GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
11:40 Jun 9, 2010 |
Danish to English translations [PRO] Bus/Financial - Business/Commerce (general) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Brian Young United States Local time: 07:42 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 | ownership |
| ||
3 +1 | affiliation |
|
ownership Explanation: the ownership of the assets; the custody of the assets Please see: Annemette Lyng Svenssons Dansk Engelsk Økonomisk Ordbog. Page 406 |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
affiliation Explanation: also relationship, membership, possibly nationality -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day10 hrs (2010-06-10 22:24:24 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Farmor's suggestion of "ownership" or "custody" is certainly an option, though the context does not rule out "affiliation" or "relationship" either. But He makes a good point. Ownership and custody are different ideas, and as it is an "agreement" we are talking about, I am not sure about "ownership", as of an asset. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day16 hrs (2010-06-11 04:14:12 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- I think if the writer had meant "ownership", he would have written "ejerforhold", which would have given a more unambiguous interpretation. "tilhørsforhold" has too much gray in it, and though it could be stretched to cover many of the terms given here, "ownership" is at the far end of the spectrum. "at tilhøre" means "to belong to", but that is not exactly the same as ownership, which does not sound right in this context. Another point; ownership implies custody, but does not guarantee it, as a court can award custody of one's assets to a trustee, which happens very often. Custody, on the other hand, implies control or jurisdiction, but never ownership. With regard to "ownership" of an asset, whether or not an agreement is an asset is an open question. If two people agree to meet for lunch, then they do have an agreement, but is it an asset, and who "owns" it. In the case of a contractual agreement, then it would have value, and could be considered an asset, but who owns what? There are both rights and obligations in a formal, contractual agreement, but how ownership is applied or distributed is not clear. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.