To naturally or not to naturally

Hi, just want to know if the use of "naturally" is correct English. The Germans use "natürlich" very frequently and usually, to mean "of course". To my knowledge, "naturally" is not correct English so I'd just like to hear from you, the native-English speakers THANKS!

I don't see anything wrong with it.

It's actually a 'false friend' and shouldn't be used interchangably.

Perhaps you could tell us why you think it's not correct.

Edit: now that I've read DDB's post I think I know where you're coming from.
There's nothing wrong with the word "naturally" but it doesn't mean the same as "natürlich"

I think its basically fine although not as common in Eng as Germ

Naturally you can use it that way, but it may not come naturally to you.

uhm, that first naturally of yours is not, well, natural, Eurovol.

It is where I come from.

This is what LEO says. Certainly, obvious, innit? ;-)

Waiting for my friends

OK. Here is one sentence: "the tilted lenses are naturally also corrected so that optimum vision is ensured". I think naturally should not be used to mean "of course", and definitely not to be used with "also". To me, using naturally in the middle of a sentence is grammatically wrong. I've never used it in spoken nor written form, ever! unless I want to say "in nature".

And my German friends like to say "for sure" (to mean natürlich).

Yes??

I regularly use naturally to mean for sure, of course, certainly and the rest.

well - the lenses could be corrected naturally (by themselves)
or - the lenses are, of course, corrected (this is done to them and shouldn't have to be said because everyone knows this)

Now that would be correct.

yup - that would work. But why not
We correct tilted lenses to ensure the best vision.

(sorry, I am procrastinating today)

I find this to be a good explanation of the various uses of "naturally" in English (source: TheFreeDictionary; antonyms omitted):

I like it when people feel they have to try to wiggle out of using the passive by nearly interjecting some virtual subject, whether it exists or not.

Who's we?

(anyway, I am treading on thin ice here, many more in this forum are lightyears more articulate than me - understatement)

(and I am procrastinating today too, naturally)

Works for me.

You are treading on thin ice tommy, it was an example. You can keep using your german passives in your work if you want.

It sounds like a product or company description, so "we" (or company name or whatever) is spot on, sorry.
Besides, unlike some other languages (e.g. French), English is not overly fond of passive constructions.
You may call it "wiggling out" if you wish, I call it writing idiomatic English.

I call it preaching the gospel of the SAP English style guide.

Defend it if you will, but in my mind (warning: opinion coming) the great universalness, as well as the versatility of the English language easily affords expression of enhancements to a "thing" without having to introduce the executor of that enhancement.

I just think this whole "we" thing (pursuant to SAP guidelines, etc.) is limiting and awkward at times.

We differ, Peace.

Can we I have that in plain English, please?

I li(k)ebe this

I'd get rid of the naturally in this case and go for something along the lines of

If they're describing some kind of scientific process then it should be passive, shouldn't it?
That's the way we had to write up our chemistry experiments at school, anyway:

"we dangled the screaming locust in the flame of the bunsen burner" = incorrect
"the screaming locust was dangled in the flame of the bunsen burner" = correct

it's about the only thing I remember from school chemistry
mind, that is a while ago now, admittedly, so time's may well have changed

don't you remember burning magnesium on the bunsen burner and chucking acid at people Topsy?

we were talking about burning magnesium the other night, as it happens (as you do)
does it burn green? we couldn't quite remember

bright white flash which we got all excited about if I remember correctly (might have sort of had a green edge to the flash I suppose)

That must have been the locust

Magnesium burns white.

you didn't say that the other night - you reckoned it was green

copper and possibly iron filings were green, naturally

I'm still processing the locust gag

Magnesium wasn't even mentioned in the quiz the other night. Neither was the colour green...

Manganese, Chromium and Iron, but it had nothing to do with burning, except if it was a gift of burning love.

shows how much I know then, innit - I thought it was chrome/iron/magnesium

i'm crap at the science round, anyway
this week - unbelievably - I actually knew the answer to one of the questions for the first time ever (I've had a couple of lucky guesses on science in the past)
not really my thing, I usually stick to my specialised subjects and go get a round of drinks in when the dreaded science round is announced

I missed almost all of them . I thought cocoa was cacao with sugar. Turns out that Matt was wrong though. Cacao and Cocao are the same thing, just Englishized versions of one another.

Thank you brokenm, and the question as which one of those elements give rubies their red colour...
Pay attention next time Topsy or we will make you sit in the corner.

why not microsoft?

SAP is infamous for, well, difficult to understand English.

Microsoft's style guide clearly states to avoid the passive.

i'll have to tell my boss that! maybe they should fire me

There's no way you are responsible for their list of cryptic abbreviations and terms!

Elf - i think your job is safe! DDBug is right - the SAP list of weird and wonderful prescriptive translations goes back way before your time.

The trick with SAP is to think in one language while writing another. The SAP english documentation is actually written by Wookies.