Help your fluency in a nifty way

[ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪]

The problem is also that the (OMG, I don't like this name in English) Law and Justice party

Er ist besser auf Polnisch?
An fearr as Polainnis í?
It's better in Polish?

Premièrement, je suis habitué à «Prawo i Sprawiedliwość», deuxièmement, même plus à «PiS», qui je pense beaucoup de gens ici ne comprendraient pas.

Firstly, I'm used to "Prawo i Sprawiedliwość", secondly, even more used to "PiS", which I think many people here wouldn't understand.

By the way, there's a joke about this name (I don't translate it as I can't yet at this level of "education" I receive at school):
-Do you know why law isn't just?
-No, go on.
-Because if it were there wouldn't be this "and"!

[Pole, the]

It's better in Polish?

Arvelen, että paljon puolalaisia ovat turtunut „Prawo i Sprawiedliwość”-in kirjaimelliseen merkitykseen, kuullut sen niin monta kertaa.
I guess most Poles are desensitized to the literal meaning of „Prawo i Sprawiedliwość”, having heard it so many times.

[linguoboy]

Ungefähr wie wir in den USA dem Namen unsern Heimatschutzministeriums gegenüber desensibilisiert worden sind. In diesem Fall klingt er aber weniger beunruhigend in anderen Sprachen, wo es nur ein Ministerium für "innere" oder "nationale" Sicherheit ist.
Kinda of how we in the USA have been desensitised to the name of Homeland Security. Though in this case it generally sounds less disturbing in other languages, where it's only a department for "interior" or "national" security.

[Io]

Δεν ξέρω ότι θα ήταν ο κόσμος έχοντας έναν ευρωπαϊκό στρατό... σκέψου την Ουκρανία.
I don't know how the world would be with an European army... think of Ukraine.

πώς not ότι
έχοντας isn't wrong I guess but it sounds kind of stilted, I'd just replace it with με.

- - - - - -

Asante, Imralu!

[Viktor77]

Oui, les charbon mineurs de fond doivent être satisfaits par le gouvernement*, s'ils ne sont pas, ils font la grève. Je ne sais pas combien s'il c'est vrai**, mais j'entends dire que des gens qui se plaignent du fait que la Tchéquie peut puisse contrôler les mineurs et avoir une l'industrie de charbon soutenable viable et notre pays ne peut puisse pas.
Le problème est aussi que le parti Droit et justice parti a un fort, permanent groupe bloc de vote fort et permanent des électeurs et le reste des Polonais qui peuvent voir autre chose que leurs avantages n'ont pas de parti autour duquel ils peuvent se rassembler autour et pour lequel ils peuvent voter pour.***
Yes, coal miners require being satisfied by the government in Poland*, if they aren't, they strike. I don't know how much true it is it, but I hear people complaining that the Czech Republic can control miners and have a sustainable coal industry and our country can't.
The problem is also that the (OMG, I don't like this name in English) the Law and Justice party has a strong, permanent voting block and the rest of Poles who can see something other than private benefits don't have a party to gather around and vote for***.

*This sentence is weird to me in English and French. Satisfaction isn't the right word but I'm unsure how to correct it right now.
**Or à quel point il est vrai
***Quite frankly I don't understand this sentence in either language so it needs revising.

D'abordPremièrement, je suis habitué à «Prawo i Sprawiedliwość», secondement deuxièmement*, je suis encore même plus habitué à «PiS», que je pense que beaucoup de gens ici ne comprendraient pas.

Firstly, I'm used to "Prawo i Sprawiedliwość", secondly, I'm even more used to "PiS", which I think many people here wouldn't understand.

*Deuxièment is used where you have a serial list containing at least 3 things. If you only have two then use secondement.

Die meisten Französischsprachige, die ich kenne, "obvious" zu viel in Englisch benutzen, besonders in formellen Situatione. Wat mir betrifft, "obvious" ist ein unhöfliches Wört. Ich würde nicht "obvious" in formellen Situatione benutzen. Was denken die anderen darüber?

Most French speakers I know use "obvious" too much in English, especially in formal situations. For me, "obvious" is an impolite word. I would not use "obvious" in formal situations. What do others think?

[Vijay]

എന്റെ അഭിപ്രായത്തിൽ "obvious" എന്ന വാക്ക് ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതിൽ ഒരു കുഴപ്പവുമില്ല.
[jɛnˈde əbɪˈpraːjət̪ɪl ˈɔːbʋijəs ɛn̪ˈn̪a ˈʋaːk ʊbəˈjoːgikʲʊn̪n̪əd̪ɪl oˈɾu kɔɻʊˈpəʋʊm ɪlˈla]
There's nothing wrong with using the word "obvious" in my opinion.

[Travis B.]

Obvious may be frequently used in a pointed fashion, but to me it is not an informal word by any means.

[ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪]

RED RED RED RED RED RED

Je vais pouvoir parler français un jour. Je jure !
I'm going to be able to speak French one day. I promise! .

[Viktor77]

RED RED RED RED RED RED

Je vais pouvoir parler français un jour. Je jure !
I'm going to be able to speak French one day. I promise! .

Tu arrivas un jour. Ça prend du temps.

You'll get it someday. It takes time.

Travis et Vijay, ce que je veux dire c'est difficile à exprimer. À mon avis, en utilisant le mot "obvious" on met en question la connaissance de quelqu'un. C-à-d, c'est un type de riposte impolie. Par exemple: "Well, it's obvious that the answer has to do with A and B." C'est comme tu as besoin de mettre un point d'exclamation sur une information que ton interlocuteur devait savoir et quand tu fais cela dans un contexte plus formel, tu mets effectivement en question la connaissance de quelqu'un d'important ou d'intelligent. Je n'utilise le mot que pour riposter dans un contexte où j'ai droit à mettre en question la connaissance de quelqu'un, tel qu'un ami, etc.

Travis and Vijay, what I want to say is hard to express. In my opinion, by using the word "obvious" you question the knowledge of someone. In other words, it's a kind of impolite retort. For example: "Well, it's obvious that the answer has to do with A and B." It's as if you need to put an exclamation point on information that your interlocutor ought to have known and when you do this in a more formal context, you effectively call into question the knowledge of someone who's important or intelligent. I only use the word to retort in a context where I have the right to call someone's knowledge into question, such as a friend, etc.

[Ryusenshi]

Lo siento, Viktor, pero tres de tus correcciones no son correctas.
Entschuldigung, Viktor, aber drei von deine Verbesserungen sind nicht korrekt.
Sorry, Viktor, but three of your correction aren't quite correct.

Oui, les charbon mineurs de fond

Why did you change coal miners to mineurs de fond? Mineurs de charbon would be closer.

ils font la grève.

There's nothing wrong with ils font grève.

D'abordPremièrement, je suis habitué à «Prawo i Sprawiedliwość», secondement deuxièmement*

*Deuxièment is used where you have a serial list containing at least 3 things. If you only have two then use secondement.

There's nothing wrong with premièrement and deuxièmement. I don't think I've ever used the word secondement (though it does seem to exist). The "rule" that you have to use second when there are two things and deuxième when there are at least three isn't really a rule: it was completely made up by some prescriptivists. French speakers use both interchangeably, and have been doing so for as long as the word deuxième has existed.

Edit:

Travis et Vijay, ce que je veux dire c'est difficile à exprimer. À mon avis, en utilisant le mot "obvious" on met en question la connaissance de quelqu'un. C-à-d, c'est un type de riposte impolie. Par exemple: "Well, it's obvious that the answer has to do with A and B." C'est comme si tu avais besoin de mettre un point d'exclamation sur une information que ton interlocuteur devait savoir et quand tu fais cela dans un contexte plus formel, tu mets effectivement en question la connaissance de quelqu'un d'important ou d'intelligent. Je n'utilise le mot que pour riposter dans un contexte où j'ai le droit de mettre en question la connaissance de quelqu'un, tel qu'un ami, etc.

The word riposte is, I think, a bit too strong in this context. You do a riposte to counter someone who attacked you in the first place. I'd use réplique, or simply réponse.

[Viktor77]

These are stylistic corrections. I used ''mineurs de fond' because I found it more commonplace than 'mineurs de charbon'. I suppose it was a bit of an overextension.

I know that 'ils font grève' works but the context to me felt like it needed the definite article to put an emphasis on the action of striking.

I learned that ordinal number rule long ago and was never corrected on it except some people saying it's silly to insist on 'La Seconde guerre mondiale.' I also prefer 'd'abord' to the mouthful of 'premièrement.' Notice I corrected 'firstly' in English, too. It's a stylistic thing.

If you are going to contribute to our thread I welcome you to correct the French texts as a native speaker. I was only doing it because no one else was.

[Ryusenshi]

Tienes razón. Pero, pienso que correcciones de estilo pueden agobiar a alguién que no habla el idioma muy bien. Prefiero centrarme con cosas que son incorrectas sin duda.
You're right. But I think that stylistic corrections can be overwhelming to someone who doesn't speak the language very well yet. I'd rather focus on stuff that's undoubtedly wrong.

[linguoboy]

Oft benutze ich zwei Farben: Rot für unzweifelhaft grammatische Fehler und etwas nicht so grell für Unangebrachtheiten bzw. stilistische Fehler.
Often I'll use two colours: red for indisputably grammatical errors and something less harsh for infelicities and stylistic failures.

[jal]

Heh, just when I'm on holiday for two weeks, you guys start talking Dutch again :).

Men kann de terrorisme niet stoppen, men kann slechts proberen, zijn talrijkheid* en gevolgen te verminderen.

*sounds a bit stilted, perhaps just "omvang" or the like.

Ik begrijp niet waarom. Hoe meer gecentraliseerd de Europese Unie wordt, hoe meer verenigd de EU wordt, tenminste in theorie. Het is juist dat de EU geen perfect geïntegeerd wezen* is en dat er moelijkheiden zijn, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot samenwerking, maar ik blijf ervan** optimistisch.

*sounds a bit odd, not sure how I'd translate "entity" here. Perhaps just "entiteit".
**if you really want a referral, you could say "ik blijf er optimistisch over" or the like, but you don't have that in English either.

Meer centralisatie kan ook meer weerstand betekenen, of dat meer landen de EU verlaten. Als de EU nog slechts* een douane-unie zou zijn, had het Verenigd Koninkrijk kunnen blijven

*this sounds like you're saying that we should've degraded the EU to this, instead of what you probably mean, not upgrading it. Try "was" i/o "zou zijn" (so "nog slechts een d-u was"), or better, use "nog steeds" (possible with both "zou zijn" and "was").

Voor mij was hetmeer "energie* maken van** materialen." Dus is er nog een stukje productie in deze context. Een soort van fabriek die energie maakt.[/b]

*"power" can't be translated literally here, you need "energie" (the thing is called a "energiecentrale" in Dutch)
**or "uit"

Verdammt! Es ist zu spät, muss gehen! Wiedersehen!
Damn! It's too late, gotta go! Bye!


JAL

[ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪]

Wann soll ich benutzen -es und -s im die deutschen schwachen Dingwörter Wesfall?
When should I use -es and -s in the genitive of German strong nouns? (The end of my German abilities.)
Wikipedia tells they should be used rrespectively with one syllable and bigger words, but Wiktionary gives both forms.

[Imralu]

Niko kazini na sasa hivi nilipata kula embe kidogo la mfanyakazi mwenzangu.
I am at work and I just got to eat a bit of my colleague's mango.

[hwhatting]

Die meisten Französischsprachigen, die ich kenne, benutzen "obvious" zu viel im Englischen benutzen, besonders in formellen Situationen. Was mich*1) betrifft, ist "obvious" ist ein unhöfliches Wört. Ich würde nicht "obvious" nicht in formellen Situationen benutzen. Was denken die anderen darüber?

Most French speakers I know use "obvious" too much in English, especially in formal situations. For me, "obvious" is an impolite word. I would not use "obvious" in formal situations. What do others think?

*1) Wat mir - Working on your Berlinerisch?

Oft benutze ich zwei Farben: Rot für unzweifelhaft grammatische Fehler und etwas nicht so grelles*2) für Unangebrachtheiten bzw. stilistische Fehler.
Often I'll use two colours: red for indisputably grammatical errors and something less harsh for infelicities and stylistic failures.

*2) grell is ok if you're talking about the quality of the colour. If you have in mind the harshness of the judgment indicated by the colour, better use schroff or harsch.

Wann soll ich benutzen -es benutzen und wann -s im die deutschen schwachen Dingwörter Wesfall*3) der starken deutschen Hauptwörter?
When should I use -es and -s in the genitive of German strong nouns? (The end of my German abilities.)
Wikipedia tells they should be used rrespectively with one syllable and bigger words, but Wiktionary gives both forms.

*3) When to use German or Latin-based grammatical terminology is a complicated issue. Hauptwort is fine everywhere outside specialist academic circles (linguistics, philology), where you'd use Substantiv, but Wesfall and the other German names of the cases are used almost only in elementary school or when talking to people who you assume not to have much more than an elementary education; better use Genitiv etc.

Nie jest trudne:
Pas difficile:
Niet zwaar:
Ní hansa:
It's not difficult:
For the modern Standard language, -s is acceptable everywhere except after -s, -ß,-(t)z, where you use only -es. It's never strictly wrong to use -es with words not ending in those consonants, especially in formal writing, but it sounds stilted and antiquated, execpt for some fixed expressions (e.g. am Ende des Tages). Some people also don't use -s after -(t)sch.

[jal]

Niet moeilijk

"zwaar" only means "much weight", never "difficult".


JAL

[Pole, the]

Nie jest trudne To nie jest trudne / To nie trudne* / To nietrudne*
*) according to PWN, it doesn't fall into any of the cases where the separate spelling would be permissible, so nietrudne seems to be the normative spelling, but nie trudne seems to be more common in total; I guess it's one of the cases where the norm disagrees with the usage

[David Rabinowitz]

Nie jest trudne To nie jest trudne / To nie trudne* / To nietrudne*
*) according to PWN, it doesn't fall into any of the cases where the separate spelling would be permissible, so nietrudne seems to be the normative spelling, but nie trudne seems to be more common in total; I guess it's one of the cases where the norm disagrees with the usage

Hah, nie miałem pojęcia że była możliwość pisania "nietrudne" zamiast "nie trudne".
I had no idea there was the possibility of writing "nietrudne" instead of "nie trudnie". (I'm not a native but that does surprise me somewhat.)

[Imralu]

Hakuna mtu yeyote anayejali hali yangu ya embe?
Isn't there anyone who cares about my mango experience?

[Ziz]

Hakuna mtu yeyote anayejali hali yangu ya embe?
Isn't there anyone who cares about my mango experience?

Ich hoffe, dass die Mango von deinem Kollege sehr lecker war.
Ikh hof, az di mango fun dayn koleg iz geven zeyer geshmak.
I hope your colleague's mango was very tasty.

[Imralu]

Ich hoffe, dass die Mango von deinem Kollegen* sehr lecker war.
Ikh hof, az di mango fun dayn koleg iz geven zeyer geshmak.
I hope your colleague's mango was very tasty.

Asante sana! Ni nzuri kwamba unajali maembe, hata kama niliomba mtu ajali. Lilikuwa tamu sana! Ninafikiri kwamba sikuwa nimekula embe tangu kuja Ujerumani. Na wewe je umekula embe Israeli?
Thank you very much. It's nice that you care about mangoes, even if I asked someone to care. It was very tasty. I think I hadn't eaten a mango since I came to Germany. What about you: have you eaten mango in Israel?

*Kollege ist ein schwaches Nomen... Aber der Kollege war in diesem Fall eine Kollegin.
Kollege is a weak noun... but in this case, the (male) colleague was a female colleague.

[Ziz]

Im letzten Sommer habe ich ein paar Mangos mit einer Freundin gekauft. Es war ein sehr heiße Tag, und so haben wir beschlossen, mit ihnen Smoothies zu machen.
Inem letstn zumer hob ikh gekoyft a por mangos mit a frayndin. S'iz geven a zeyer heyser tog, lekheyn hobn mir bashlosn tsu makhn smoothies mit zey.
Last summer I bought a couple mangoes with my friend. It was a very hot day, so we decided to make smoothies with them.

[ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪]

Nie jest trudne To nie jest trudne / To nie trudne* / To nietrudne*
*) according to PWN, it doesn't fall into any of the cases where the separate spelling would be permissible, so nietrudne seems to be the normative spelling, but nie trudne seems to be more common in total; I guess it's one of the cases where the norm disagrees with the usage

Hah, nie miałem pojęcia, że była jest* możliwość pisania/można pisać** "nietrudne" zamiast "nie trudne".
I had no idea there was the possibility of writing "nietrudne" instead of "nie trudne". (I'm not a native but that does surprise me somewhat.)

*In Polish relative clauses you should use a tense independent from the one of the main clause.
**I'd rather use "można" here.
Habt ihr sehen, dass manche Tabelen des Wikiwörterbuchs öffnen nicht?
EDIT: Did you see some Wiktionary tables don't open?
EDIT no. 2.: E.g. declension of "manch" or translations of "say".