I’ve mentioned before that the Germans are so fixated on asparagus that they claw it out of the naked earth before it is even ready to eat.

In Expatica, David Gordon Smith tells it like it is. Supposing you didn’t know the word Spargel and saw the excitement of the Germans, what would you expect?

bq. In the absence of your dictionary you are reduced to speculation. Is it caviar? Truffles? Puffer fish? Whatever it is, it must be exotic and exciting and well worth the extravagant sums the restaurant is demanding. …

bq. On the edge of your seat, you watch your plate approach across the room. As it is tantalisingly lowered onto your table, you spot some boiled potatoes, a slice of ham, and then, immersed in a golden lake of Hollandaise sauce, a few sprigs of … asparagus? Your slavering jaw drops. This is what all the excitement is about? This is what they are charging EUR 13.90 for?

The season ends on June 24th (is there a Spargelgesetz?), but other things have short seasons too. I like fresh peas, and many people like strawberries, but the excitement is no comparison. I wonder if there is some genetic reason why asparagus is so popular here?

Here is a site with photos showing the obligatory Eastern European asparagus picker (there was a scare this year that the government might make unemployed German persons help out) and the rape of the asparagus bed.

(Source)

British Airways has started an advertising campaign in New York to help accustom Americans to British expressions before they arrive in the UK:

bq. On billboards and bus shelters across Manhattan, “Brit-speak” can be heard loud and clear. Next to one of the city’s busiest roads a huge billboard says: “This traffic is ‘bonkers’! In London, ‘bonkers’ means ‘crazy’.” On a bus shelter in Greenwich Village a poster reads: “Avoid ‘legging it’ by taking the bus. In London, ‘leg it’ means ‘to run quickly’.”

BA also has a ‘Brit-Speak Dictionary’ online.

(Via Onze Taal)

It’s all very well for British Airways to talk. But I remember when BOAC and BEA merged to form the new British Airways in 1973, there was a letter to the Times (that’s the Times of London for those across the pond, and in those days it was a respectable paper) consisting of only two words:

bq. British Airways?

TILP Rechtsanwälte vertreten deutschen Mandanten in US-Sammelklagen und haben auf ihren Webseiten ein Sammelklagen-Wörterbuch und eine Sammelklage-FAQ.

bq. Class Representative:
Repräsentant der Klägergruppe: Die Person, die in der Klage als der Kläger (die Person die anklagt) genannt wird und vom Gericht ernannt wurde, als rechtliche „adäquate“ Person die Interessen der Gruppe zu vertreten.

bq. Clear Sailing Agreement:
Nicht-Einmischungs-Abkommen: Eine Vereinbarung die zwischen den Anwälten beider Parteien während oder nach Vergleichsverhandlungen gemacht werden, wonach die Verteidigung zusagt, einem Honorar Antrag des Anwalts der Klägergruppe nicht zu widersprechen.

bq. Collusion:
Kollusion: Eine ungebührliche Vereinbarung, üblicherweise eine Absprache zwischen Kläger und Beklagten.

bq. Commonality:
Kommunalität: Eine gemeinsame materielle Tatsache oder rechtliche Frage aller potenziellen Klage-Mitglieder.

(Link gefunden bei der pt-Gruppe bei Yahoo.com, Dank an Martin)

The Language Guy discusses Language in the Law, and in particular Sandra Day O’Connor (Supreme Court justice) using a dictionary to show that ‘using or carrying a firearm’ included bartering a firearm for 2 ounces of cocaine.

bq. According to O’Connor, who wrote for the majority that upheld the conviction, this constituted “using a firearm.” O’Connor says that according to the “natural” or “ordinary” meaning of “use” Mr. Smith’s action constituted using a firearm. This is true in a mindlessly literal way. But it is not how we normally interpret “use” in a sentence like “He used a firearm to scare off the burglars.” She appeals to several dictionaries to support her position, noting that “Webster’s defines ‘to use’ as ‘[t]o convert to one’s service’ or ‘to employ’.” She goes on to say that Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “[t]o make use of; to convert to one’s service; to employ; to avail oneself of; to utilize; to carry out a purpose or action by means of.” This use of dictionaries belies a profound misunderstanding of what a dictionary does. Dictionaries to not define words — they give synonyms for words as well as guides to usage. We might ask Justice O’Connor how it advances our understanding to say that “to use” means “to make use of”?

Here’s the case in question.

It’s lawyers and dictionaries again!

Stadtpark Fürth, May 17, 6 p.m.