Moin,
ich bräuchte eure Hilfe bei 2 Formulierungen. Ich muss für die Schule ein Diagramm beschreiben.
1.) Die Werte auf einer Achse gehen von 0 bis 100.000 in Schritten von 10.000. Hier mein englischer Satz: The vertical axis shows the number of prisoners from 0 to 100.000 in steps of 10.000.
2.) Die Werte von 2 Bars (Bar-Diagramm) liegen dich bei einander. Hier mein englischer Satz: The number of prisoners for violent offenses is with about 15.000 near by the number of property offense prisoners with about 10.000.
Die Formulierungen müssen "nur" dem normalen Schulenglisch genügen. Bitte lest euch die durch und sagt mir ob man das so formulieren kann oder obs besser geht.
Danke
Hilfe bei 2 Formulierungen
-
adam_wa
Re: Hilfe bei 2 Formulierungen
Hallo,
Der erste Satz hört er sich gut an.
Was den zweiten Satz betrifft: "The number of prisoners for violent offenses at around 15,000 is similar to the number of property offense prisoners at around 10,000" wäre korrekt. Man benutzt generell 'at' wenn mann bezieht sich auf eine Nummer von einem Bild.
Man könnte es auch auf diese Art besser formulieren: "Approximately 15,000 prisoners are held for violent offenses, a similar number to the approximately 10,000 prisoners held for property offenses"
In English (in case my German isn't understandable - please feel free to correct any mistakes I made):
Hello,
The first sentence sounds good.
In regards to the second sentence, "The number of prisoners for violent offenses at around 15,000 is similar to the number of property offense prisoners at around 10,000" would be correct. You generally use 'at' when referring to a number in a figure.
You could also say it better this way: "Approximately 15,000 prisoners are held for violent offenses, a similar number to the approximately 10,000 prisoners held for property offenses"
Hope that helps!
-Adam
Der erste Satz hört er sich gut an.
Was den zweiten Satz betrifft: "The number of prisoners for violent offenses at around 15,000 is similar to the number of property offense prisoners at around 10,000" wäre korrekt. Man benutzt generell 'at' wenn mann bezieht sich auf eine Nummer von einem Bild.
Man könnte es auch auf diese Art besser formulieren: "Approximately 15,000 prisoners are held for violent offenses, a similar number to the approximately 10,000 prisoners held for property offenses"
In English (in case my German isn't understandable - please feel free to correct any mistakes I made):
Hello,
The first sentence sounds good.
In regards to the second sentence, "The number of prisoners for violent offenses at around 15,000 is similar to the number of property offense prisoners at around 10,000" would be correct. You generally use 'at' when referring to a number in a figure.
You could also say it better this way: "Approximately 15,000 prisoners are held for violent offenses, a similar number to the approximately 10,000 prisoners held for property offenses"
Hope that helps!
-Adam
-
tiorthan
Re: Hilfe bei 2 Formulierungen
Hm, 15000 is half again as much as 10000, how is that similar?
1 - Merke: "Mann" mit Doppel-N und einem Großbuchstaben ist eine männliche Person, aber "man" mit nur einem N enspricht dem englischen "one" oder "you".
Remenber: "Mann" with double N and a capital letter is a male person but "man" with just one N is the equivalent of the impersonal "one" or "you" in English.
2 - Vorsicht! unnötig komplexe Grammatik
Attention! unnecessarily complicated grammar, and I'm going to do that in English because I'm more comfortable with English grammar terms, and I don't run the risk of having to translate grammar explanations.
The word order of German is a bit more complex. The German sentence formula is SOP(V2), meaning: Subject-Object-Predicate (Verb in second position in main clauses).
I'll need some examples to explain the meaning in more detail.
Beispiel 1: He wanted to kick the dog but it bit him.
This example consists of two main clauses.
First: "He wanted to kick the dog"
subject = he = er
predicate = wanted to kick = treten wollte (3rd person singular)
object = the dog = den Hund (direct Object = Akkusativ)
Putting that together using the SOP formula yields: "Er den Hund treten wollte."
Since the clause is a main clause the V2 rule applies. That rules basically states that the verb portion of the predicate - that's the word marked for person - is moved to the second position of the clause, regardless of what's in first position. Thus if a sentence starts with a subject the verb will follow the subject but if it starts with, for example, an adverbial the verb may actually precede the subject.
The verb part of the predicate in this exaple is "wollte" (it's the 3rd person singular past form of "wollen") so that's what we have to move to the second position: "Er wollte den Hund treten."
The second clause
subject = it = er (because "der Hund" is a male noun in German)
predicate = bit = biss
object = him = ihn (direct object)
SOP = er ihn biss
Here, the predicate consists of only one word. Consequently, if you move the verb to the second position, there is no leftover predicate at the end of the clause: "er biss ihn"
The "but" is a coordinating conjunction. That kind of conjunction connects two phrases without being part of either. It's part of the meta structure. So combined we get:
Der Mann wollte den Hund treten, aber er biss ihn.
Yeah, that's ambiguous, but it's just an example.
The V2-Rule does not apply in a subordinate clause.
Example: He said that he wanted to kick the dog.
Becomes: Er sagte, dass er den Hund treten wollte.
As you can see "er den Hund treten wollte" is exactly what you get when you apply the SOP rule.
Note: I used the unmarked word order for complex predicates (treten wollte) but most grammar books use main clause word order in all languages. Technically though, the main clauses are marked (via V2) in German, thus grammar book word order for complex predicates will always have the verb at the beginning of the predicate (wollte treten). Neither form is more correct than the other but one has to know which has been used and the unmarked order worked better (IMO) to make my point.
Deine deutsche Erklärung war sehr gut zu verstehen.adam_wa hat geschrieben:Hallo,
Der erste Satz hörtersich gut an.
Was den zweiten Satz betrifft: "The number of prisoners for violent offenses at around 15,000 is similar to the number of property offense prisoners at around 10,000" wäre korrekt. Man benutzt generell 'at' wenn man[sub]1[/sub]beziehtsich auf eine Nummer auf einem Bild bezieht2.
Man könnte es auch besser auf diese Artbesserformulieren: "Approximately 15,000 prisoners are held for violent offenses, a similar number to the approximately 10,000 prisoners held for property offenses"
1 - Merke: "Mann" mit Doppel-N und einem Großbuchstaben ist eine männliche Person, aber "man" mit nur einem N enspricht dem englischen "one" oder "you".
Remenber: "Mann" with double N and a capital letter is a male person but "man" with just one N is the equivalent of the impersonal "one" or "you" in English.
2 - Vorsicht! unnötig komplexe Grammatik
Attention! unnecessarily complicated grammar, and I'm going to do that in English because I'm more comfortable with English grammar terms, and I don't run the risk of having to translate grammar explanations.
The word order of German is a bit more complex. The German sentence formula is SOP(V2), meaning: Subject-Object-Predicate (Verb in second position in main clauses).
I'll need some examples to explain the meaning in more detail.
Beispiel 1: He wanted to kick the dog but it bit him.
This example consists of two main clauses.
First: "He wanted to kick the dog"
subject = he = er
predicate = wanted to kick = treten wollte (3rd person singular)
object = the dog = den Hund (direct Object = Akkusativ)
Putting that together using the SOP formula yields: "Er den Hund treten wollte."
Since the clause is a main clause the V2 rule applies. That rules basically states that the verb portion of the predicate - that's the word marked for person - is moved to the second position of the clause, regardless of what's in first position. Thus if a sentence starts with a subject the verb will follow the subject but if it starts with, for example, an adverbial the verb may actually precede the subject.
The verb part of the predicate in this exaple is "wollte" (it's the 3rd person singular past form of "wollen") so that's what we have to move to the second position: "Er wollte den Hund treten."
The second clause
subject = it = er (because "der Hund" is a male noun in German)
predicate = bit = biss
object = him = ihn (direct object)
SOP = er ihn biss
Here, the predicate consists of only one word. Consequently, if you move the verb to the second position, there is no leftover predicate at the end of the clause: "er biss ihn"
The "but" is a coordinating conjunction. That kind of conjunction connects two phrases without being part of either. It's part of the meta structure. So combined we get:
Der Mann wollte den Hund treten, aber er biss ihn.
Yeah, that's ambiguous, but it's just an example.
The V2-Rule does not apply in a subordinate clause.
Example: He said that he wanted to kick the dog.
Becomes: Er sagte, dass er den Hund treten wollte.
As you can see "er den Hund treten wollte" is exactly what you get when you apply the SOP rule.
Note: I used the unmarked word order for complex predicates (treten wollte) but most grammar books use main clause word order in all languages. Technically though, the main clauses are marked (via V2) in German, thus grammar book word order for complex predicates will always have the verb at the beginning of the predicate (wollte treten). Neither form is more correct than the other but one has to know which has been used and the unmarked order worked better (IMO) to make my point.