Another card that I've been puzzling over for a while but have thoughts on now:
Für die Besetzung der Rolle stehen zwei Schauspieler zur Verfügung.
The English translation is given as "Two actors are available for the cast."
I do not think the English and German mean the same thing, assuming I understand
Besetzung der Rolle correctly (the casting of a part/role). The German sounds to me like there is a role that needs an actor and there are two "applicants" available.
However, "Two actors are available for the cast" is more like a generic "there are two actors available who can participate, but we may or may not have any vacancies, and possibly we could just add two more bodies to the background that we didn't think we needed but why not?"
The German indicates there is a vacancy that needs a performer. The English lacks that. It's possible in the English that all positions have been filled, but there are two more people available to be added as background performers.
I would suggest this as the English: "There are two actors available to be cast for the role" (actually I would say "part" personally, in a real conversation*, but without context, I think "role" sounds better)
* A real conversion might go:
A: Oh boy, Mr Spielberg, Tom Hanks just dropped out of the project. We need someone to play Helmut Kohl!
B: (looks at collection of head shots) Well there are two other actors we could cast for the part.
(Just that without the context, "part" could be confusing)
In fact, the current English almost sounds like there is some job they need the actors to do, like appear on a talk show, and there are two available from the cast to go on the talk show.
Wie erfährt man, ob man gewonnen hat?
Am I misunderstanding the German? My take on it is that it works in
Roger hat teilgenommen, aber er musste zeitig nach Hause gehen. Deshalb hat er die Preisverlierung verpasst. Wie erfährt man, ob man gewonnen hat? and it does not work in
Ich habe zu früh eingeschlafen. Ich habe die Olympische Gymnastik nicht gesehen. Wie erfährt man, ob man hat gewonnen hat?
The English provided is "How do you find out who won?"
I propose it should be more like "How do you find out if you won?"
Assuming I understand the German usage correctly, the current English translation can be used on situations where "the person finding out" is also not "the person who competed," while the current German is only for situations where the finder-out and competitor are the same person.
Long time no talk everyone! I've been super busy but managed to finish the course a while back and have been getting in enough time every day to do the reviews. Also talking with natives via italki and doing some readings and other flashcarding to supplement my weakest stuff (like the construction gerecht werden, which I'd always get wrong on LV and wanted some more usage examples).
Anyway, I see the card about the
... des Sonnenuntergangs war beeindruckend (or something to that effect about the sunset being impressive) and this time I noticed there's a typo! In the card,
beeindruckend is missing an "e" and just says
beindruckend. Which I guess is when something feels leg-pressure-y? ;)
I keep getting
Letztendlich hat sich diese Entscheidung als richtig erwiesen wrong because every time I guess
What is the difference between
erweisen? The dictionary lists both as "to prove," so I would assume that either in past participal form would be acceptable.
Helfen Sie mir Obi-Wan Kenobi, Sie sind meine einzige Hoffnung!
I would say make sure there's some note about the change that is visible to users if they become mandatory. I got tired of typing üöä and capitalizing because I was trying to just breeze through the words fast. But I was never wrong about whether I thought an umlaut belonged there, and I certainly never was wrong about whether a word ought to be capitalized. I just got more pressed for time.
Although I guess the first word I missed for diacritical reason I'd realize "oh they're mandatory now"
There is a card,
Wir stimmend dir *weitgehend* zu, that I keep getting wrong because I guess
maßgeblich instead of
weitgehend every time. Can someone explain the difference? Dictionary-wise they appear to be quite similar. Why does
maßgeblich not work in this sentence? Thanks!
I think this is a bug they've been working on trying to track down. The advice in the meantime has been, for a given day, to only use one device that day. Next day is OK to switch. That's what I've been doing. If I start my daily work on my phone, I finish it on my phone, and vice versa.
Thanks for the clarification, but curious about your last comment, @Henning-Kockerbeck would you really need the plural? Like in English we have the phrase "We are the last hope" type phrase where
we can be a singular thing (hope rather than hope). Must it be plural in German?