[Xfce-i18n] About German translations

Christian Dywan christian at twotoasts.de
Tue Oct 21 19:53:26 CEST 2008

Am Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:50:20 +0200
schrieb Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de>:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:51:42 +0200, Christian Dywan
> <christian at twotoasts.de> wrote:
> >Am Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:35:23 +0200
> >schrieb Fabian Nowak <timystery at arcor.de>:
> >> > >
> >> > >It's right, a lot of our English strings could use some
> >> > >improvements. But "einstellen" is neutral (it doesn't say
> >> > >whether something is going to be activated or deactivated)
> >> > >whereas "enable" clearly is the opposite of "disable" and thus
> >> > >explains what it does.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Full ACK.
> >> > "enable" has never a similar meaning as "einstellen".
> >> 
> >> Contra, but seee other post, I admit its confusing when it can be
> >> misunderstood in that very context. But you do it with your
> >> favorite music player and other things among "anstellen,
> >> aktivieren".
> >
> >For the record, one needs to be aware that 'einstellen' can have
> >several meanings depending on the context. And 'to switch sth. on'
> >can actually be translated as 'etwas einstellen'. However I would
> IMO translating 'to switch sth. on' with 'etwas einstellen' can maybe
> correct but doesn't sound well. For me it sounds like old German, not
> sure how to explain but you certainly know the language and use of
> words older people speak if different from what younger people speak.
> Not to mention what the current 'Jugendsprache' does with the German
> language, but that's another topic :).
> Summarising, I think for 'enable' we really should use something like
> 'aktiveren', 'einschalten' or 'verwenden' and don't let sound the
> translation like the translator was 90 years old.

I don't think I am 90 years of age, nor are most of the people I'm
usually around, and still I find "einstellen" as a synonym for
"einschalten" pretty normal, I actually asked other a few friends and
they don't see what is wrong with that word either.

Anyhow, like I said before, for the sake of avoiding confusion I would
rather not use this word in the particular meaning. :)

> >> > >(That doesn't impress me too much. My minor subject at the
> >> > >University is all about user interfaces and usability as well.)
> >> > >
> >> > >Personally, I strongly prefer "Schaltfläche". But I agree that
> >> > >you can argue about that. If you check
> >> > >http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schaltfl%C3%A4che or
> >> > >http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafische_Benutzeroberfl%C3%A4che
> >> > >you'll not find "Knopf" anywhere. To me it sounds just wrong.
> >> > 
> >> > Full ACK again.
> >> > 'Knopf' sucks. It reminds of the buttons I have on my jacket to
> >> > close it when I'm freezing :D.
> >> 
> >> And this is where it comes from. You can push it, there's an
> >> action. That's actually just the poit why I do not like  the toggle
> >> button-like "Schaltfläche".
> >
> >>From my experience I'm used to understand 'Schaltfläche' as the same
> >as a normal clickable button in English. The difference between
> >'Schaltfläche' and 'Knopf' is basically the level of formality. And I
> >think that's why 'Schaltfläche' is so dominant that it feels wrong
> >not to use it, comparable to the use of 'Sie' forms.
> I don't think so. Regardless of any formaility level of both words,
> 'Knopf' is simply wrong, IMO. Translating 'button' into German near
> its meaning I'd say 'Drücker' but this sounds silly, obviously. But
> it gets very close to the real meaning. 'Knopf' doesn't do that even
> not even approximately.

I don't really see what is wrong with the word 'Knopf'. But I don't
mind if 'Schatfläche' is the preferred term.


More information about the Xfce-i18n mailing list