Answer Question
Opinions from other users
I am curious to know if others experience the language the same way I do. If the consensus is yes, then the Fluenz team might want to make the English translations a little less "normal."
Here is what I mean:
When reading and translating the German into English, I have a tendency to leave the words in their native order. "Haben Sie?" is a good example. It literally translates to "Have you?" which is a perfectly OK way of leading a question in English although not as common in the US. But it, to me, is still perfectly understandable. I don't see a need to convert this to "Do you have?" in these lessons. In fact, it's a little counterproductive.
A lot of times I see patterns on the German side which are perfectly OK (but maybe a little old fashioned) in English. I very much like it when the literal German order is used even if it's a little awkward. (Think the literal for "Wie geht's Ihnen?" from early in level 1.)
My worst peeve: the use of contractions on the English side when no contractions are being used in the German. There is no need for this beyond the first 10 lessons of Level 1 where user-friendly translations are so welcome. A slightly more laborious English translation will not hurt anyone. The German contractions are tricky enough...please don't make me invoke English contractions unnecessarily! I am happy seeing "it is" rather than "it's."
And, so, I've just now hit lesson 9 of level 2. I have theories about the importance of "ge-." And I'm thinking there might be a better way of going about explaining some of this rather than bringing in more of the language defintion terminology I lost track of decades ago. I honestly don't remember what a "participle" is...except that a dangling one is bad in English, I think. (Maybe they're OK in other languages?)
So, users, are you with me in the following?
- Slightly wonky English would be OK if it followed the German grammatical order more accurately.
- Less eye-glazing Latin/English-Class technical terminology might be advisable. (Although I did have an epiphany when Nora explained the cases...but I couldn't remember the explanation the next day.)
Opinions here might help the Fluenz group formulate version 3.
Here is what I mean:
When reading and translating the German into English, I have a tendency to leave the words in their native order. "Haben Sie?" is a good example. It literally translates to "Have you?" which is a perfectly OK way of leading a question in English although not as common in the US. But it, to me, is still perfectly understandable. I don't see a need to convert this to "Do you have?" in these lessons. In fact, it's a little counterproductive.
A lot of times I see patterns on the German side which are perfectly OK (but maybe a little old fashioned) in English. I very much like it when the literal German order is used even if it's a little awkward. (Think the literal for "Wie geht's Ihnen?" from early in level 1.)
My worst peeve: the use of contractions on the English side when no contractions are being used in the German. There is no need for this beyond the first 10 lessons of Level 1 where user-friendly translations are so welcome. A slightly more laborious English translation will not hurt anyone. The German contractions are tricky enough...please don't make me invoke English contractions unnecessarily! I am happy seeing "it is" rather than "it's."
And, so, I've just now hit lesson 9 of level 2. I have theories about the importance of "ge-." And I'm thinking there might be a better way of going about explaining some of this rather than bringing in more of the language defintion terminology I lost track of decades ago. I honestly don't remember what a "participle" is...except that a dangling one is bad in English, I think. (Maybe they're OK in other languages?)
So, users, are you with me in the following?
- Slightly wonky English would be OK if it followed the German grammatical order more accurately.
- Less eye-glazing Latin/English-Class technical terminology might be advisable. (Although I did have an epiphany when Nora explained the cases...but I couldn't remember the explanation the next day.)
Opinions here might help the Fluenz group formulate version 3.