# With the help of which



## Sandra723

Goedenavond,

I have a problem translating a software description. I used to learn Dutch by myself but forgot the relative clauses. How they are formed and especially, relative pronouns, I mix them with German.


----------



## sound shift

I think it translates as _met behulp waarvan_, but I stand to be corrected by a native.


----------



## HarmlessDrudge

The way you have it is simply correct... 

HarmlessDrudge


----------



## Sandra723

Thank you guys, _waarvan_ is cool, I almost forgot all of those, I do remember, though, it's not the only one that is used in relative sentences. Are there gender distictions in there?


----------



## keigezellig

Hello,

Can you give me the whole sentence you want to translate, please?

Kei


----------



## Sandra723

keigezellig said:


> Hello,
> 
> Can you give me the whole sentence you want to translate, please?
> 
> Kei



This is a program with *the help of which*you can have a fast and efficient way of organizing your list-based data.


----------



## HarmlessDrudge

Sandra723 said:


> not the only one that is used in relative sentences. Are there gender distictions in there?



Where gender distinctions are concerned, you open somewhat of a can o' worms as, though they are most certainly there, their currency has definitely sunk beneath the billowy waves of modern usage  and when used in the present day, an almost comic effect of hyper-archaism is the result.

When using the  construction [het meisje van wie de fiets was] ('the girl whose bike it was'), the relative personal neuter [van wie] is ubiquitous in modern usage. However, the perfectly correct but archaic [het meisje wiens fiets etc.] resorts to the M/F form [wiens/wier] in which case, though indicating a feminine entity, [het meisje] is actually neuter with masculine attributes (all diminutives in Dutch share these specific gender qualities), resulting in the requirement for the masculine [wiens] to be used rather than the feminine [wier] that you could expect. Change the construction to [de meid van wie de fiets was], and the alternative archaic form becomes [de meid wier fiets], the feminine [wier] being predicated on the feminine gender of [meid]. I could lead you on a merry-go-round of examples where these apparent conflicts between expected gender and actual usage diverge.

However, sparing you all that jazz , for almost all common parlance usage, these distinctions have all but eroded to nothingness, which means, in the case of the actual sentence you have just quoted, the construction would be:

[Dit is een programma, met behulp waarvan U etc etc]

Hope this helps... 

HarmlessDrudge


----------



## Sandra723

Thank you! 
_wier_ is what I was trying to remember, _wiens_ is clear - that's possessive, which I couldn't possibly use in that case.


----------



## keigezellig

I would not say _met behulp waarvan _but _waarmee.
Dit is een programma waarmee je op een makkelijke en efficiënte manier je op lijsten gebaseerde gegevens kan organiseren._

And about you question about gender distinctions of relative pronouns, there are.
The relative pronouns are 'die' and 'dat'.

With _het_ words, you use _dat_
With _de_ words, you use _die_

Consider the following examples:

_Het huis *dat* daar staat.
_(The house which is standing over there)
_De boom *die* daar staat.
(_The tree which is standing over there)

Hope this is clear for you.

Kei


----------



## Sandra723

Hey,
that's exactly what I had read in a Dutch grammar when I was learning this wonderful languages. And the pronouns are like those in German.


----------



## keigezellig

Yes that's true, but the German system is different from Dutch since in German you have different forms of the pronoun for the different _cases_, the case depending on the function of the pronoun in the relative clause.

There are also 3 genders (masculine, feminine and neuter) in German instead of 2 in Dutch, neuter (_het_ words) and masculine/feminine (_de_ words).

This is for Dutch people learning German one of the more difficult things, since we haven't got a full case system anymore.

I can remember from high school that I find this rather difficult matter 

But I think this is way off topic, anyway I thought I would share it with you


----------



## Sandra723

no no, you were absolutely right - I do appreciate that!


----------



## HarmlessDrudge

Keigezellig makes a good point, which amounts to your choice of register, the final element in translation. The English is almost register-neutral, so you can choose to go lower, which amounts to Keigezellig's choice of phrase, using [waarmee] and [je] -- I'm of an age  when you were schooled *never* to use [je], or similar familiar forms of address, in written language for publication, and such habits die hard  -- which is today's way most certainly. The alternative form I adopted from earlier up the thread, would amount to a slightly more formal, i.e. higher register than the original English. You know the target audience you're writing for, so it's once again a case of 'you pays yer money, and takes yer pick'...

*HD*


----------



## keigezellig

@Harmless, which alternative form do you mean. The _waarvan_ sentence you stated earlier or using _u (_formal)instead of _je/jou_ (informal).
I can agree with the _u/je_ distinction, which depends on the audience. But if you try to translate the original sentence with _waarvan_ it sounds a little awkward to me. (That's the reason why I asked for the complete sentence)


----------



## Frank06

Hoi,


keigezellig said:


> I would not say met behulp waarvan but waarmee.


Maar blijft de constructie dan niet loodzwaar (ook wel omwille van "je op lijsten gebaseerde gegevens")?


> Dit is een programma waarmee je op een makkelijke en efficiënte manier je op lijsten gebaseerde gegevens kan organiseren.


Ik dacht aan iets eenvoudigers:
Met dit programma kan je / kan u / kun je / kunt u ...



HarmlessDrudge said:


> Where gender distinctions are concerned, you open somewhat of a can o' worms as, though they are most certainly there, their currency has definitely sunk beneath the billowy waves of modern usage  and when used in the present day, an almost comic effect of hyper-archaism is the result.


Possibly in the Netherlands, almost certainly not in Flanders. But there are already a few other threads about this topic.



> Dit is een programma, met behulp waarvan U etc etc


Een kleine opmerking over een _hyper-archaism_: U, met een hoofdletter .

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Sandra723

I am a little confused  -:
1 May I leave waarmee?
2. Should there be U/u/je?


----------



## keigezellig

@ Frank06: Wat bedoel je met 'loodzwaar', de constructie met 'waarmee' is naar mijn mening toch een goedlopende zin (even de je/u discussie buiten beschouwing gelaten)
Natuurlijk, jouw variant met 'kunnen' is ook mogelijk.
Oh en trouwens, _kan je_ is volgens mij fout, het is altijd _'kun je ...?'_

@Sandra723
About the U/u/je issue: It depends on the target audience of the sentence. If you want to be formal use _u _(the lowercase variant, the uppercase variant is, as stated before, old fashioned)
If you want to be informal use _je/jou_

About your first remark: 
There are several possibilities to translate the sentence. I suggested the _waarmee
_ sentence and Frank suggested another option with _kunnen_ (Met dit programma kun je / kunt u ...)


----------



## Frank06

Hoi,


keigezellig said:


> kan je[/I] is volgens mij fout, het is altijd _'kun je ...?'_


Waarom zou 'kan je' fout zijn ? 

Nog een vraagje: is het volgens jou (altijd) fout? Of is het gewoonweg altijd fout? Zo ja, Volgens wie dan wel?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## HarmlessDrudge

Confused is not a nice place to be... [commiserating smiley] Sorry if I've unwittingly contributed to that state...

I have a semantic objection to 'waarmee' -- pure technical nit-picking as a translator which I'll explain in a post to Keigezellig, who raised the question direct with me -- but yours is a practical matter of matching register, vocabulary and tone with the expectations of your readership, as well as the 'image' you wish to project through your text.

With a predominantly truly youthful readership, Keigezellig's general choice of register would probably sit very comfortably.

Frank's variant, which neatly sidesteps some of the origins of this thread's sudden longevity  is more or less as register-neutral as is the original English, if you deploy the [kunt u] (lower case! <s>) form he suggested as an option. Although I would not likely come up with it instinctively myself (which is why I don't translate non-literary texts <g>), it's probably the median way that would readily be comfortable reading for the greatest number of your readers from all imaginable backgrounds. (One consideration with regard to using the familiar throughout in your documentation: once you have established that level of tone and register, there's no way back: suddenly go lower and vulgarity beckons, suddenly go higher, and an apparently snooty, speaking-from-a-great-height effect can be the unwanted, perceived result. Not pretty.)

(Mine is the most formal by far: think oak-panelled boardrooms and predominantly otherwise non-descript directors, bankers & accountants of an uncertain age.  )

The ultimate choice is yours: no-one can help you with that last bit. Frank's version would have my vote.

*HD*


----------



## keigezellig

@HD
Explain then your technical nit-picking and your objection to 'waarmee'... As I understand, you have an 'objection' to the 'je/jij' in my sentence, not the 'waarmee' part. I can imagine that the tone in my sentence was a little too 'youthful'. But you can solve that by replacing 'je/jij' by 'u'. The 'waarmee' part is still in place then.

And I find 'kunt u' not 'more or less register-neutral'. It is still 'u' (the polite, formal way)

Feel free to elaborate on this 

Kei


----------



## Sandra723

Guys, no quarelling! You are all so helpful!


----------



## keigezellig

Sorry mijn fout. Ik ging er vanuit dat het altijd 'kun jij' moest zijn.. Maar het mag ook 'kan jij' zijn. Dat laatste is informeler dan het eerste..



Frank06 said:


> Hoi,
> 
> Waarom zou 'kan je' fout zijn ?
> 
> Nog een vraagje: is het volgens jou (altijd) fout? Of is het gewoonweg altijd fout? Zo ja, Volgens wie dan wel?
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


----------



## keigezellig

Sandra, it's always nice to have a little discussion 
But don't get confused with this 'nitpicking', I agree with Harmless that it's ultimately our choice which variant you would use


----------



## HarmlessDrudge

keigezellig said:


> @HD
> Explain then your technical nit-picking and your objection to 'waarmee'...


It's all comparatively straightforward. 

In my branch of translation I am not entitled to change the original syntax of an author if it can be reflected in the destination language without let or hindrance, so, working for once from my normal destination language back to the source in this case, 'with the help of which' renders directly into [met behulp waarvan], which is exact and requires no intervention from me. Had the original been 'with which', I would have rendered it [waarmee], which would then be equally exact.

Semantically, something else is going on with [waarmee]. It directly implies an active partnership in pursuit of an objective, comprising two (potentially) equal actors acting independently in voluntary concert towards a common goal. If I 'do something with you' (and vv) we each pool our endeavours to the greater end we have in sight for whatever duration. Where a programme is concerned, this is of course quite false, as it would be concerning the use of, let's say, a hammer.

The original sentence 'with the help of which', on the other hand, describes the true relationship between the actor and the programme perfectly: the actor acts, availing him/herself of the *tool* that is the programme, to *help* in the objective he/she has. That is perfectly reflected in [met behulp waarvan] and not in [waarmee], as it equally would not have been, had 'with which' been the original construction instead.

This makes not a blind bit of difference in daily life and pragmatic living -- hence 'technical nit-picking'  -- but in translation, evaluating your source text to the point of exhaustion before plumping for one option or the other, even adopting a third or _nth_, is the very first thing that has to be done. Frankly, my syntactical objection above does the job comprehensively, obviating the need for any semantic [miereneukerij] like this at all, but the thought has to have crossed your mind as a translator or horrendous pitfalls are soon your unenviable lot... 



keigezellig said:


> As I understand, you have an 'objection' to the 'je/jij' in my sentence



Not at all, Keigezellig, it just wouldn't be a form of address I would adopt of choice, for a printed publication aimed at an unspecified audience, sight unseen, on whom I cannot possibly estimate its impact in practice, in which case, the non-familiar, higher register of courtesy/formality is always most likely to cause the least possibility of any offence, real or imagined, in that audience: I'd always hedge my bets, as 't were... 

*HD*


----------



## HarmlessDrudge

Frank06 said:


> Een kleine opmerking over een _hyper-archaism_: U, met een hoofdletter



Touché, Frank! Have a snapshot from my [prille beginselen], at school in Voorschoten, 1961, learnt by rote as was demanded at the time, its reflexes at work even now -- I can still reel it off  -- "Een 'U' alleen is altijd groot, doch 'uw', en 'uwer', 'uwent', klein, en God is altijd groot."

Not kidding... 

*HD*


----------

