Viktor77 wrote:Naar mijn mening is Nederlands een hele strenge taal in termen van* de** syntaxis en de** semantiek. Misschien is het hetzelfde in het Engels en in^ het Duits, maar in het Frans (en misschien ook in het Engels) lijken beiden^^ gemakkelijker (maar misschien ben ik wel besmet^^^ omdat ik meer Frans heb gestudeerd.) Bijv. in het Frans (en misschien ook in het Engels) kan+ je bijna het gehele++ lexicon+++ gebruiken zolang je meestal het register eerbiedigt&. In het Nederlands lijkt het erop&& dat je woorden hebt die je nooit gebruikt of die tenminste zelden gebruikt worden. Daarom ga je streng op de semantiek af&&& om het juiste woord te gebruiken. De zinsstructuur lijkt op hele streng maar eraan~ denk ik dat ik gewoon bevooroordeeld ben omdat~~ Frans en Engels misschien ook een strikte zinsopbouw hebben en ik er alleen aan gewend ben ~~~.
*It doesn't sound that off, but it may be an Anglicism. You could say "wat betreft" instead.
**You might get away with "de syntaxis en semantiek", but I'd leave out the articles, just like English. Also, "syntaxis" is called "zinsopbouw" in Dutch, and semantiek is "betekenisleer" (though the sciency terms are ok and perhaps more prevalent as well).
^Dutch really doesn't like repetition, so leave out repeated elements. Say "in het Engels en het Duits" or even "in het Engels en Duits".
^^"beiden" (with "n") can only refer to people, "beide" (without n) refers to things; that said, in speech you don't hear the difference in most dialects/accents
^^^There's no English equivalent in your translation, so I'm not sure what you mean to say here; it doesn't sound idiomatic [I see you use it later on as a translation of "biased". That's "bevooroordeeld" in Dutch, or at least in this case.]
+I'd use "kun"
++"gehele" sounds very formal, at least in ND
+++"woordenschat" is the Dutch word (though "lexicon" is fine as well)
&this sounds very stilted, I'd probably rephrase
&&Or more correctly, "Het lijkt erop dat in het Nederlands ..."
&&&I'd add "moet" - "Daarom moet je XXX"; also, "streng" here is doubtful, and "afgaan op" is not a very good translation of "to rely on". I'm not sure how to rephrase.
~Sorry to say, but this is a mess :) Totally unintelligeble. Judging the English, something like "De zinsopbouw lijkt ook heel strikt, maar in dit geval denk ik dat ik bevooroordeeld ben (...)" would be better.
~~That's also wrong in English, there's no semantics to justify a "because" here ;). "en" will do.
~~~Or, ", en ben ik er alleen aan gewend" (so with comma to introduce a separate clause)
In my opinion Dutch is a very strict language in terms of syntax and semantics. Perhaps it is the same in English and German, but French (and perhaps in English too) both seem easier. For sample in French (and perhaps also in English) you can use basically the entire lexicon as long as you respect the register. In Dutch it seems that you have words which you never use or at least rarely use. Therefore you rely strongly on semantics in order to use the right word. The sentence structure also seems very strict but in this case I think that I'm just biased because French and English probably also have a strict sentence structure and I'm just used to it.
I hope you understand this is utter bullshit in terms of content :). As for the lexicon, both English and (I'm told) French have thousands of words that are ancient and never used in even the poshest prose, let alone in everyday speech. As for the syntax, Dutch has a very rich one that's far from strict, and certainly not stricter than English. There.
Well that's about the best Dutch I can manage so let's see how I do. I have an opstel Friday that I have to write in class so we'll see if I'm ready.
Well, you made some really strange errors, apart from the more common ones (especially in the realms of word order). Ik zal voor je duimen :).
hwhatting wrote:Ik had gewoon honger.
Though "maar" can be used in many cases to translate "just", you can't use it here.
(Ich habe versucht (probiert?) das in Deutsch zu schreiben, aber das ist kläglich gescheitert.)
(I've tried to write that in German, but that has failed miserably.)
JAL
).
