tilhør / tilhørsforhold

English translation: affiliation

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
Danish term or phrase:tilhør / tilhørsforhold
English translation:affiliation
Entered by: Barbara Østergaard

11:40 Jun 9, 2010
Danish to English translations [PRO]
Bus/Financial - Business/Commerce (general)
Danish term or phrase: tilhør / tilhørsforhold
Ændring af aftalens tilhør.

Jeg har fået denne forklaring: Aftalens relation til kreditor eller debitor og de data, der knytter sig til denne relation. Det handler om aftalens tilhørsforhold.
Barbara Østergaard
Denmark
Local time: 16:42
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.
Selected response from:

Brian Young
United States
Local time: 07:42
Grading comment
Thank you - affiliation was the term we were looking for. Have a great weekend. Barbara :-)
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4ownership
farmor
3 +1affiliation
Brian Young


  

Answers


1 day 8 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
ownership


Explanation:
the ownership of the assets; the custody of the assets

Please see: Annemette Lyng Svenssons Dansk Engelsk Økonomisk Ordbog. Page 406

farmor
Local time: 16:42
PRO pts in category: 4
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
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.

Brian Young
United States
Local time: 07:42
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 11
Grading comment
Thank you - affiliation was the term we were looking for. Have a great weekend. Barbara :-)

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Michael Davies: Yes, sounds right to me.
2 hrs
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.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search