Urheberrechtsverletzung bei Online-Wörterbüchern? Open-Source-Wörterbuch mit vielen Beitragenden wurde anscheinend ohne Quellenangabe übernommen.

There are a number of bilingual online dictionaries. I don’t use them often, but they can be useful. They are as good as the contributors, but I don’t take a suggested translation unless I know it’s OK anyway.

The most famous is LEO (DE>EN>DE here – it mow has over 400,000 terms). Sometimes when I search for a German word on Google, I am directed to a Leo page where contributors are discussing a term. For instance, they’re discussing Rechtspersönlichkeit at the moment.

The Kudoz glossaries at ProZ are also useful. As with everything, you have to be discriminating, but people give reasons for their suggestions and that helps decide who to trust.

Almost as famous as Leo is dict.cc. I had a look at the page on Urteil. There are several solutions, starting with adjudgement, a word I don’t think I’ve ever used in my life. There’s no information to distinguish the use of judgment, decision, decree and verdict, nor any comment on the two spellings of judg(e)ment.

While browsing the dictionary I came across this page (German) describing an apparent theft of the dictionary as a whole.

Meanwhile, Frenetica fannullona reports a new online dictionary, woerterbuch.info, with translation and synonym search. That too gives adjudgement, among other terms. Here’s a German article from Austria announcing the dictionary.