18:18 Dec 18, 2012 |
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Social Sciences - History | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | Tools for describing historical documents |
| ||
3 | description tools for historiographic sources |
|
Discussion entries: 2 | |
---|---|
description tools for historiographic sources Explanation: my try -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 9 mins (2012-12-18 18:27:42 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- http://esl.proz.com/kudoz/spanish_to_english/other/2822284-i... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 14 mins (2012-12-18 18:33:06 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Historiographic sources: http://www.drps.ed.ac.uk/12-13_archive_at_01-09-12/dpt/cxpgh... |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | |||
The asker has declined this answer |
Instrumentos de descripción de fuentes historiográficas Tools for describing historical documents Explanation: Broca - after reading the abstract that you provide, I think that the best translation is "tools for describing historical documents." Below, I discuss my translations of the different parts of the term. "Instrumentos de descripción": The term "description tool" seems to exist, but a Google search reveals that it is used mostly in information technology (informática). From the abstract, this does not seem to be the case, so I highly recommend going with "tools for describing." "Fuentes historiográficas: From the abstract, it is clear that the author is analyzing historical texts in a certain topic area ("subsección Guerra - Suministros"); the author is discussing texts on history, not texts on historiography. Thus, in English, "historical sources" seems to me to be a better translation than "historiographical sources." Also, if all of the sources are primary sources, "historical documents" works better than "historical sources"; however, since we do not know if other types of sources are included, I'd stick with "historical sources." -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2012-12-18 21:01:48 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- "Tools for describing historical sources" |
| |
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.