Somewhat off topic: an article in the Sueddeutsche reports that most under-25-year-olds in the Munich language area don’t understand dialect; in contract, two-thirds of those over 65 under words like Irta (Tuesday) and Pfinzta (Thursday).

According to Hermann Scheuringer of Vienna University and others, the universities in Bavaria proper, Munich and Passau, do nothing to encourage the use of dialect (‘wie Scheuringer kürzlich selber in Passau erleben musste: „Hier kommen nur noch Theoretiker und Preußen zum Zuge“’). Augsburg University encourages Swabian and Würzburg University Franconian.

In the 1970s, the use of dialect was discouraged in schools because it was believed to hinder education. Now it appears that speaking dialect and writing standard German makes people express themselves more flexibly and makes it easier for them to learn a foreign language. Continue reading →

Two articles on legalese in court: from the ABA Journal, RITUALISTIC BOILERPLATE – Simplicity Beats Legalisms in Communicating With the Jury, BY JAMES W. McELHANEY:

bq. “Directing your attention to the 14th of August, 2002, I ask what, if anything, you did on that occasion?” Instead of starting a question with “Directing your attention to” a particular date, just tell the witness you are going to ask some questions about that day.
Then get rid of “if anything”—an annoying habit that prosecutors all over the United States have developed on the thought it keeps a question from being leading. But it’s unnecessary boilerplate because the question isn’t leading in the first place, and if it were, “what, if anything” wouldn’t fix it.
Now your question sounds natural: “Mr. Johnson, we are going to start by talking about Aug. 14 last year. What did you do that day?”

Then the Los Angeles Times (registration required but free) on July 18, has an article by Jean Guccione, ‘Relief Coming for Jurors Ill at Ease With Legalese –
A state panel OKs simple civil jury instructions. Criminal courts are next.’ New California jury instructions – example:

bq. Existing: ” ‘Preponderance of the evidence’ means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it.”

bq. New: “When I tell you that a party must prove something, I mean that the party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is trying to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is sometimes referred to as ‘the burden of proof.’ “

I permit comments on this weblog, and sometimes a comment appears on a really old post. I’m not sure what to do about this cry for help in a comment to an entry on June 11:

Does anyone know where I can buy blue backing in Los Angeles? My e-mail address is …

I have omitted the email address to avoid it getting harvested, but it’s under that entry.

Now, however, at least I know what blue backing is, after asking someone who worked for a lawyer in California.

It’s a sheet of thin card slightly larger than a brief (old BE pleading) that California local rules require the brief to be attached to. For more information read on (but I haven’t found an email address to order it at – any office supplies store should do). Colour is not necessarily blue. Structure of card allows room for personal taste. It’s laid under a document for the court (brief/pleading) so that it projects by 2 cm at the bottom. The upper edge is folded forward and the whole thing is stapled or bound in some way at the top – but without punching holes, which would be felt to be unaesthetic. Continue reading →

The question arose last week how to translate the Austrian court names. Reference was made to Hausmaninger’s book on The Austrian Legal System.

Austrian civil and criminal courts:

Bezirksgericht (Hausmaninger: District Courts)
Landesgericht (Hausmaninger: Regional Courts)
Oberlandesgericht (Hausmaninger: Court of Appeals)
Oberster Gerichtshof (Hausmaninger: Supreme Court)

These could be handled in exactly the same way as the German courts – see last entry.

Problems with the Hausmaninger suggestions: district court is unclear; supreme court may suggest a constitutional court, but there is also the Verfassungsgerichtshof.

Austria has Bundesländer – I was told that these are called provinces in English. I have not investigated this yet.

I have actually encountered a Kreisgericht, which still existed ten years ago as a rare example, just as I’ve had to translate Kreisgericht (I think) in Saxony after 1990.

No links here, except to my earlier entry.

This is my latest idea about handling the names of German courts in translations.
It only matters where the court name is important.

The German name has to be mentioned at least once.

Some of these suggestions are expansions of the Auswärtiges Amt suggestions.

F = first mention
L = later mentions

System 1

Amtsgericht
F Local court of first instance (Amtsgericht)
L Local court

Landgericht
F Regional court of first instance (Landgericht)
L Regional court
If the Landgericht is acting as an appellate court, then just Regional court throughout

Oberlandesgericht
F Higher regional court of appeal (Oberlandesgericht) *
L Higher regional court
If the Oberlandesgericht is acting as a court of first instance, then just Higher regional court throughout

Bundesgerichtshof
Federal Court of Justice

System 2

Amtsgericht
F Amtsgericht (lower trial court OR local court of first instance)
L Amtsgericht

Landgericht
F Landgericht (higher trial court OR regional court of first instance)
L Landgericht

Oberlandesgericht
F Oberlandesgericht (intermediate court of appeal OR Higher regional court of appeal)
L Oberlandesgericht

Bundesgerichtshof
EITHER Federal Court of Justice OR Bundesgerichtshof

What is a district court? Some people like to translate Amtsgericht or Landgericht as district court. But those are different. And so are the three district courts I know of.

There are district courts in Scotland.

bq. Currently there are 30 District Courts in Scotland. The District Court is at the bottom end of the court hierarchy in Scotland. It deals only with summary criminal matters. There are also certain offences, for example, an assault resulting in a broken bone, which cannot be heard in the District Court but must go to the Sheriff Court. The District Court can imprison for up to 60 days and impose a fine of up to level 4 (presently £2,500). The most common types of offences to be dealt with in the District Court are breach of the peace, assault, vandalism, theft (but not theft by housebreaking), speeding, vehicle excise, T.V. licencing, electricity fraud and other miscellaneous road traffic offences. There are a lot of other offences dealt with in the District Court on a less regular basis.

bq. The District Court is a lay court where a Justice of the Peace who is a lay person sits with a legally qualified clerk (in some areas Justices sit in threes). The only exception to this is stipendiary magistrate courts in Glasgow where the stipendiary magistrate sits on his/her own and is legally qualified and has the same powers as a sheriff who is sitting summarily (the difference between summary procedure and solemn procedure is that in summary procedure the judge sits on his own and in solemn procedure the judge sits with a jury).

This is rather like an English magistrates’ court – perhaps too peculiar to be used as a translation of Amtsgericht, and certainly too low in the hierarchy for Landgericht. Continue reading →