One of the problems Internet has is its lack of reliability. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can upload whatever and misguide would-be scholars in search of answers. We cannot take what we read online at face value.
I am not attacking WordReference (Who is compiling WordReference? Who is the author responsible for it? What methodology is being used?), I am simply stating that we must beware of this reference tool bearing translations or giving equivalencies.
Yesterday the word "hoard" eluded me but the Spanish "acopiar" came to mind. So, I looked up "acopiar" in WR. What did I get in English? "couple", "join", "unite", "hitch", "connect". Obviously they are thinking of "acoplar", not "acopiar."
I know the difference between "acopiar" and "acoplar"... but what about someone who does not? And this is only an instance. There are wrong entries and wrong equivalents galore in WordReference.
Feel free to use WordReference, but beware, and double check because all that glitters is not gold.
A most accurate description and instance of how serious the problem is. Delfin points out that WordReference isn't as reliable as we might have thought. And the question is: how wide is the knowledge of languages of whoever is responsible for the site? Double-checking becomes a must
ResponderEliminar