| | |
| | 6 říjen 2008 18:26 |
| | I don't think you can say 'something has worked out fine'. It should be either 'worked out' or 'is all right'.
And contact in Dutch may differ a little from the English use here. Since 'contact hebben' in Dutch describes a contact over a longer period, I would translate it as 'when we were in contact/touch'.
What do you think of something like this?:
I believe you were having quite an argument when we were in touch, but apparently everything worked out? (don't quite remember what it was about..) |
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:14 |
| | You're right about the contact, and I guess adding "two" is a bit stupid since I'm yet to meet the first person having an argument with himself.
The translation of the last phrase leans more towards the original as well, I'll edit!
Are you sure you "working out fine" isn't possible? Sounds very OK to me :P
Chantaaaaaal!
CC: Chantal |
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:19 |
| | Longman dictionary of contemporary English:
work out: Get better. If a problem or complicated situation works out, it gradually gets better or gets solved: Things will work out, you'll see.
So if something works out, it can't work out 'bad', it will always work out 'fine', therefore there's no need to add the fine, because it is already a positive statement .
|
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:27 |
| | I bought that Longman dictionary last week, coincidence ^^ haven't opened it yet though
Ok, thanks! |
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:29 |
| | hehe, you should treat it as your Bible when translating! |
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:32 |
| | Actually I do treat it as my Bible! |
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:38 |
| | One last thing:
dat is dus wel weer goed gekomen!?
Here it doesn't mean that it happened before and that it is fixed 'again', but more of a 'geruststelling' . Therefore I think the again should be left out in the translation. |
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:40 |
| | Edited! (again)
Or why you should never translate alone? |
| | 6 říjen 2008 20:43 |
| | |
| | 6 říjen 2008 21:38 |
| | That this translation took 3 people
which also means split pot, no? |