Tony M May 30, 2012:

@ Daryo Yes, the discussion box is not the place to discuss things like this, may I suggest you start a forum thread and let me know, and I'll come and participate there; and then we should really delete these posts, which are against KudoZ rules!

Daryo May 30, 2012:

@Tony M "Understand your concerns, but it's not true!"
Very glad to learn it.
To be discussed more in details maybe in a forum??

Tony M May 30, 2012:

@ Asker It is very helpful to know in advance if the EN may be unreliable, as in your case you mention a Danish source. It is just this sort of detail that helps give clues in cases of doubt.

Tony M May 30, 2012:

@ Daryo Understand your concerns, but it's not true!

1) It is possible to ask a moderator to edit the question source term if it is very inaccurate or misleading.

2) At the moment of answering, the answerer can enter a new headword term (as I often do) in order to correct parsing, spelling, or answer part of a term, etc.

3) At the moment of making the glossary entry, both the asker and the selected answerer can edit the glossary entry in order to make it more meaningful.

4) Even other people can comment on the glossary entry, so if an entry is made that you don't feel is appropriate, you can always add a peer comment.

5) And finally, Mods. can edit a glossary entry, albeit only if it contains a clear error, for example.

Marie-Yvonne Dulac (asker) May 30, 2012:

An awfull English, in fact! Probably "danish" English as it's a danish company. Sorry for the poor quality of the source text.

Daryo May 29, 2012:

keep "Wave Significant High" for posterity? 'significant wave height' = plenty of references on the Net, the top search results pointing to relevant and well presented material

"Wave Significant High" = slightly dodgy English (euphemisms are not forbidden) NOT a single reference on the Net.

If you want to build a collection of usable answers, in some cases you have to rectify the source term or phrase. Which is not an option on this site.

What's the point in putting in a database for future reference:
"Wave Significant High"
when it's pretty obvious that the correct term is
'significant wave height'?
Whoever designed this site never had to translate from a source text that's itself an iffy translation from a third language, or from a source text was published/delivered in a "not totally polished state” -- end of rant

Tony M May 29, 2012:

Singular vs. plural Actually, I suspect this source term may have originally been translated from the FR or some other language; it is typical in EN to talk about 'wave height' in the singular, as a noun used as a qualifier for another noun is almost always singular, unlik in FR, where we need to differentiate between the 'hauteur de vague' and the 'hauteur des vagues'

I have usually seen this as 'significant wave height'

Tony M May 29, 2012:

Dodgy English? I think this EN may be slightly dodgy; already we have 'high' for 'height', and the use of 'check out' instead of just 'check' or 'confirm'