation:	log book
Entered by:	Dave Greatrix

15:13 Jan 3, 2002

Dutch to English translations [Non-PRO]

Dutch term or phrase: wachtboek

wachten

harry

log book

Explanation:
a log book is used to record any incidents or any other relevant occurences during a watch. Can apply to buildings, ships, etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 15:45:41 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

\"Log\" is often used colloquially by sailors and starship captains . However the correct term is \"log book\" Many people hyphenate, but that is not necessary.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 15:50:06 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

\"Log\" is often used colloquially by sailors and starship captains . However the correct term is \"log book\" Many people hyphenate, but that is not necessary.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 15:51:28 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

\"Log\" is often used colloquially by sailors and starship captains . However the correct term is \"log book\" Many people hyphenate, but that is not necessary.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 16:58:26 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

> a logbook can form a part of car documents, but unless this car is keeping watch, then that is not what the question infers

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 18:03:44 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Titanic- The Californian
... The Titanic log book reported seeing lights, and many members of the crew mentioned
that as the Titanic went down, they spotted lights to the north of Titanic ...
www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Surf/3051/californian.htm - 5k

A reference of \"Titanic\" proportions!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 18:12:24 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Article 1
1. The log-book required under Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 shall be filled in by the master in accordance with the model shown in Annex I or Annex II, depending on the fishing zone, for all fishing operations relating to species subject to TACs in the respective ICES/NAFO zones as referred to in paragraph 1 of the said Article 3. The form of log-book shown in Annex I shall be used for all fishing zones except those comprised in NAFO 1 and ICES V a) and XIV, for which the log-book shown in Annex II shall be used. These log-books shall be completed in accordance with the instructions set out in Annexes IV and V respectively.
2. The log-book shown in Annex I or Annex II shall also be kept in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 when such vessels are operating in the waters of a non-member country, unless the non-member country in question specifically requires a different kind of log-book.

Extract from EEC legislation.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 18:21:58 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Note above spelling, I did say some writers hyphenate.

Selected response from:

Dave Greatrix
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:19

Grading comment

Graded automatically based on peer agreement. KudoZ.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Summary of answers provided

5 +2

One word, two words

Marijke Mayer

4 +2

log book

Dave Greatrix

Logbook (note spelling); according to Collins

jarry (X)

The value of the internet for translators

Dave Greatrix

4 +1

[digression: quoting Google, etc.]

Chris Hopley

watch log

Alexander Schleber (X)

5 -1

The spelling of "logbook"

jarry (X)

Future reference

Dave Greatrix

5 -1

"Take" as a synonym of "require"

jarry (X)

Answers

10 mins confidence:

peer agreement (net): +2

log book

Dave Greatrix
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:19
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 1747

Grading comment

Graded automatically based on peer agreement. KudoZ.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)

neutral

Massimo Lencioni: in English this is called simply a "log", not "log book"

1 min

-> Check out Google "ship's log book". "log book" is correct. Don't take any notice of "Star Trek, :-) Truet me, my father was a master mariner for 45 years. "

agree

Hermeneutica: Especially if it refers to the watches you stand on board a boat or ship

3 mins

-> Thank you, Dee!

agree

Marijke Mayer

27 mins

-> a logbook can form a part of car documents, but unless this car is keeping watch, then that is not what the question infers.

neutral

jarry (X): Logbook (note spelling), according to Longman: a document containing details of registration, ownership, etc. of a motor vehicle - not now used technically. See other definitions below.

1 hr

-> Log book, (note spelling) is what I said it is! I know you do not like it but try Google for confirmation. By the way, accommodation doesn't "take two M's" it "has two M's"

12 mins confidence:

watch log

Explanation:
wacht = watch, as on a ship or in a hospital,
boek = log, the journal in which entries are made concerning events during the watch.

Alexander Schleber (X)
Belgium
Local time: 19:19
Native speaker of:

German,

English
PRO pts in pair: 826

1 hr confidence:

Logbook (note spelling); according to Collins

Explanation:
Dictionary: a book containing the official record of trips made by a ship or aircraft.

Logbook (note spelling); according to Oxford Dictionary: a book containing a detailed record or log.

Logbook (note spelling); according to Chambers Dictionary: a book containing an official record of a ship's progress and proceedings on board, or of a journey made by an aircraft or car, or of any progress.

Conclusion: Logbook is spelt in one word is not confined to ships or aircraft.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 16:42:41 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

An interesting point though is: what is the exact definition of \"Wachtboek\"?. Is that a logbook that exclusively records tours of duty such as turns to be on guard, etc. ? My (old) Van Dale does not list the word, nor does the Du > En Van Dale or the Du > En Jansonius.

jarry (X)
South Africa
Local time: 19:19
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 3855

2 hrs confidence:

peer agreement (net): -1

The spelling of "logbook"

Explanation:
I have no particular likes or dislikes when it comes to the spelling of this word and was merely quoting four sources far more authoritative than Google could ever hope to be.

I am glad we agree on the spelling of accommodation though.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-03 18:37:52 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, my Cambridge International Dictionary of English gives the following examples for \"takes\" in the sense of \"uses\": \"My car takes five people but I only have five seat belts\". This camera takes two small batteries\". \"My camera takes 35mm films\".

jarry (X)
South Africa
Local time: 19:19
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 3855

17 hrs confidence:

The value of the internet for translators

Explanation:
A common mistake by non-native English speakers is to rely too heavily on a dictionary. As in the Dutch language, in certain situations rules go out of the window with the English language.

e.g.Generally aviod using the possessive form with inanimate objects.

the table leg NOT the table's leg

this is all well and good, but if as non-native English speaker you do not know that the "table" is an inanimate object, and you think it is an animal for example, you would want to use an apostrophe. A quick "search" would dispell any doubts.

Search query "table leg" produces 30,200 results, but "table's leg" only 154 results.

My advice would be, when in doubt check your phrase on the internet.

e.g. The log book+ship search query produces 196,000 results on Google,
whereas logbook+ship produces only 12,000.

The watch+log book search query produces 347,000 results, whereas the watch+logbook search produces 17,500.

This is interesting, especially as a software product known as LogBook accounts for a large number of hits when simply searching for "logbook"

I doubt if so many authors of documents on Google are bad spellers.

I personally do not not own or possess one single solitary language reference book or dictionary, but I struggle along using technology.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-04 08:46:23 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Oh, and Internet should be spelt Internet!

Dave Greatrix
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:19
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 1747

21 hrs confidence:

peer agreement (net): +1

[digression: quoting Google, etc.]

Explanation:
Quoting statistics from Google can be misleading without explaining the syntax you've used to obtain them. Note the difference on Google between the following queries:

+log +book +ship (= all three words ocurring in the same document) generates about 195,000 hits
http://www.google.com/search?q=log book ship

+"log book" +ship (= the phrase "log book" and the word "ship" ocurring in the same document) generates about 9,910 hits
http://www.google.com/search?q="log book" ship

+logbook +ship (= both words ocurring in the same document) generates about 12,000 hits
http://www.google.com/search?q=logbook ship

The conclusion from all this is that "log book" and "logbook" are both in currency, the latter having a slight edge, in web publications at least.

Interestingly, the results differ if you only trawl UK web sites (those in .uk):

+"log book" +ship generates 596 hits
http://www.google.com/search?q="log book" ship site:.uk

+logbook +ship generates 334 hits
http://www.google.com/search?q=logbook ship site:.uk

And on South African web sites (those in .za) the results are pretty much evenly divided (56 vs. 55 hits)

A bit of something for everyone, then? ;-]]

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-01-07 09:36:28 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Repsonse to feedback below:
Of course Internet documents don\'t set the standard. Not on their own, anyway. I simply wish to point out the value of the Internet in finding out about current usage when dictionaries offer two *equally valid* spellings. No dictionaries that I know of provide statistical data on the usage of variant spellings. I have two Collins dictionaries on my desk (Collins Dict. of the Eng. Lang. and Cobuild), one giving \"log book\", the other giving \"logbook\", but neither offering further information on this difference in spelling. This is where search engines like Google come into their own: statistical information on linguistic usage at the click of a mouse. As such, the Internet itself is a \"huge databank\" of actual language usage. Remember, just because you read something in treeware format doesn\'t mean it\'s sacred. Your average daily newspaper (included in the databanks you refer to) is full of spelling mistakes, mixed metaphors and other linguistic nastiness!

Chris Hopley
Netherlands
Local time: 19:19
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 2117

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)

neutral

jarry (X): Interesting. The question remains: are documents on the Internet now setting the standard for spelling and can we discard our Oxford? Is this the trend in marking exam papers? Is it not so that reliable dictionaries obtain their data from huge databanks?

1 hr

-> Throughout the ages, spelling in English has been "determined" by a whole host of linguistic malefactors (including Dutch printers), the most innocuous of all of them probably being the Internet. (See note above.)

agree

Dave Greatrix: Like most innovations, Google takes a bit of getting used to. The more you put in, the more accurate outcome. e.g. But i'm not educated enough for these fangled reference books, not enough pictures. So I've been told at least!

3 hrs

-> Fear ye not! The advanced search form is David-proof ;-]] http://www.google.com/advanced_search

1 day 19 hrs confidence:

Future reference

Explanation:
Future reference

Quote "Cambridge International Dictionary of English gives the following examples for "takes" in the sense of "uses": "My car takes five people but I only have five seat belts". This camera takes two small batteries". "My camera takes 35mm films".

I cannot believe that this esteemed book associates the word "takes" with the word "uses"

This is not correct, "takes" when used in this manner, does not refer to "use"

"My car can accomodate 5 people", "My car is capable of carrying 5 people", "My car can seat 5 people", "My camera can accomodate 2 batteries" or "can accomodate a 35mm film".

Used in this context "takes" has nothing at all to do with "uses"

"The fuel tank can take or takes 12 gallons", "The silo takes or can take 12000 tons of grain"

Get the idea!

So you can not say that the word "idiot" for example takes, uses, accomodates or carries two i's, however you could say it "has" two i's, or it "contains" two i's.

A given word is a fixed entity, and its state does not change. "has" or "contains" is therefore a statement of fact. Whereas "can accomodate" or "takes" is something that may or may not occur.

Unlike some, I do not pretend to be the ultimate authority on the English lingo, but this is an example of one of the English language idiosyncrasies that although difficuilt for many non-native English speakers to grasp, is naturally installed in a native speaker. This applies to all foreign languages I'm sure.

Just a little weekend food for thought!

Dave Greatrix
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:19
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 1747

2 days 5 hrs confidence:

peer agreement (net): +2

One word, two words

Explanation:
Colleagues,
I would just like to volunteer that any language is subject to change over time. I don’t need to quote examples as it’s a known fact. For instance, what typically happens if two nouns are used, these might be hyphenated for a certain period of time only for it to gradually become one word. In Dutch, as we all know, this happens abundantly, so much so that I often have to double-check whether I was using the correct form in English. During this time, it cannot be avoided that some people will use all three forms, i.e. one word, two words, Hyphenated. Some companies, newspapers, etc. have house styles, often specifying that a certain spelling should be adhered to. I have an interesting little book, named “One Word, Two Words, Hyphenated?", by Mary-Jane Gilman, referenced below, which in the past I have often consulted when living in the USA. This lady had done a considerable amount of research consulting all the prevailing dictionaries, which, incidentally, all reflect varying opinions, and then reached a conclusion resulting in aforementioned booklet. Since I started translating into British English, I have abandoned it in favour of the other references such as dictionaries, but also, yes, indeed, Google. Needless to say, I always look at the source, and then decide whether or not I will use it. This is definitely not as simple as it sounds, and in addition might take a considerable amount of time of research. For this reason and the increased globalisation, Internet will have a profound influence on the use of language. I read an article in the Economist stating that shortly about 70% or so will be speaking some form of English, as this now has become the world’s language to communicate. The automatic response to this no doubt is that there will be an increased need to uphold ‘standards’. Yes, of course, grammar rules should be followed, but one should be open to change. In the light of this, please to leave room for other people’s opinions and insights, as “times are a changing . . .” Just offer your opinion and respect the other person, quote your source, don’t put people down, and leave it at that! The ProZ site is a great place to exchange information, therefore, please, let’s keep it a friendly site, as there is no room for growth in a hostile environment.

Marijke Mayer

Review: One Word, Two Words, Hyphenated?
... In One Word, Two Words, Hyphenated?, Gilman gives us more. The book answers one question,
and one question only: the one posed in the title. It contains 14,000 ...
www.reportercentral.com/reference/bookreviews/oneword.html

Marijke Mayer
Netherlands
Local time: 19:19
Native speaker of: Dutch
PRO pts in pair: 525

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)

agree

jarry (X): I am with you all the way and can only endorse the reason, flexibility and tolerance you advocate. Let's interact and think like professionals and everyone will benefit.

17 mins

-> Of course, this equally applies to you, and hope you will leave room for other people's views without trying to lord it over everyone and insisting on being right when there is no right, then I'm sure we can all be friends.

agree

Chris Hopley: An interesting topic, indeed. Let's all remember that there is no Language Police (not for English, at least), but consensus rules! Which also means that more than one spelling of a word can co-exist quite happily.

1 day 13 hrs

-> Thank you! There's a language cop on his beat on this site though! :-)

2 days 5 hrs confidence:

peer agreement (net): -1

"Take" as a synonym of "require"

Explanation:
The use of take, as in: the word 'accommodate' takes (requires) two m's comes to me very naturally. It is only when I am asked to explain it that I find myself at a loss for words. Hence my initial attempts at explaining it in the sense of "use". Most native speakers not trained to teach people who speak English as an acquired language (or native speakers apparently in need of such tuition, as in David's case) will feel similarly frustrated because it is so difficult to explain something that is a natural part of you and your culture.

My Collins Dictionary, under meaning 32 (tr. Grammar, HAVE or REQUIRE as part of the appropriate construction), gives the following example: "This verb takes an object".

I hope we have now settled this annoying little incident. It makes me feel like a pupil who has to account to his teacher for his actions. Be that as it may, I hope it may have benefited David and others.

English as we speak it in South Africa.

jarry (X)
South Africa
Local time: 19:19
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 3855

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.

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:

ProZ.com term search

Search millions of term translations

wachtboek

English translation: log book

Answers

KudoZ™ translation help

Your current localization setting

Select a language

wachtboek

English translation: log book

Answers

KudoZ™ translation help

You have native languages that can be verified

Your current localization setting

Select a language