Mar 12, 2010 21:17
14 yrs ago
German term
Senkungen der Solarförderung sind zu hoch
German to English
Bus/Financial
Energy / Power Generation
reductions (aimed for by the government) in solar funding are too high ?
whole para:"Die von der Bundesregierung angestrebten Senkungen der Solarförderung sind zu hoch", erklärte der CSU-Chef am Freitag nach einem Treffen mit Vertretern der Solarstrombranche in München.
whole para:"Die von der Bundesregierung angestrebten Senkungen der Solarförderung sind zu hoch", erklärte der CSU-Chef am Freitag nach einem Treffen mit Vertretern der Solarstrombranche in München.
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 +6 | too drastic |
Lancashireman
|
| 4 +4 | reductions in solar funding are too high |
Craig Meulen
|
References
| Förderung etc. |
lisa23
|
Change log
Mar 12, 2010 21:43: Steffen Walter changed "Field" from "Other" to "Bus/Financial" , "Field (specific)" from "Environment & Ecology" to "Energy / Power Generation"
Mar 13, 2010 14:06: Anne-Marie Grant (X) changed "Level" from "Non-PRO" to "PRO"
Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:
PRO (3): Ulrike Kraemer, lisa23, Anne-Marie Grant (X)
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
+6
10 mins
Selected
too drastic
The cuts planned by the federal government in subsidies (grants) to the solar energy industry are too drastic
The cuts that the federal government are planning to make to the solar energy budget are too drastic
http://www.rp-online.de/politik/deutschland/Seehofer-macht-s...
not 'high' :-(
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 31 mins (2010-03-12 21:48:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
PS: If you go for 'cuts', they have to be 'deep'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 53 mins (2010-03-12 22:10:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks for informing Craig of your decision. I note that you have 'just_closed' two of your previous questions (Reason: Other). Would you be so kind as to leave this one open for the community to decide? Thanks again
AJS
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2010-03-12 23:08:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Semi-ingratiating comment (in case the above seems too much like an edict) based on Google frequency :
Results 1 - 100 of about 73,600 for "drastic reductions"
Results 1 - 100 of about 36,100 for "severe reductions"
Craig and Edwin:
Results 1 - 100 of about 18,000 for "high reductions"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 hrs (2010-03-13 19:06:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
After 14 days have elapsed, the question is automatically closed and the points are awarded to the most helpful answer on the basis of peer agrees. It is, however, important that you do NOT close it yourself: the 'robot' will not grade questions that have been closed by the asker.
You should also have a button on your screen giving you the option to leave your decision to the community. In this case, the question is automatically closed after 72 hours.
Whatever you decide, closing with the stated reason OTHER is generally deemed to be rather antisocial by users of this site.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 days (2010-03-28 08:42:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
"The asker has declined this answer. No comment was given"
Why did you do this? You have after all denied the community to decide the outcome. Your comment "how do I do that - leave it for the community to decide after I have closed it?" led me to believe that you would permit this question to run its course.
Would you kindly return to this question and close it properly. Otherwise, It remains in a state of "open" limbo for ever.
The cuts that the federal government are planning to make to the solar energy budget are too drastic
http://www.rp-online.de/politik/deutschland/Seehofer-macht-s...
not 'high' :-(
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 31 mins (2010-03-12 21:48:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
PS: If you go for 'cuts', they have to be 'deep'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 53 mins (2010-03-12 22:10:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks for informing Craig of your decision. I note that you have 'just_closed' two of your previous questions (Reason: Other). Would you be so kind as to leave this one open for the community to decide? Thanks again
AJS
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2010-03-12 23:08:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Semi-ingratiating comment (in case the above seems too much like an edict) based on Google frequency :
Results 1 - 100 of about 73,600 for "drastic reductions"
Results 1 - 100 of about 36,100 for "severe reductions"
Craig and Edwin:
Results 1 - 100 of about 18,000 for "high reductions"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 hrs (2010-03-13 19:06:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
After 14 days have elapsed, the question is automatically closed and the points are awarded to the most helpful answer on the basis of peer agrees. It is, however, important that you do NOT close it yourself: the 'robot' will not grade questions that have been closed by the asker.
You should also have a button on your screen giving you the option to leave your decision to the community. In this case, the question is automatically closed after 72 hours.
Whatever you decide, closing with the stated reason OTHER is generally deemed to be rather antisocial by users of this site.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 days (2010-03-28 08:42:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
"The asker has declined this answer. No comment was given"
Why did you do this? You have after all denied the community to decide the outcome. Your comment "how do I do that - leave it for the community to decide after I have closed it?" led me to believe that you would permit this question to run its course.
Would you kindly return to this question and close it properly. Otherwise, It remains in a state of "open" limbo for ever.
Note from asker:
| how do I do that - leave it for the community to decide after I have closed it? |
| Why did I do this? Because I was sent an email asking me to. I don't think any of the answers are wrong. |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Ingeborg Gowans (X)
41 mins
|
| agree |
Craig Meulen
: I do agree, your adjectives are better. But I was responding directly to the asker's question, "is ___ ok?", and I thought it was!!
11 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Craig. I am a little uncertain who or what your backers are backing. See Prediger's remark in particular: "High reductions doesn't sound right."
|
|
| agree |
Ulrike Kraemer
: Maybe the asker doesn't know how to close and grade questions properly?
11 hrs
|
| agree |
Anne-Marie Grant (X)
16 hrs
|
| agree |
Helen Shiner
: yes, or extensive/far-reaching, etc. but not high/De rien.
16 hrs
|
| agree |
British Diana
: Definitely better (but see my discussion entry)
18 hrs
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
+4
8 mins
reductions in solar funding are too high
Declined
Your suggestion is fine. I know there is an apparent contradiction between "reduction" and "high", but it's OK here. Although I admit, as a proofreader I would stop at this sentence and think about it twice.
Note from asker:
| I used severe in the end. |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Edwin Miles
: I'm going to back Craig on this one: "too high" sounds fine to my Australian/US ear. Alternatively (but not better than "high") you might try "too acute", "too extreme", "too serious" or "go too far".
15 mins
|
|
Thanks, good alternatives.
|
|
| neutral |
Lancashireman
: 'high reductions'? hmm...
23 mins
|
|
I've seen much worse when I proof-read ;-)
|
|
| agree |
Reinhold Wehrmann
7 hrs
|
|
thanks
|
|
| agree |
Rolf Keiser
: with Edwin
12 hrs
|
|
thanks
|
|
| agree |
Gunter Prediger
: also with Edwin - high reductions doesn't sound right
14 hrs
|
|
Edwin said he agreed, so you're not with Edwin? Or you're with his other suggestions?
|
|
| neutral |
Helen Shiner
: Sorry, Craig but I bet you wouldn't choose to translate it in this way yourself.
16 hrs
|
Reference comments
16 hrs
Reference:
Förderung etc.
Muss hier was anmerken: Diese "Solarförderung" beruht auf dem Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG). Danach erhalten Betreiber einer Solaranlage, das können Privatpersonen und Unternehmen sein, die Strom ins öffentliche Netz einspeisen, sogenannte Einspeisungsvergütungen, und diese werden im Laufe der Jahre zunehmend reduziert (Degression ist hier der Fachausdruck). Das war zwar schon immer geplant, diese langsam zu senken, aber jetzt hat die neue Regierung beschlossen, diese völlig unerwartet sehr drastisch zu reduzieren. Es gibt also bei uns keine Zuwendungen für die Errichtung von Solaranlagen, sondern dafür, dass man Strom dann auch in die öffentlichen Netze einspeist. Also i. D. sinngemäß: Die (neue) Degression der für Solarstrom gewährten Einspeisungesvergütung ist zu hoch.
Daher auch für Pro gestimmt.
Daher auch für Pro gestimmt.
Peer comments on this reference comment:
| agree |
Lancashireman
: Good background info. What do you think about the main question, though: high reductions or deep cuts?
14 mins
|
Discussion
Of course we see this sort of thing all the time, but it doesn't make it more logical.
Wenn die Senkungen der Förderung zu hoch sind, sollte man sie wohl wieder absenken... (mesinks)