Det fremhævdes igen, at amtet må intræde efterfølgende
| 11:03 Apr 26, 2011 |
| Danish to English translations [PRO] Government / Politics / meeting minutes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
Answers
25 mins confidence: 
| det fremhæves igen, at amtet må indtræde efterfølgende it is emphasized again that the public entity may thereafter enter / intervene Explanation: it is emphasized again that the public entity (region / province / county) may thereafter enter (as a shareholder) / intervene (in a fiscal comptrolling function) correct spelling in Danish: det ***"fremhæves"*** igen, at amtet må ***"indtræde"*** efterfølgende |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
| The asker has declined this answer | ||
1 hr confidence:
It is reemphasized that the county must intervene thereafter Explanation: You could also use reiterate in place of reemphasize. "May" in the other translations seems to indicate that the county (or region) has a choice as to whether to intervene, while I would suggest that "må" does not appear to give the county a choice in this instance. |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
| The asker has declined this answer | ||
45 mins confidence:
It is emphasised once more that the county may subsequently intervene Explanation: Det fremhævdes igen, at amtet må intræde efterfølgende It is emphasised once more that the county may subsequently intervene A freer version might be: ... a firm reminder that the county may/could subsequently intervene -- could intervene afterwards (= possibly with hindsight, if things do not work out as hoped) Gyldendals also suggests ´later´, or ´in addition´ for ´efterfølgende´ More context might help... The amt/amter, translated as county/counties, were reorganised into Regions with effect from 1 January 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipalities_of_Denmark -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 10 hrs (2011-04-26 21:15:11 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- The eternal airport discussion... IMHO there is no cost-effective solution. The present airport may not be ideal, but the cost of moving it, not just financially, but also in terms of inconvenience, noise, uninhabitable housing and ruined agricultural land, is probably high enough to mean it will never happen! Århus wanted a motorway, but wrangled for over 20 years about where to put it... |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | |||
| The asker has declined this answer | |||
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:
Search millions of term translations