War paint / WM

This morning:


Last Wednesday:


Working Languages points out that Lufthansa haven’t heard of the term ‘World Cup’.

bq. But what is this World Championship of which they speak? Is it in any way connected to the World Cup currently dominating our lives? Could it perhaps be some parallel or even rival event?

13 thoughts on “War paint / WM

  1. Not sure if it helps with the translation, but while schadlos is sometimes used alone (“… halten uns am Vertragspartner schadlos …”), klaglos never is, in my experience: it is always used as “schad- und klaglos”, so this is a fixed (standing?) expression.

  2. Thanks. I don’t think it’s a big problem. I see Prinz Philip geht klaglos ins 86. Lebensjahr. I realize that isn’t what you mean, but I had done a Google myself to see if that was so.
    halten uns am Vertragspartner schadlos is something I recognize but can’t remember having to translate. I suppose it would be in a letter but not a contract. Romain says ‘recover our loss’, and Dietl also ‘obtain compensation’.

  3. Klaglos im Zusammenhang mit Indemnify und Hold Harmless verwirrt mich. Die beiden englischen Begriffe betreffen Dritte. Gegen deren Ansprueche soll der Erste vom Zweiten geschuetzt werden.

    Klaglos kann der Zweite den Ersten nicht stellen, sofern Klagen der Dritten gemeint sind. Steht es den Dritten nicht immer frei, nach eigenem Ermessen zu klagen? Der Erste kann dann nicht im Vertrag mit dem Zweiten dem Dritten den Rechtsweg abschneiden.

    Deshalb erscheint mir “klaglos” im Verhaeltnis zum Dritten nichtig, bestenfalls als eine “precatory” Vertragsbestimmung undurchsetzbar.

    Oder geht es um das Verhaeltnis zwischen Vertragsparteien? Dann soll der Zweite auf Klagen gegen den Ersten verzichten? Ob das wirksam sein kann? Vielleicht, wenn beispielsweise der Schiedsweg vereinbart wird – aber das passt systematisch nicht zum “schadlos halten”, sondern in eine Gerichtsstands- oder Schiedsklausel.

    Ich bleibe verwirrt.

  4. Clemens: Well, I did say that the first thing was to work out what the German meant – I just didn’t take my own advice!
    What Mellinkoff says about the American equivalent suggests the party will defend a lawsuit on behalf of the other. It obviously can’t stop legal actions being started, but it can probably step into the potential defendant’s shoes, can it, if they contract to do that? OTOH romain says for Klaglosstellung ‘depriving s.o. of a cause of action (by payment, etc.).
    I suppose there must be a definition on the Web somewhere, but I can’t find one anywhere at the moment. Maybe Ingmar will add something.

  5. Mittlerweile finde ich auch etwas, jedoch noch nicht im Verhaeltnis zu Dritten, sondern im verwaltungs- und steuerrechtlichen Bereich, wo eine Partei klaglos gestellt wird, indem der angefochtene Akt aufgehoben oder gegenstandslos gemacht wird, sodass das Rechtsschutzbeduerfnis entfaellt.

  6. “The very preposition ‘against’ seems to me to have a future sense in this context.”

    Why should that be? In BrE does not one ‘appeal against’ a past event, such as a decision? (AmE makes ‘appeal’ a transitive verb and dispenses with the preposition altogether.)

  7. Clemens: it is actually somewhat mysterious exactly what it means. Of course, that is often the case.

    Good question, Bob. But I don’t think it’s relevant that AmE uses no preposition, or that BE uses against, with appeals.
    I am just referring to this one particular use. I think it reminds me of insurance. You insure against a risk. I don’t know if ‘future’ is a good way of expressing that, but that’s what I meant: something that may happen but hasn’t yet. You don’t compensate *against* loss.

    Probably this doesn’t make sense in logical terms. But the way I saw it, you indemnify for (past) loss and you promise to protect against (future) risk.

    There’s actually no point arguing about the logic, but that is what I meant to say!

  8. A search of ‘indemnify’ in the British National Corpus shows I am wrong about against – a lot of examples.
    Here’s a version:
    >>will indemnify against all claims, demands, liabilities and expenses (including legal fees and expenses and any compensation costs and disbursements paid by to compromise or settle any claim)

  9. I see the problem with schadenlos. ‘Hold (and keep) safe and harmless’ is the archaic English law doublet which is still to be found in modern-day leases and insurance policies etc.

    Indemnify is a simple one-word alternative supposed to encompass the klaglos/ actionless idea that the other contributors have rightly picked up on.

    ‘Keep/ hold indemnified and harmless’ seems to me to be mixing metaphors. It looks like a stylistic point but it may prove crucial in a hair-splitting scenario.

  10. Well, Anon (though recognized), do you think there should be a hair-splitting scenario based on the *English* text? I would hope that German or Austrian law applies and so does the German language.

    I wonder how people would define ‘klaglos’. I agree that ‘indemnify’ should cover the lot (Mellinkoff’s ‘defending lawsuits’ probably goes further), and think that ‘klaglos halten’ should mean paying all sums in connection with litigation. But I would like an authority. There are German books on drafting contracts nowadays, but I have not laid my hands on a commented clause in a hasty search.

  11. Ah, another use of “klaglos” that Clemens mentions in his second comment (and I hadn’t thought of). To be sure, there is a difference between “klaglos halten” and “klaglos stellen”. The latter basically means that a litigant receives satisfaction by other means than a decision, so the proceedings need not continue (or be started, even). That is the “Klaglosstellung” Romain had in mind. As a noun, without further context, it would refer to that meaning of “klaglos stellen”, and not the one we are discussing here.

    “Klaglos” in the sense of “schad- und klaglos halten” does indeed mean third parties under Austrian (and probably German) law as well. The contracting parties agree that one will step up in court, if the other should be sued (as “streitgen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.