This first of Advent, which people keep wishing me a happy one of, seems to be a big deal.

And here are two jackdaws on the Stadttheater.

Palm tree near Nuremberg:

A German shopping centre with bottle banks (Here it is in Street View):

All taken this morning. Nasty raw cold weather.

I suppose there are some novels I could read again and again. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, some of Kleist’s stories such as Michael Kohlhaas, Die Verlobung in Santo Domingo, Das Erdbeben in Chili, maybe War and Peace (I’ve only read it twice, though), some Ishiguro, the Thomas Bernhard autobiographical books (I mentioned his autobiography, but there are other books like Wittgensteins Neffe).

I recently received a copy of an article from Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, Vertragssprache und Sprache des anwendbaren Rechts, by Rechtsanwalt Dr. Dr. h.c. Georg Maier-Reimer, the co-publisher. This was based on a talk given by the author at the Anwaltstag in May.

There are two statements in this article I can’t agree with. One of them is on p. 2549:

Die aufschiebende Bedingung wird üblicherweise mi “condition precedent” übersetzt, das ist wohl richtig. Die auflösende Bedingung wird aber als Gegenstück häufig mit “condition subsequent” übersetzt, und das ist falsch. Denn eine “condition subsequent” ist eine Bedingung, die nach der Transaktion eintreten muss, wenn die Wirkung der Transaktion bestehen bleiben soll. Sie ist also das Gegenteil einer auflösenden Bedingung oder die auflösende Bedingung mit umgekehrtem Vorzeichen: Der Nicht-Eintritt der condition subsequent ist auflösende Bedingung. Die Kategorie der auflösenden Bedingung in unserem Sinne scheint so im Common Law nicht zu geben. Deshalb sollte man, wenn man eine auflösende Bedingung meint, bewusst eine im Common Law ungebräuchliche Formulierung wählen, zum Beispiel “resolutive condition” oder “dissolving condition”, und diese sollte man besser noch durch einen Klammerzusatz mit dem detschen Terminus ergänzen, oder man sollte den Effekt des Bedingungseintritts ausdrücklich regeln.

(Aufschiebende Bedingung is usually translated as ‘condition precedent’, which is correct. Auflösende Bedingung is often translated as ‘condition subsequent’, and this is wrong. For a condition subsequent is a condition which has to occur after the transaction if the effect of the translation is to coninue in effect. It is therefore the opposite of auflösende Bedingung: if the condition subsequent does not occur, this is the auflösende Bedingung. The latter in our sense seems not to exist in the common law. So when one writes English one should translate auflösende Bedingung as ‘resolutive condition’ or ‘dissolving condition’, and add the German term in brackets, or else the effect of the occurrence of the condition should be expressly agreed.)

This paragraph was marked by a customer who wanted to avoid using ‘condition subsequent’ in a translation. I’m unhappy that such an authoritative source and person should spread this incorrect information. Was it not corrected by the other two lawyers at that session in May? The customer had cut out the article and kept it because he constantly has to deal with such terms.

Another point I disagree with is on p. 2547, where it says that ‘notwithstanding’ is often translated into German as unbeschadet, whereas it means the exact opposite. No, that’s not true: notwithstanding has two meanings, and one of them is unbeschadet. Here’s what Romain says:

notwithstanding ungeachtet, unbeschadet, trotz, ohne Rücksicht auf; in Abänderung von, abweichend von, nichtsdestoweniger, dennoch, trotzdem

Note the semicolon in the middle, separating the two meanings. And you can tell the meaning from the context.

Admittedly this article wasn’t about translation. It was about the dangers of using common law language when two English speakers write a contract in English which is governed by German law. The German courts may accept some of the common-law meanings of terminology in this case. Nevertheless, in passing, these two incorrect statements are made.

I have hated quite a lot of books, but perhaps I was unfair. For example, if a lot of people seemed to like a book, I might have been keen to disagree. And a book ha to be fairly well-known before one gives it the compliment of stating one hates it.
At junior school, I started reading Edith Blyton – I think it was the Famous Five, not the Hanni und Nanni the Germans are so familiar with. I found it pretentious and fake, but then I didn’t read much, although over the years there were many voices in praise.
At grammar school, I read in full but disliked The Lord of the Rings. Again, it seemed presumptuous to me. It was also very trendy. This was in the early 1960s, which was quite early (the whole thing was apparently published in 1955). But then again, an authentic text like the Nibelungenlied is not really what one imagines after seeing the Ring der Nibelungen.

I have thrown a couple of books away because I thought they’d been overhyped. Can’t think of any more books I hate – well, some stuff on legal translation, of course.

These are varied sites – I can’t remember where I got most of them.

1. On YouTube, John Agard reads his poem, Listen Mr Oxford don. Here’s the text.

Me not no Oxford don
me a simple immigrant
from Clapham Common
I didn’t graduate
I immigrate.

The text has a strong legal element:

So mek dem send one big word after me
I ent serving no jail sentence
I slashing suffix in self-defence
I bashing future wit present tense
and if necessary
I making de Queen’s English accessory
to my offence.

2. At the New York Times, Jürgen Habermas on Leadership and Leitkultur.

To the present day, the idea of the leitkultur depends on the misconception that the liberal state should demand more of its immigrants than learning the language of the country and accepting the principles of the Constitution. We had, and apparently still have, to overcome the view that immigrants are supposed to assimilate the “values” of the majority culture and to adopt its “customs.”

That we are experiencing a relapse into this ethnic understanding of our liberal constitution is bad enough. It doesn’t make things any better that today leitkultur is defined not by “German culture” but by religion. With an arrogant appropriation of Judaism — and an incredible disregard for the fate the Jews suffered in Germany — the apologists of the leitkultur now appeal to the “Judeo-Christian tradition,” which distinguishes “us” from the foreigners.

I suppose John Agard would be expected to change his tune in Germany. – Religion was being cited again today at the CDU conference when there was a narrow vote against pre-implantation diagnosis of embryos.

3. einbuchstabedanebentiere has been a meme (now called Mem in German) on Twitter. You take the name of an animal and change one letter. Thus Faulesel, Orang Uran, Prokodil, Trethahn. Usually a description precedes it:

Ideal, um nachts spazieren zu gehen ist der Fackel
Macht kleine Sauereien und große Politik – das Merkel!
Das gibt’s doch wohl nicht: diebische Eltern
Männchen im Tierreich aufgepasst: es kommt der Eichelmäher

Fortunately someone has collected these: Über 5.000 #einbuchstabedanebentiere – gesammelt via twapperkeeper für Euch