Deutsch-Französische Übersetzungen in beiden Richtungen, nicht ganz perfekt aber zum netten Preis, bietet der 1989 geborene Guillaume Beringer in Nice.

Hier ein Thread dazu (eine Suche auf diesem Forum ergibt das Alter).

bq. Excuse mais qui es tu?
Même ma mère ne sais pas.
Et je sais il faut que je fasse corriger les pages par qn.
Et bien sur c’est qu’une start-up c’est pour celà que les prix sont beaucoup moins élevés que chez la “concurrence”.
Je fais ça pour m’amuser et pour m’interesser à la langue française…

Meine Frage an mich: sind Sprachen besonders anfällig für die Übernahme durch IT-Experten?

(Danke an Jutta im U-Forum)

Are you a young high potential? Then this may be for you:

bq. Young Germany is an initiative of Germany’s Federal Foreign Office and its partners. Our aim is to inform young high potentials across the globe about their opportunities in Germany, provide a communication platform and turn their stay in Germany into a rewarding and enjoyable experience.

(Via Memefirst by way of Trevor in Barcelona)

The strangely unhyphenated Sprachen und Dolmetscher Institut in Munich has long since announced a seminar on legal translation on 25th and 26th November. In fact, it looks as if booking has to take place before November 15th.

There is a programme online, but there is no information as to who is speaking, and the details are from June 2005. I did, as recommended, email for more information on October 16th, but none has been forthcoming. Here’s what it says:

Freitag, 25. November 2005

* Begrüßung des Direktors
* Wunschqualifikation von Fachübersetzungslehrern
* Rechtsfehler in EU-Texten
* Terminologierecherche für EU-Texte
* Terminologierecherche für ein juristisches Fachwörterbuch
* ca. 18:00 Uhr Ende des ersten Tages

Samstag, 26. November 2005

* Übersetzung von Urkunden EN-DE
* Übersetzung von Texten aus dem Bereich Lebensmittelrecht DE-EN
* Übersetzung von Verträgen DE-EN
* Juristische Fachübersetzung: Quo Vadis?
* ca. 15:30 Uhr Ende des Seminars

There is a Wikipedia in Scots:

bq. Scots Law, quhiles nae bein unique, differs frae Inglis law quhairby it follaes Roman (Ceevil) Law in mony weys an sae is closer tae the ceevil codes o the Continent nor Inglis Law is. For example, Scots Law disna disteenguish atween “libel” an “slander” – they’re baith “defamation”. In testate succession, ye canna leave yer wife wi naething, never mind whit yer will says.

bq. General preenciples differs an aw, in creeminal law an it wis Scots Law that brocht in majority deceesions for juries an “dimeenished responsibeelity” as a defence in homicide.

I think there’s room for more here.

(Via Blethers.com)

When I started this blog, I was thinking of calling it No Sanity Clause. It had the ideal link between law and Mar(ks)x. But then I realized that not many Germans would understand that. Perhaps it’s just as well, since this name has since been taken elsewhere. In any case, there is legislation in place in Germany that blogs have to be called something like law blog or jura blog.

Now Language Log has had an entry on No Sanity Clause. For those who don’t know, it’s the punchline of a scene between Groucho and Chico in A Night at the Opera where they try to agree on a contract. Here’s part of the text:

bq. Driftwood … Now pay particular attention to this first clause because it’s most important. It says the, uh, “The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part.” How do you like that? That’s pretty neat, eh?
Fiorello: No, it’s no good.
Driftwood: What’s the matter with it?
Fiorello: I don’t know. Let’s hear it again.
Driftwood: It says the, uh, “The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part.”
Fiorello: (pausing) That sounds a little better this time.
Driftwood: Well, it grows on ya. Would you like to hear it once more?
Fiorello: Uh, just the first part.
Driftwood: What do you mean? The party of the first part?
Fiorello: No, the first part of the party of the first part.
Driftwood: All right. It says the, uh, “The first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract” – look, why should we quarrel about a thing like this? We’ll take it right out, eh?
Fiorello: Yeah, it’s a too long, anyhow. (They both tear off the tops of their contracts.) Now, what do we got left?
Driftwood: Well, I got about a foot and a half. Now, it says, uh, “The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part.”
Fiorello: Well, I don’t know about that…
Driftwood: Now what’s the matter?
Fiorello: I no like-a the second party, either.

And the ending with the pun:

bq. Fiorello: Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here? This thing here.
Driftwood: Oh, that? Oh, that’s the usual clause. That’s in every contract. That just says uh, it says uh, “If any of the parties participating in this contract is shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified.”
Fiorello: Well, I don’t know…
Driftwood: It’s all right, that’s, that’s in every contract. That’s, that’s what they call a ‘sanity clause’.
Fiorello: Ha ha ha ha ha! You can’t fool me! There ain’t no Sanity Clause!

At Language Log, Benjamin Zimmer uses it as a hook to talk about whether there is a ‘liberty clause’.

I think I’d rather have the money.

(Via Peter Müller – perhaps his blog is less comprehensible to Americans – but then lawblog (the original) gets over $311,000)