Franconia reduced in size/Franken schrumpft

Guardian article about the Weinereien in Berlin, where (after 8 pm at least) you pay what you want:

The Berlin Weinerei are the inadvertent brainchild of Jürgen Stumpf, who moved to the city in 1996 from the Bavarian town of Franken, where his family owns a five-hectare vineyard. He opened up a small wine shop selling his family’s wares in the rapidly emerging east of the city, and invited his nextdoor neighbour, Argentinean immigrant Mariano Goni, to cook for guests on Thursday nights.

I liked the ‘rapidly emerging east of the city’ too, and even better ‘Prenzlauer Berg, an area in the former east’.

Whatever happened to British spelling? ‘Reisling’ is traditional Grauniad, but ‘assholes’?

…sometimes there are assholes who spend the entire night here and pay €5,” said Mariano. “Especially Spanish people. …

(Mariano is from Argentina).

The New York Times understood it better:

Their owner hails from the north Bavarian region of Franconia, and more than half the wines are produced in Germany.

The last word/Das letzte Wort

In criminal trials in England and Wales and the USA, the defence usually has the last word (not in every state, though). In Germany, it is the defendant in person who has the last word (sometimes along the lines of ‘I’m sorry and I won’t ever do it again’).

In an old entry in Strafprozesse und andere Ungereimtheiten, Werner Siebers tells a story where the defendant should have been forbidden from having the last word.

When three potential witnesses turn out to have emigrated to Israel and the robbed petrol station manager is ill, and on top of that the defendant has been in pre-trial detention for months without an arrest warrant, and the public prosecutor requests an acquittal and compensation (for all three defendants), it is not good for the last word to be ‘And I’m sorry we didn’t pay for the petrol’. (Both the interpreter and the defendant had been told there should be no last word by him).

Das “Letzte Wort” wurde erteilt und gegen die mit der Dolmetscherin und dem Mandanten getroffene Absprache stand dieser auf und begann, in seiner Heimatsprache Ausführungen zu machen. Als die Übersetzung kam, bin ich fast vom Stuhl gekippt. Da hat der sich doch tatsächlich dafür entschuldigt, dass man gemeinsam vergessen habe, das Benzin zu bezahlen.

Erheiterung beim Richter. Verurteilung wegen gemeinschaftlichen Tankbetruges, deshalb auch keine Haftentschädigung. Seit diesem Tag ist das “Letzte Wort” für mich das “Verhängnisvolle Wort”.

Werner Siebers has had a numnber of entries on problems with a Bulgarian interpreter in recent months.

Discreet/discrete

I don’t think this spelling in the Independent is quite right, is it?

Dr Nick Plowman, a consultant oncologist at St Bartholomew’s hospital, who will oversee the treatment, said: “If you get a discreet little tumour in an awkward place, under the liver or next to the kidney, then there’s really nothing better than the Cyberknife.”

IEL 4: English law/Englisches Recht

Introduction to English law for translators and/or non-lawyers

This is the fourth in an occasional (very occasional) series of updates of my teaching material.

All entries have the tag IEL (introduction to English law – for translators).

This is intended to be a ‘bare bones’ introduction, and there is a conflict between simplicity and accuracy.

The topic is the meaning of English law. I am avoiding the term common law, which has even more meanings and is the topic for the next entry.

1. First of all, when did it start?

The easiest answer is: some time after 1066, when William the Conqueror laid claim to the whole of England as the successor to the crown. Under his successors, the legal system intended for the whole of England spread out over most of the British Isles (but not Scotland – Scots (or Scottish) law developed separately and is quite different from English law).

(1066 is both too late – there was no clean break from pre-1066 law – and too early – the centralized system of law did not really bite until into the 12th century.)

Before 1066 there were local courts, from which the local barons earned money. They continued after 1066 but gradually became less important. From 1066 on, William I introduced a central system of courts in London, with jurisdiction over the whole country. Through travelling judges, it spread out to the provinces. But the main work of developing the law was done after William I.

2. Today, English law means the law of England and Wales. The UK has one parliament, but three legal systems: for England and Wales; Northern Ireland; and Scotland. The House of Lords is the highest civil (not criminal) court of appeal for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Some Acts passed in Westminster apply to Scotland too, some apply in part to Scotland, some apply to Scotland only. On top of that, Scotland has its own parliament now, and some domestic Scottish matters have been devolved to it (education, health, agriculture and justice). Lawyers qualify in one of the three jurisdictions.

English law was exported to colonies and became the basis of the legal system in nearly all of the USA (not Louisiana), Canada (not Quebec), Australia and so on. It is also the basis of law in the Republic of Ireland. The law of most US states is based on the law of England up to the 18th century. US lawyers still study old English cases, and even cases decided after 1776.

English law has been developing for a period of over 1,000 years. It has evolved gradually, especially through the decisions of judges. There has never been codification, although some statutes have codified smaller areas of law (for example, Sale of Goods Act 1893/1979).

The trouble with foreign languages/Wenn man nichts versteht

Geoffrey Pullum was relieved that alle bagage is gelost does not mean all luggage has been lost.

Meanwhile, Sally, at No Hard Chords, finds that there are advantages to hearing The Three Bells in the original French – especially if you don’t understand the language:

Listening to a song in an unfamiliar language can be freeing. For me, bad lyrics can render an otherwise great song unlistenable. But as long as the singer, the production and the melody work, foreign-language lyrics can be clunky or insipid or cliched with me none the wiser. If an English-language version of the song is recorded with bad lyrics, though, a puzzle emerges: were the lyrics this poor in the original or did the poetry get lost in translation?

(Here are the Browns).

Higher Labour Court/Landesarbeitsgericht

The European Court of Justice has held that no matter how long an employee is on sick leave, the employee is entitled to holiday time, reports the Solicitors Journal:

The Dusseldorf employment tribunal and the House of Lords had both referred cases to the European Court for a preliminary ruling on the working time regulations.

Giving judgment in Schultz-Hoff v Deutshche Rentenversicherung Bund (C-350/06) and Stringer and others v HMRC (C-520/06) the Grand Chamber of the ECJ ruled that sick workers continue to accrue to holiday even if they are away from work for the entire year.

I wondered what the Düsseldorf employment tribunal (lower-case) was meant to be. In England and Wales, there are a large number of tribunals, ranging from ones similar to courts, such as the employment tribunal, to ones with much less room for appeal and legal rights. I would be inclined to translate employment tribunal into German as Arbeitsgericht.

What about the translation Arbeitsgericht: labour court, recommended by the German Foreign Office?

Labour is recommended in order to cover both individual and collective employment law. But employment court would be OK for me too. I would avoid using the term tribunal when translating a Gericht, because it suggests something less than a court. Still, this is a comprehensive translation of the court of first instance.

But apparently this was the next instance:

REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) (C-350/06) and the House of Lords (United Kingdom) (C‑520/06), made by decisions of 2 August and 13 December 2006, received at the Court on 21 August and 20 December 2006 respectively, in the proceedings…

Well, I suppose at least it doesn’t matter much to the case in hand, as far as the House of Lords is concerned.