A couple of years ago I bought the CD version of the Collins German Dictionary Unabridged (DE>EN and EN>DE, 4th ed. 1999). I have twice reported trivial inconsistencies with the paper version to Acolada, and both times I have received a new CD and a letter of thanks. It’s good to know that there’s someone looking after this CD. Of course, I suppose if they said it was the 1999 edition, they have to deliver that! Most recently I received a new CD on 7th January this year.

The dictionary runs under the same interface as the Dietl/Lorenz law dictionary. I could also have the new Ernst CD, Wörterbuch der industriellen Technik running under that interface, but I don’t use Ernst very often so I think I will get the paper DE>EN.

Among other dictionaries, Acolada also have Potonnier DE>FR and FR>DE, Wörterbuch Wirtschaft, Recht, Handel. Potonnier is a beautiful law dictionary because of all its definitions included in the entries, almost useful enough for someone who knows no French. It looks like the model of what a bilingual law dictionary should be.

The Collins dictionary is also known as Pons-Collins, because in Germany it has been (but is it still?) published by Pons, although it originated with Collins in the UK. This leads to some confusion, in that Pons has its own dictionaries that are then confused with Collins. There is a dictionary of the same size as the Collins produced by Pons in 2001, I think using the same database as Collins, but certainly different, called Pons Großwörterbuch für Experten und Universität Englisch . The cover quite clearly says ‘Vollständige Neuentwicklung’ (a completely new product), and the website adds ‘2001’. When I looked at it I had the impression that it might be more oriented towards Germans than the Collins.

Last autumn, Casio produced a small dictionary device, Sprachcomputer EW-G2000 für Deutsch und Englisch, price 249 euros. This contains three reputable dictionaries: Pons Großwörterbuch (the 2001 product mentioned above, CD dated 2002), the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (6th ed. 2000) and the Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch (5th ed. 2003). More information on Casio’s German site. There’s also a bigger on, EW-G2010, with the New Oxford English Thesaurus on it too, and a smaller one, EW-G100, with only the Pons and the Hornby.

It’s a shame they couldn’t have the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Apparently many Germans have fond memories of the Hornby Advanced Learners Dictionary, probably the first of its kind, which is very good too – but the LDCE, the work of a team from the beginning, is one of the best English dictionaries full stop. There was a review of the device in MDÜ 4-5/2003 – it refers to the Pons as ‘weithin bekannt’, and here again, I think the writer (Karl-Heinz Trojanus) is confusing the Pons with the Collins. – However, this device looks worth having for those who might need full language support when travelling (I have my doubts about interpreters, because I think they would need something more specialized).

Still, it’s not as bad as in the USA, where the word ‘Websters’ is not copyrighted and any dictionary can call itself a Websters. There’s a big Websters often sold off cheap in Germany that is really Random House second edition (as opposed to the newer third edition), and people probably think it’s Merriam Websters when they buy it.

A bit off topic, but this is a rare opportunity: John Cage’s 4’33”, four minutes and 33 seconds of silence (1952, ‘for large orchestra’), is being broadcast on Radio 3 some time after 20.35 Central European Time (just to quote the time zone I’m in myself – actually at the end of the concert – see programme). The Guardian assembled an impromptu orchestra and has put its own version online. Having heard the large amount of ambient noise there, I will be interested to hear the ‘official’ version, and sorry I can’t see the video being shown on the BBC of the orchestra recording the work. The Guardian apologizes:

bq. Obviously the accoustics in our London office are inferior to those at the Barbican, where tonight’s official performance takes place. None of us is a professional musician (though the deputy news editor was in a band once that went on tour with Radiohead), and nor did we have time to do much practice.

bq. Apologies also for the fact that the recording seems only to be four minutes long. We were a bit nervous and may have rushed through the piece somewhat.

Here’s the Radio 3 home site, where you can click on the link to listen (how do you tell if you’ve forgotten to click?)

LATER NOTE: I did hear the piece (so to speak). Apparently there are three movements, the length of each decided by the conductor. The noise was very different from that inthe Guardian performance: there was an outburst of coughing, which may have come at the end of a movement but there’s no way of knowing, and some more coughing at the end.

The Duden website is advertising its products by way of an interactive spelling test. You choose one of two spellings of a number of words in a text, the text is marked and the rules you made mistakes on are explained to you (via LAWgical).

I recently linked to an article on stylometry, by Erica Klarreich (whom I didn’t even credit). The Discouraging Word is informed enough to point out a gaping hole in the article (on January 14th).

bq. Klarreich mentions Brian Vickers’ recent work on Shakespeare in his Shakespeare, Co-Author, but that’s enough to make clear her glaring omission of one famous example of stylometry gone awry: Donald Foster’s admission in 2002 that his attribution of “A Funerall Elegye” to Shakespeare was wrong, thereby making all of the editors who stampeded to include that text in their collected works of Shakespeare look a bit…foolish.

Don Foster, at one of the links given by The Discouraging Word, says he was wrong and suggests he learnt from criminology and forensic linguistics to be more cautious:

Since 1997 I have had a second career in criminology and forensic
linguistics that has taken time from an unfinished project that remains,
for me, a source of frustration. The Shaxicon database-which
contributed to my own conviction, in 1996, that Shakespeare wrote the
elegy-is still unpublished. Nor have I yet determined where I went
wrong with the statistical evidence. Still, my experience in recent
years with police detectives, FBI agents, lawyers, and juries has, I
hope, made me a better scholar.

On 13th January, The Times published the ethical dilemma of a public service interpreter:

bq. I am a self-employed as a public-service interpreter and occasionally I
have to translate a statement that both the speaker and I know is a lie. I
know that I am employed as a machine into which you pour one language and
out of which you get another, but I am uncomfortable with this situation. I
could, of course, cover myself by reporting the lie to a superior officer,
but I may then find that very little work is coming my way. Any
suggestions?

The Ethicist’s answer is only available to paying subscribers. You can have a one-week subscription, but I haven’t.

He says she has to tell the truth, even if she is just hired as a kind of machine.
If she is not certain it is a lie, she can translate it. Lawyers may doubt a client’s innocence but still argue that the client is not guilty, but lawyers are not allowed to lie. This may cost her some work.

It’s easy to answer questions if you know you have to be ethical! I would have said she can lie if it’s a trivial matter. I also wonder if ‘lying’ is really a problem in practice. Normally the interpreter will have no idea about a lie. Interpreters probably have more qualms about opinions and manners. It looks like a query invented for the ‘ethicist’ to me.

The Times law section on 13th January had a timely article by Iain Harris on annulling marriage, saying the Britney Spears annulment was a rare case.

bq. Nullity is extremely rare. In 2002 just 197 marriages ended with a decree of nullity, compared with 147,538 that ended in a decree of divorce. Over the past 30 years as solicitor in family law, I have dealt with only a handful of nullity cases.

Britney Spears is reported to have been granted an annulment on the grounds that she ‘lacked the understanding of her actions’ (she was apparently drunk). Harris says the English equivalent would be lack of valid consent as a result of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or otherwise.

Mind you, if you look at the decree itself, the text goes on to speak about not knowing each other well enough, which is a somewhat different argument.

In English law, there are void marriages, as the article says (void from the beginning) and voidable marriages (they can be annulled but need not be).

In Germany there used to be three possibilities: Nichtehe, Ehenichtigkeit and Eheaufhebung, but it looks as if Ehenichtigkeit was abolished in 1998.