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

Słownik polsko-angielski

BETA Online Dictionary Polish-English: Enter keyword here!
  Options | Tips | FAQ | Abbreviations | Desktop

LoginSign Up
Home|About/Extras|Vocab Trainer|Subjects|Users|Forum|Contribute!
Übersetzungsforum Englisch-PolnischPage 1 of 10   <<
Types of entries to display:     Linguistic Help Needed   Chat and Other Topics   Dictionary and Contribute!  

Polish-English Translation Forum

This is the place to post your translation requests in English or Polish and to help others with your skills and knowledge. Important: Always give the context of your enquiry!
| Search | Guidelines | New Question
Indication of cases » answer
by muhamed (BA/AT), 2009-10-15, 11:02  Spam?  
Hi people!

After a mail discussion with Catesse on this issue, we agreed to post it in the forum and see what the others thought. Namely, the preposition na (upon) was posted with an {L} tag added to it, and we thought it to be important to decide on a harmonized system of how - or whether - we enter tags for cases to go alongside prepositions.

There is no guideline on the issue of whether a case indication should be there or not - this depends on the people introducing entries in each of the languages. However, using just a single "L" is not enough - I would rather go for "[+loc.]", if that is fine with you and others, as this tag has been used in other languages such as Latin and Russian, where a similar situation has occured. We could also use the Polish tag [+ms.], but I think it's better that we stick to the English descriptions, just like in Latin and Russian and just like in the names of the word classes. :)
I think it would be very useful  #468459
by Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2009-10-15, 13:36  Spam?  
to indicate which case each preposition takes - especially as I think one or two Polish prepositions have a different meaning with different prepositions (specifically I'm thinking of z which means with when used with the instrumental but from or made of when used with the genitive).

In fact, I think stating which case a preposition goes with is so useful that it should maybe be applied to all languages that have cases across all the dictionaries. Leading to the question of whether there should be a separate abbreviation for those prepositions which in Polish can vary between locative and accusative (in German dative and accusative), depending on whether you're describing movement into or location, for instance (acc/loc). This might well not be a problem between German and Polish, as you'd simply label w (acc) as a translation for in (acc), and w (loc) as a translation for in (dat) - although I'm not sure how precise a match the Polish prepositions which take acc or loc are for the German ones that take acc or dat.

I also like the idea of using Latin tags.
Latin vs. Polish  #468566
by Thorsten1 (DE), Last modified: 2009-10-16, 04:39  Spam?  
I initially suggested to use "{perf}" and "{imperf}" (or similar Latin-based abbreviations) to indicate the perfective and imperfective aspect. My main reason was that this is a universal grammatical category (like gender, number, case, word classes etc.) that is marked in all Slavic languages, so very much like Laura, I thought it would be more practical to use a consistent "international" set of abbreviations across all new language sections. However, this was eventually rejected in favor of "[dok.]" and "[niedok.]". OK, it's a done deal, and if the majority prefers it that way, so be it. However, considering that decision, it would be extremely inconsistent and confusing to go back to Latin abbreviations for cases now!
It's common practice in Polish schools, as well as dictionaries, to indicate the case by...
» show full text
Case after prepositions  #468577
by Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2009-10-16, 04:49  Spam?  
Sorry, Thorsten. I cherish your work greatly, but I am implacably opposed to your advice on this point. I shall set out my reasons.
1. The primary aim of the sites is, I think, to make visiting and searching the site an informative, rewarding and pleasant experience for the visitor. (This sometimes entails problems for the contributors.)
2. KISS. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) The techniques used should support this primary aim, not undermine it. For this reason, where possible, there should be uniformity within sites and between sites. However, the varying structures of the languages involved occasionally make this impossible.
3. One case where it was not possible to retain apparent conformity while still being correct and clear was with [dok.] and [niedok.] It is fundamentally confusing to use {perf.}...
» show full text
Catesse  #468578
by Thorsten1 (DE), Last modified: 2009-10-16, 04:46  Spam?  
There's some things I agree and some I disagree with in your post. However, as I said, if the majority prefers to use "dok."/"niedok." as opposed to something more internationally recognizable, I'm not going to tilt at windmills. :)
Sorry  #468582
by Catesse (AU), 2009-10-16, 04:52  Spam?  
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
I twitched something that excised a sentence from my post and sent the thing off halfway through. I think I have fixed it all now.
Clarification  #468584
by Thorsten1 (DE), Last modified: 2009-10-16, 05:02  Spam?  
To be clear, I'm not suggesting to use the names of the cases in either language, but to use placeholders that convey in themselves which case is required. Just like on the German side, jds., jdn. and jdm. are understood to represent the genitive, accusative and dative case, respectively, kogoś/czegoś, komuś/czemuś and kogoś/coś are generally understood to represent those cases in Polish.
Cases  #468588
by Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2009-10-16, 07:42  Spam?  
If you think it will work. (What about Instrumental, Locative, etc.?)
I am sure we all have the welfare of the site at heart, even if we have different ideas about how to ensure this in the best way. None of us will turn into a suicide bomber and try to destroy the site.
After all this - if you have not found these sites already, or even if you have - sit back for a few minutes and enjoy.
Youtube: K6jwVTrKiCg
Youtube: DN_iUcaU77A
The beautful costumes, the pure clear voices of the lovely Mazowsze girls - and the blokes are not hard on the eye either. I was so sad when our old Mazowsze LP records became unplayable. Now I can enjoy their music again.
Thorsten  #468626
by Windfall (GB), 2009-10-16, 10:20  Spam?  
I am against using ktoś/coś etc. to represent case, as despite having been learning Polish for 8 years now, I am yet to achieve the feat of memory required to be certain which case is which from these combinations. kimś/czymś is particularly difficult, as I then have to memorise extra stuff to know whether this is being used to imply an instrumental or a locative. If I were that good at memorising stuff, I wouldn't need a reminder which preposition went with which case in the first place.

As Catesse says, the Polish speakers already know this information, it's not extra assistance to them. It is the non-Polish speakers who need to be able to understand this information.

4;Catesse - I am another native English speaker. You are not alone on this site.
Paul » answer
by Windfall (GB), 2009-10-12, 14:25  Spam?  
Hi Paul,

I have a request about the special letter buttons. I'm currently doing my Polish homework, so have been looking lots of stuff up. I've been assuming I need to use special letters for this and can't just use e to represent ę for instance.

Each time I start a new query I have to click on the ąĄćĆ... button to get the special letters up. I'm looking up so many words that this is beginning to make a real difference to me. Would it be possible for the special letters to stay permanently above the search field?

If not, would it be possible for them to stay up for my whole session in rather than disappearing between searches?

It's different in the forum. There a button that calls them up is fine to my mind, as it saves space and I'm unlikely to be putting question after question after question and minding that I have to call them up each time.
Thanks for the suggestion!  #467744
by Paul (AT), Last modified: 2009-10-12, 14:40  Spam?  
For Polish keeping the special characters visible all the time wouldn't be a problem. Other languages, however, show several lines of characters.
But still, I could make remember the last state using a session cookie. I think that will work. I added this to my to-do list.
Thank you  #467751
by Windfall (GB), 2009-10-12, 14:42  Spam?  
Verbs, probably for the last time :) » answer
by muhamed (BA/AT), 2009-10-07, 12:42  Spam?  
Hi People!

A lot has already been discussed about Polish verbs (including here in thread #462805 and realted answers), and now that we have got more people working on this site of the side, it would be fine if we closed the verb-related chapter, at least in basic terms.

After Catesse had suggested this to both Paul and me, I had a conversation with Paul this morning about [dok.] and [niedok.] tags for verbs, and we both found these to be very helpful. Although the guidelines say that the aspect "can" be pointed out, we'd like to propose making the aspect an obligatory part for verb entries. Meaning that verified entries, which do not have [dok.] and [niedok.], will have to be reopened; this and other vote updates would be made outvote-neutral, so that people who voted for verbs without the tag don't lose their voting accuracy. The "counterpart" verb would then simply be linked through the inflections bar.

Pozdrowienia z urzędu,
Very good.  #466618
by Catesse (AU), 2009-10-07, 13:09  Spam?  
Can something similar be done about the entries and votes concerning adjectives, which were correct when they were made, but then became incorrect?
Catesse: Currently working on it.  #466625
by Paul (AT), 2009-10-07, 13:39  Spam?  
Thing about Polish nouns » answer
by wrzosowy (PL), 2009-09-19, 02:32  Spam?  
How should I insert nouns?
I mean, should I only enter the singular form or the plural as well.
For example:
1. a bone - kość I kości
2. a bone - kość I kości {pl}

I just spotted that a new tab appeard. It's called "Inflections". But do we really have to put all the inflection in another place instead of using the main dictionary site. What's wrong with inserting two forms in one entry. The system makes it possible and it works proper when searching for the terms. So why do I have to put the same term again in a different place(Inflections). Please somebody explain that to me! It's really a lot of unnecessary work.(I know I repeat myself)

wrzosowy  #465084
by muhamed (BA/AT), 2009-09-29, 11:13  Spam?  
You can enter the plural as a separate entry (e.g. kości - bones); however, the point of having an inflections bar is that it helps users build the one form from the other. There are big technical issues with how the system works when "multiple" entries/forms are in the dictionary as entries - you can ask Paul and he'll be able to explain.

With a language as rich as Polish this may seem like a lot of (as you said, unnecessary) work, but as my grandma used to say, bez pracy nie ma kołaczy... :-)
Inflections explained  #465112
by Paul (AT), Last modified: 2009-09-29, 12:08  Spam?  
Let me try to explain using an example from German-English: birne

If you search for "Birne" in German-English, you will find 8 translations (different meanings and different translations for the same meaning). This means that, using the old technique, you would have to add the inflection information to 8 entries, which would be a lot more work and would lead to crowded search results pages.

Using the inflection tool makes "die Birne | die Birnen" appear on top of the page. This has to be entered only once, doesn't make the pages look crowded and has one other major advantage: It is displayed not only in the German-English, but also in the German-Polish, German-French, German-Italian, and any other language pair in conjunction with German.

Same for Polish: If you enter a Polish...
» show full text
Complexity of the Polish inflectional system  #465171
by Thorsten1 (DE), 2009-09-29, 16:52  Spam?  
Paul, thanks for explaing (and, of course, coding) this. However, I'm not quite sure if I understand this correctly. Which inflections are to be entered into the new system and which aren't? The thing is, in English, a noun has two inflected forms, most verbs have just three. German has more, but not that many. Slavic languages, on the other hand, are much more complex in that respect: Polish, e.g. has six cases; there's a whole category called "animacy" that determines, among other things, the plural forms; verbs mark gender, etc. How are we going to handle this? (Traditional dictionaries indicate just the genitive and the nominative plural forms.)
Thorsten: Inflection information  #465176
by Paul (AT), 2009-09-29, 17:12  Spam?  
We have developed guidance information for four word classes (adj, noun, verb, pron) in every language currently under development. If you open the review form for a German noun, then click the [+] button, you will either see the respective inflection entry or have the possibility to add one. When adding or reviewing this information, examples and specifications are given below the form field.

The inflection entry "die Beobachtung | die Beobachtungen" only has to be entered once and will be connected to every translation in every language pair that includes the German language.

If you click the [+] button within the review form for a Polish noun, then click "add inflection", you will see that we specified " | | pl", with the example of "dom | domu | domy". Of course we cannot cover all forms...
» show full text
I love the idea  #466861
by Windfall (GB), 2009-10-08, 13:26  Spam?  
of showing all (or at least all irregular) Polish noun inflections. The locative singular in particular is a real pain.
Thing about verbs » answer
by wrzosowy (PL), Last modified: 2009-09-19, 02:08  Spam?  
Now I have a question about Polish verbs

How should we insert the verbs. In polish we have the perfective and imperfective form of a verb in most cases.
So should we put them in separate entries which seems unreasonable to me or should we put "I" between them?

I would suggest the following options. As an example let's take the verb "jeść"

1. to eat - jeść I zjeść {perf} (just like Thorsten has been doing right from the beginning) We can see here that there's the tag {perf} after "zjeść" so "jeść" must be the imperfective one and that's it. What's more a lot of Polish dictionaries use the tag "perf" or "pf" so I don't see a problem here!
2. to eat - jeść I zjeść [dok.] (just like it is in the guidelines) However this is the first time that I've met this kind of tag and maybe that's why it looks a bit...
» show full text
Aspect of verbs  #462834
by Catesse (AU), 2009-09-19, 05:23  Spam?  
I don't care much either way. The custom on the English-German site has been to enter everything separately, no matter how slight the change. I don't think it works with Polish. (But then, what would I know?)
Inflections!  #465079
by muhamed (BA/AT), 2009-09-29, 11:07  Spam?  
Given that all (or, to be precise, all bar few) Slavic verbs have an imperfective and perfective aspect, and that these aspects come coupled together, the inflections bar was programmed to both show the appropriate conjugated forms of the verb and help users see the couplings between verbs - a fact most non-Slavic learners of Polish (and any other given Slavic language) would readily complain about.

For example, although odpowiadać and odpowiedzieć are coupled verbs (the one being perfective, the other imperfective), they still have different forms (compare e.g. odpowiedział to odpowiadał) and should be presented to the learner as separate verbs (which, in essence, they are). The "coupling" through the inflections function is, in fact, an added extra (just as you would find it in, say, Wiktionary,...
» show full text
Aspect of verbs  #465160
by Catesse (AU), 2009-09-29, 15:34  Spam?  
One point, muhamed, is that Thorsten and I have been arguing to have the Perfective and Imperfective aspects of the Polish verbs placed in the one entry. Paul has said that there are technical reasons why that cannot be done. I don't see how this can be so, as it was already being done quite successfully.
Anyway, it is now in the guidelines on the English-Polish site that dok. and niedok. forms must be entered separately, as per wrosowy above. There is a lot of work to be done to alter the old entries to this form, and I am far from confident with the Aspect of Polish verbs. I don't think I can do it.
Personally, I am not entirely confident that this will stand; I can foresee that, if we move all the verbs at present entered under the same tag into separate tags, then some day we - or our successors - are...
» show full text
Muhamed  #465173
by Thorsten1 (DE), 2009-09-29, 17:03  Spam?  
Sorry, I had meant to discuss this earlier, but didn't have the time. I can live with any consistent format for Slavic verbs; and I do agree that having perfective and imperfective verbs in separate entries improves readability. However, it is important to help users identify the pefective counterpart of an imperfective verb and vice versa. You said that the inflections tool provides a way to couple the perfective and imperfective versions of an aspect pair; however, I'm not sure what this coupling should look like. Could you perhaps make a sample entry in the Polish dictionary (or any other Slavic dictionary) to demonstrate this method? Thanks in advance!
Catesse  #465187
by Paul (AT), Last modified: 2009-09-29, 18:44  Spam?  
I'm quoting some of your statements to make it easier to follow the discussion.

Paul has said that there are technical reasons why that cannot be done. I don't see how this can be so, as it was already being done quite successfully.

If you look at pages like Angehörige or Angestellte several problems become visible.

1. With the old rules the same inflection information had to be entered time and time again, for each entry. This still worked more or less while we had only one language pair (German-English). But for all the other pairs that include the German language, the same information has to be entered tens or hundreds of times again.

2. The pages look cluttered, especially pages like Angehörige that contain inflection...
» show full text
Thorsten  #465217
by muhamed (BA/AT), 2009-09-29, 23:41  Spam?  
Paul actually quoted a sample entry (in this same forum, discussing nouns) in post #465176: the idea to couple perfective and imperfective verbs is to include their respective "counterpart" in the flexion information (apart from the infinitive, the present tense form and the singular male third person past form). As in the example Paul quoted: robić | robię | robił || zrobić (where zrobić is the "coupled" counterpart and would appropriately appear in the surch results)

One way (which, at least in my view, makes sense) of knowing that a verb is perfective would be the lack of a present form for it (as in zrobić | - | zrobił || robić - perfective verbs having a future form which morphologically resembles the present of imperfective verbs).

One possible upgrade of the inflection feature would be to include...
» show full text
Decisions  #465228
by Catesse (AU), 2009-09-30, 05:49  Spam?  
4; Paul: the links you gave in your email to me: none of them can be retrieved. Is this because they include http at the start?
However, I presume that they referred to the Angehörige / Angestellte entries. Yes, I see the point indeed.
4; All: When this has been sorted out irrevocably to the satisfaction the more knowledgeable contributors on this site, I shall do whatever I can to put my meagre knowledge at the service of the site. I just don't like being mucked around and putting in a lot of work that might have to be undone. Particularly when, as in the case of what I do on sites that I find confusing, the work has been so difficult for me.
Having found out how to split entries, etc. I can forge on with some verbs already entered by others. That is virtually automatic donkey work that anybody with some patience could do. But I should like to be told, after I have gone a little way, whether I am doing it correctly, before I make too many mistakes.
Catesse  #465288
by Paul (AT), 2009-09-30, 12:40  Spam?  
I'm not sure why the links didn't work. But I'm glad you see what I mean and the reasons for the concept became clear.
The thing about Polish adjectives » answer
by wrzosowy (PL), Last modified: 2009-09-19, 03:36  Spam?  
Thorsten(thank God for him) was the first person to insert any data in the English-Polish version. However when inserting an adjective he gives its 3 forms in the singular i.e. the masculine I feminine I neuter, e.g.: "stary I stara I stare"

However, I'd also suggest inserting the 3 forms in the plural as well because they can be difficult for a foreigner to find in a standard dictionary. As an example let's take the adjective "mądry"(wise): Singular: mądry I mądra I mądre but plural is mądrzy(mężczyźni) I mądre(kobiety) I mądre(dzieci) "Men are wise" - Mężczyźni są mądrzy, "Women are wise" - "Kobiety są mądre", "Children are wise" - "Dzieci są mądre"
Actually, we don't have to insert all 3 forms in the plural, the first 2 are enough cause in the plural an adjective in the neuter is always the same as...
» show full text
Adjectives  #462833
by Catesse (AU), 2009-09-19, 05:20  Spam?  
I have been following the pattern, although I see no need for all three forms of the adjective (Nominative singular) unless there is an irregularity.
Please don't use this form anymore!  #462918
by Paul (AT), Last modified: 2009-09-19, 16:17  Spam?  
This pattern was used when the multilingual beta phase started, but over the course of time I realized that it doesn't work out technically. So I came up with a new way of entering inflections. Here's how to do it:

1. Enter only one form (the main form) as the translation
2. In the review form there are buttons labeled with a plus sign [+]. Click the button next to the Polish word.
3. If there already is an existing inflection entry, it will appear now. If not, the link "add inflection information" appears.
4. Enter or review the inflection, following the example pattern that appears.

In case of any questions, please ask me!
I'm confused  #467189
by Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2009-10-09, 15:01  Spam?  
Are the inflections we're supposed to be including for adjectives just the nominative singular ones for m/f/n? Or are we supposed to be adding the plural as well? What about other cases? I can't quite see the logic to why nominative singular m/f/n ones should all be there, but none of the others. These are easy to predict. It's generally the nominative masculine personal plural that I find most of a nightmare and hardest to predict  and the rules for it hardest to master (I can't remember whether or not it has rules that work in all cases, but if it does, it's a large body of rules involving letter changes that vary by stem ending and not a simple add x to the stem rule).

In case it's a search thing (although I'm not convinced that if you can't turn the adjective you're interested in into its nominative masculine...
» show full text
The forms we include are listed below the inflection input field.  #467194
by Paul (AT), 2009-10-09, 15:20  Spam?  
nowy | nowa | nowe | nowi || nowszy | najnowszy
positive.m | f | n | || comparative.m | superlative.m

We can only include the most important forms. Huge (complete) inflection tables would be too difficult to handle.
Sorry, I'm probably missing something  #467195
by Windfall (GB), 2009-10-09, 15:28  Spam?  
Is that inflection table somewhere else?

I went to check
and I looked at the guidelines to see what we were supposed to be doing, but I couldn't see the pattern of inflections I was supposed to be using.
Also, shouldn't the comparative and superlative be separate entries matching the English comparative and superlative, or have I misunderstood the inflection table? Assuming I haven't, does that mean the English entry should be
new || newer | newest ?
At a page like ...  #467198
by Paul (AT), 2009-10-09, 15:44  Spam?  
you'd have to click the [+] button that's located next to the Polish input field. This will open a new section within the page, giving information about an already existing inflection entry and allowing you to add a new one, if there is none yet.

Can you find the button?
If not, maybe I could post a screenshot to make this clearer.
I've found the button  #467200
by Windfall (GB), 2009-10-09, 15:51  Spam?

What I'm not getting is where the table is that shows me which inflectional information I'm supposed to include. A screenshot might be helpful. Alternatively, have you got a link to one that's definitely correct so I can look at that? I'm still not 100% certain of how a complete, correct adjective entry (that's unlikely to get reopened and changed later) would look.
The correct translation entry in this case would be "brudny - dirty".  #467207
by Paul (AT), 2009-10-09, 16:01  Spam?  
The inflection entry is a different, additional thing. It only has to be entered and verified once and will then be applied to all translations of "brudny" in both Polish-English and Polish-German. It's an additional piece of information you don't have to work on if you just want to verify the translation.

What you see on if you click the [+] button next to the field that contains "brudny" is an already submitted inflection entry that still needs to be verified. Clicking "review" takes you to the form that contains an explanation.
Inflections  #467208
by Catesse (AU), 2009-10-09, 16:12  Spam?  
If the inflection feature is too complicated - don't worry. It's not mandatory to use it.  #467210
by Paul (AT), Last modified: 2009-10-09, 16:21  Spam?  
The only thing to watch is that the translation itself doesn't contain multiple forms.
Correct translation pair:   "brudny - dirty"
Incorrect translation pair: "brudny | brudna | brudne - dirty"
Got it.  #467211
by Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2009-10-09, 16:22  Spam?  
Your latest comment was the really helpful one. Thank you.
Because the inflection feature is monolingual, it should be easy to fill in for native speakers.  #467213
by Paul (AT), 2009-10-09, 16:23  Spam?  
Priest » answer
by Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2009-09-19, 05:18  Spam?  
It is also impossible for me to enter correctly 'ksiadz = priest'
I tried to modify my previous query, but the modification did not show up.
I have found how to verify my own and other existing entries (by individual words) but the other problems remain.
How long does it take for a verification to appear on the site? (I hope they have not disappeared into the wide blue yonder.)
Update: Problem solved.
Entries » answer
by Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2009-09-18, 08:02  Spam?  
At the risk of a rap on the knuckles, I have just sent a second question to Paul about the Polish site. I made a couple of entries (lewy and prawy), failed to give the feminine and neuter forms and cannot retrieve them to modify them. How, please? Things do not see, to work the same way as the German site. Maybe I am overlooking the obvious.
Also, how can entries be reviewed from the alphabetical lists? (if at all.) I am already sick of going through p. 1., p. 2. itd each time I access the site. If I have not answered them already, I am not going to do so. I should like to work through my Stanislawski dictionary alphabetically.
I cannot do Polish diacrytical marks on this site from my computer, so could somebody please enter 'okret wojenny' in the proper form?
I found the entries, they were posted in the English-Polish dictionary.  #462686
by Paul (AT), 2009-09-18, 12:33  Spam?
To review entries from the search results pages, click the button [i] to the left (or right) of the entry, the select "correct a mistake" from the menu that appears.

If I understand you correctly: Entries can be reviewed from the alphabetical lists only by clicking the word to get it into the search field, then click search to get to the search results page where you can click "correct a mistake" (if selected from the menu once, the second button will provide this function).

Special characters can be entered by clicking "more" next to the Polish field (input form, review form), then clicking the character needed.
Guidelines? See German forum! » answer
by Paul (AT), 2009-08-03, 23:13  Spam?  
Please use the German forum for questions about guidelines, at least for the time being, as most of the discussions about rules are the same for German and English and we need to discuss them in one place.
Polish tags on Polish side? » answer
by Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2009-07-30, 17:52  Spam?  
In Polish dictionaries, gender tags and other labels don't correspond exactly to what we're accustomed to using on, so my suggestion would be to use Polish-friendly tags on the Polish side, like we use German tags on the German side in the De-En dict and English tags on the English side. It's what's happening for Russian and Bulgarian, so it would make sense for Polish too. What do you think?
Depends  #450227
by Thorsten1 (DE), Last modified: 2009-07-31, 09:52  Spam?  
In all bilingual Polish dictionaries I own, the "international" abbreviations for genders are used, i.e. m, f, n. As "masculine" means "(rodzaj) męski" and "neuter" means "niejaki", only "f" would have to be replaced with "ż". Note also that Polish speakers can be trusted to already know what gender a given noun is, so the gender tags will be mostly of use to  English users. On the whole, I would suggest to use the same tags across wherever  possible.
I know that in Dutch  #450371
by Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2009-07-31, 17:51  Spam?  
we went with the Dutch tags on the Dutch side. Traditionally, we have kept each side of the dictionary with tags in its own language, so on the German side we use [ugs.] whereas on the English side we use [coll.]. etc. That's the kind of consistency I had in mind. If, for this particular dictionary, English tags are to be used on BOTH sides, I think there should be a good reason, as that would throw into question the habits we have of using German labels on the German side of the English-German dictionary. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? What about you, JanJK?
Thanks for your assistance, Kiskunfelegyhaza.  #450413
by Thorsten1 (DE), Last modified: 2009-07-31, 23:16  Spam?  
Traditionally, we have kept each side of the dictionary with tags in its own language, so on the German side we use [ugs.] whereas on the English side we use [coll.]. etc. [...] If, for this particular dictionary, English tags are to be used on BOTH sides [...]
I appreciate your help, but if you want to criticize other people's work, I must ask you to read it more carefully  first. Where am I using "English tags on both sides", as you are claim here? The opposite is true. Taking your example, I did not use "coll." on the Polish side - in fact, I used "pot." for "potocznie"
I do think, however, that functional categories (as opposed to usage notes), such as gender tags, {adv}, {adj} etc. should be designated according to the practice found in other bilingual dictionaries. To be sure, I'm not saying there is no case, say, for calling adverbs "przysłówki" or using {ż} for "żeński" instead of {f}. I just happen to believe that the reasons against this (convention, usability for non-Polish users, internal consistency of outweigh the reasons for it.
I thought "perf" was an English tag,  #450424
by Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2009-08-01, 00:45  Spam?  
sorry if I'm mistaken (my Polish dictionary uses "dk" for that). You mustn't take my words as a desire to criticize your work, Thorsten, where did I say that? I'm making observations and attempting to draw useful conclusions from them. If I wanted to criticize your work, I would do so directly - that's not my desire at all, there's no need for oversensitivity on your part. I'll let others weigh in on this discussion before voting on the entries with the tags in question (which will most likely take awhile). All I'm trying to do is lend a hand - just trying to help your good work get off the ground. If it's not helpful, I'll gracefully bow out!
If you were thinking of "{perf}", why were you talking of "[coll.]"? :)  #450859
by Thorsten1 (DE), 2009-08-03, 00:49  Spam?  
Dear Kiskunfelegyhaza: First off, reading your reply, I wonder who out of the two of us is being the oversensitive one here. You asserted that I was using "English tags" on the Polish side, using the example of "[coll.]" – when, in fact, I did the very opposite: namely, use "[pot.]" for "potocznie" on the Polish side. I don't doubt that your comment was made in good faith and simply the harmless result of hurried reading. Still, if someone, even in good faith, by mistake criticized you for doing the exact opposite of what you actually did, you'd probably wish to set this straight and ask that person to look more carefully - without being seen as "oversensitive" or arrogantly rejecting a helping hand, wouldn't you?

Coming back to the main issue, I'm afraid I can only repeat myself. Unlike you, I would suggest...
» show full text
Quote: "You asserted that I was using "English tags" on the Polish side, using the example of "[coll.]"  #451021
by Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2009-08-03, 20:28  Spam?  
I didn't say YOU were using [coll.]. I cited that as a general example. Sorry if I confused you.
You didn't confuse me, no worries!  #451029
by Thorsten1 (DE), 2009-08-03, 21:21  Spam?  
This is getting a bit silly. You said that: "Traditionally, we have kept each side of the dictionary with tags in its own language, so on the German side we use [ugs.] whereas on the English side we use [coll.]. etc. [...] If, for this particular dictionary, English tags are to be used on BOTH sides, I think there should be a good reason". As I was at that point the only one who had entered anything here at all, I couldn't help but assume that this was directed at me. If anyone here had suggested to use "English tags", such as "coll.", "on both sides", it would have had to be me. There was no confusion on my part. Anyway, to move back to a constructive discussion, do you have arguments relating to mine enumerated above?
Correction  #451192
by Thorsten1 (DE), Last modified: 2009-08-04, 14:39  Spam?  
I have to qualify my above statement that all Polish bilingual dictionaries I own or know use Latin or "international" grammatical terms rather than Polish ones. This is not correct - PWN's Wielki słownik polsko-niemiecki / Großwörterbuch Polnisch-Deutsch uses the Polish terms throughout. However, its English-counterpart from the same renowned publisher in cooperation with Oxford University Press, the Wielki słownik polsko-angielski PWN-Oxford uses the Latin terms for both directions. (It remains to be seen how the forthcoming German-Polish volume of the Wielki słownik polsko-niemiecki is going to handle this.) Also, Wiedza Powszechna's four-volume Wielki słownik polsko-rosyjski/rosyjsko-polski doesn't use Latin abbreviations; instead, it uses the Russian terms for both directions. However, these are the exceptions to a rule, which is why I still think that we should use the Latin versions here.
weighing in ...  #451559
by Paul (AT), 2009-08-05, 20:29  Spam?  
4;Kis: By lucky coincidence I met a language expert who's currently helping me out, right in my office, just like you suggested some time ago. We talked about it and came to the conclusion that it might be better to use the "international" tags, except for languages with non-Latin scripts.
some sundry thoughts  #466659
by boss1986 (PL), 2009-10-07, 14:58  Spam?  
The problem is that we can either make our entries very simple (not crude), lucid and concise or elaborate and exhaustive.
As far as I am concerned, I suggest skipping whether a verb is {perf} or not. Why? Okay, I know it add many words that look similar to the base ones, but it, IMO, unnecessarily darkens the whole image. But if we agreed on that, why don't we add all possible suffixes? For example:
pić [niedok.] | wypić [dok] | napić | przypić | rozpić | etc.
After all, they all have the same root.
Okay, I know I'm being sarcastic, I'm sorry, but I believe it's quite enough to leave the verb with [niedok] and, if you want, another entry with the same verb with [dok.]

Ad vocem Worzosowy, who suggests that we should take into account also 3 (or 2) inflections of adjectives in plural. My answer is the same...
» show full text
back to top | home© 2002 - 2017 Paul Hemetsberger | contact
Polish-English online dictionary (Słownik polsko-angielski) developed to help you share your knowledge with others. More information!
Links to this dictionary or to single translations are very welcome! Questions and Answers
Remove Ads