Oettinger improving his English/Oettinger erweitert seinen englischen Wortschatz

The German European Commissioner Günther Oettinger became famous on YouTube for speaking English badly (earlier entry).

His main problem was his ignorance of stress. It’s hard to understand English when unexpected syllables are emphasized.

It’s now reported that Oettinger is trying to improve his English. Südkurier (in German, quoting Hamburger Abendblatt) and other papers report that he is increasing his English vocabulary by ten to twenty words a week.

Über seine Lernmethoden sagt Oettinger: „Abends schaue ich öfter ins Wörterbuch. Wenn es einen englischen Fachbegriff gibt, den ich nicht kenne, dann lerne ich ihn auf diesem Weg. So kommen jede Woche 10 bis 20 neue Wörter hinzu.“ Auch im Urlaub wird nun Englisch gepaukt: „Ich habe mir fest vorgenommen, in meinem Sommerurlaub einen Sprachkurs zu absolvieren.“

He looks in the dictionary every evening and if he finds a technical term he doesn’t know, he learns it. He also intends to take a language course in his summer holiday.

Which dictionary is he using, I wonder? I should think the language course will be more help with his pronunciation.

Pilgrims on the motorway/Pilger auf der Autobahn

Heard on radio traffic information:

Vorsicht auf der Autobahn – Pilger unterwegs.
Watch out for pilgrims on the motorway.

A picture of some pilgrims here.

BR online:

Im Landkreis Straubing-Bogen wird der gesamte Innenstadtbereich von Geiselhöring von 14 bis 15 Uhr wegen der Regensburger Diözesanwallfahrt mit cirka 8000 Teilnehmern gesperrt. Zwischen 15 und 17 Uhr ziehen die Pilger weiter nach Mengkofen. Umleitungen sind eingerichtet. (13:19)

Altötting
Pilgrimage on Whit Saturday
Pilgrimage site
Webcam at Altötting

German WiFi decision mistranslated/BGH-Urteil zu WLAN ins Englische fehlübersetzt

On May 12, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) pronounced judgment in a copyright case involving an unprotected WiFi connection. It held that the owner could be subject to an injunction – an order to cease and desist – but was not liable in damages. However, he would be liable to pay a maximum of 100 euros as compensation for the costs of a lawyer who had to send him a warning (Abmahnkosten).

The owner of the connection had been on holiday when, in breach of copyright, a third party downloaded via his WiFi connection a song which had been made available by a music company. The connection was not password-protected; the owner had left the default settings.

There is a good short summary of the case by Mark Schweizer on IPKAT today. The German American Law Journal reported on May 12. The full judgment is not yet available. The court’s May 12 press release is
here (in German).

This case has been widely misreported in English. The trouble seems to have started with an AP report which described the potential liability for a lawyer’s costs as a fine (AP report (in English):

German court orders wireless passwords for all

By KIRSTEN GRIESHABER (AP) – May 12, 2010

BERLIN — Germany’s top criminal court ruled Wednesday that Internet users need to secure their private wireless connections by password to prevent unauthorized people from using their Web access to illegally download data.

Internet users can be fined up to euro100 ($126) if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected WLAN connection to illegally download music or other files, the Karlsruhe-based court said in its verdict.

First of all, the BGH is not Germany’s top criminal court (IPKAT even refers to it as Germany’s Supreme Court). It has twelve civil and five criminal chambers. This decision was made by the First Civil Senate (chamber) in Karlsruhe.

Then, there is no fine, just a limited obligation to compensate a lawyer for costs.

The German American Law Journal blames the BBC for the problem (Amerika lacht über deutsches Recht).

Das BBC berichtete vom Urteil wie von einer Strafsache und ließ einen englischen Strafverteidiger kommentieren.

But the BBC article only appeared on May 14 and the lawyer it consulted was an intellectual property expert.

Let’s hope that when the full judgment appears, the English and American sources will correct their versions. See comments on this blog.

I think that is enough for now, except that I might return to the untranslatable term Störerhaftung that comes up in this case – I have a feeling I ‘translated’ it recently.

Language weblogs/Sprachblogs

Lexiophiles has expanded its list of blogs to vote for (Top 100 Language Blogs).

The best place to look is the list of nominated blogs for language professionals, where there is a very brief description of each blog in the Language Professionals category.

Transblawg has come up on their radar (my thanks to the unknown promoter). They have Peter Harvey, but not Kalebeul or fucked translations, nor Patenttranslator – and no fidus interpres. So it’s all a bit touch and go, and in any case they are not looking specifically for translation blogs. There are four categories: Language Technology, Language Learning, Language Professionals and Language Teaching.

To find similar lists for the other three categories, start here.

Translation problems in murder trial/Übersetzungsprobleme in Mordverhandlung

Steve at languagehat takes up an article by Janet Malcolm in the New Yorker (abstract available here, full article only on subscription). The subject is a murder trial requiring written translation of an audiotape in Russian and Bukhori (a dialect of Persian spoken by the Bukharian Jews in Central Asia). It seems that the audiotape was difficult to hear and the translator made a number of errors, although there isn’t enough evidence as to why. The biggest misunderstanding was very favourable to the prosecution – one person to another, travelling in a car, saying ‘Are you getting off?’ but translated as ‘Are you going to make me happy?’ – the verb used is described as odd by commenters to the languagehat entry, and was apparently hard to hear anyway.

I haven’t got the full article, but I find some curious features:

One can imagine the translator’s own happiness when he heard those lines—and Leventhal’s when he read them in the transcript.

Leventhal was the main prosecutor. I don’t know why the translator would be happy.

We go through life mishearing and misseeing and misunderstanding so that the stories we tell ourselves will add up. Trial lawyers push this human tendency to a higher level. They are playing for higher stakes than we are playing for when we tinker with actuality in order to transform the tale told by an idiot into an orderly, self-serving narrative.

This raises a number of questions. The prosecution should certainly not be playing for high stakes if this means getting a conviction on the basis of one translated sentence – they would have to have a lot more to convince them. Prosecution should not be about convicting people at all costs. And if two people are in a car, then ‘Are you getting off?’ is not exactly a tale told by an idiot that needs to be reconstrued to make sense.

(I’ve read at least three books by Janet Malcolm, all of which were excellent – most recently ‘Two Lives – Gertrude and Alice’, but here I have not enough to go on).

LATER NOTE (and spoiler): I did actually get the whole article. It’s extremely interesting and is mainly a psychological study of what we know of people in court cases. It’s clear there will be an appeal. The problem with the audiotape transcription strongly suggests this was unreliable evidence, but in the context of the whole, it appears just one piece in the mosaic. One has the impression that the trial was unfair to the defendants and to the defence counsel, but nevertheless that the defendant Borukhova may have been correctly convicted.