Dutch term
gebruiksvoorwerpen
No further context available.
BVD
Francina
4 +3 | implements | Manuel Maduro |
3 +2 | tools | CI95 |
3 | utensils | EgonWegh |
3 -4 | attributes | Jack den Haan |
Non-PRO (1): Jack den Haan
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
implements
agree |
writeaway
: probably the best of the lot. strange NL text-hairdryer and mouse?
3 hrs
|
Strange indeed :-s But, thanks!
|
|
agree |
jarry (X)
: The most appropriate single word in the context.
11 hrs
|
Positive feedback is a beautiful thing. Thank you, Jarry!
|
|
agree |
DutchConnection
: "implements, appliances or tools" would cover both ("gebr. of uitr.") in the context. I certainly wouldn't use the other terms suggested, considering the Dutch examples given.
15 hrs
|
Positive feedback is a beautiful thing. Thank you!
|
tools
neutral |
coenbruin (X)
: Utilities/appliances would be a good translation.
2 mins
|
you may well be right. thanks for the comment
|
|
agree |
Siobhan Schoonhoff-Reilly
: tools is fine, however I think that coenbruin's suggestion is perhaps more appropriate. Why not enter it as a separate answer coenbruin?
19 mins
|
thanks Siobhan and excellent suggestion
|
|
agree |
Jack den Haan
: ... although 'tool' might be a little overdone for a simple object like a pen ;-) // Yes, on 2nd thoughts they can! Like James Bond's for example :-)
59 mins
|
yes, I see your point, but then again some pens are multi-functional...thanks Jack
|
|
neutral |
vic voskuil
: i´d go with coenbruin on this one...
12 hrs
|
I'm actually not entirely happy with any of the terms offered so far, including my own!
|
|
neutral |
DutchConnection
: Certainly not 'utilities'. The English needs three terms, 'implements, appliances or tools' to cover the Dutch two ('gebr. of uitr.'), given the examples cited.
1 day 18 hrs
|
attributes
Might work too and eliminates the tautological construction as well, i.e. 'gebruiksvoorwerpen gebruiken'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2006-06-20 22:06:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
@Jarry: Your definition is apparently taken from Webster's Third New International Dictionary. At least, my copy renders a definition that is very close to yours. I quote: "2: An object closely associated with and thought of as belonging to a specific person, thing, or office <a septre is the attribute of power> <all his attributes are here -- ring, cigarette case, tiepin, cane -- Osbert Sitwell>".
If a ring, cigarette case, tiepin or cane can be an attribute, why can't a pen, for example, be one?
PS: Your dictionary may be a little less extensive than mine. I'm sure you wouldn't just omit an example like the second one on purpose ;-)
PPS: You might consider naming your references in future. That is generally regarded as good practice in scientific circles, so why not on Proz Kudoz?
disagree |
jarry (X)
: My definition was taken from the Longman Dictionary which gives no examples such as the one you are quoting, but does go on to say: esp such an object used to show the identity of a figure in painting or sculpture (eg an owl for Athene).
59 mins
|
Please see my note above.
|
|
disagree |
writeaway
: completely wrong in the context.look in any dictionary and you'll see you're using the word incorrectly.it doesn't matter which dico.it's also wrong even without any dico refs. a hair dryer/computer mouse etc will never be "attributes"/ :-)
1 hr
|
Please see my note to Jarry. // We're talking about attributes AND equipment/tools/implements/util./appl. etc. I did not claim either explicitly or implicitly that "a hair dryer/computer mouse" etc. was an attribute. Read a little more carefully please!
|
|
disagree |
vic voskuil
: jack, er is een vrij goeie nederlandse vertaling voor attribute: attribuut, en dat is een ondersoort der voorwerpen, nl zoals jarry al goed heeft uitgelegd. // het gaat erom dat die dingen KARAKTERISTIEK zijn voor iemand of iets....nogges webster´s lezen?
11 hrs
|
Bedankt Vic, maar ik ben het niet helemaal eens met deze gelijkstelling van 'attribute' en attribuut', al ligt zo'n vergelijking natuurlijk voor de hand. Zie ook mijn verdere antw'n aan Jarry in Notes to/from Asker.//Person, thing or office...
|
|
neutral |
Erik Boers
: Ik kan je wel volgen, maar ook uit jouw voorbeeld blijkt toch dat er altijd een bijgedachte is van "specifiek horen bij iemand", en ik denk niet dat dat hier de bedoeling is (al valt dat moeilijk uit te maken met zo weinig context).
11 hrs
|
Bedankt Erik. Ik denk zelf dat het gebruik van de term 'attribuut' breder kan zijn je hier aangeeft. Zie mijn verdere antw'n aan Jarry in Notes to/from Asker. Haar vraag blijft lastig!
|
|
disagree |
DutchConnection
: Attribute is a very context-specific word used to describe the symbolic function of an object. From Latin, attribuere: to associate with (OED).>Webster's 2nd def. doesn't ref. to above meaning but to what an obj is ASSOCIATED w. Don't walk away Jack! ;-)
1 day 18 hrs
|
Word meanings often evolve in time, making Latin or other origins less relevant. In this case, I still think that Webster's 2nd def. shows that its application in this context is not incorrect. But sorry DC, I don't have the time to pursue this further.
|
Discussion