Communist inflitration in Britain today,fact or paranoia?

Ord_Sgt said:
Excognito said:
сойдем же и смешаем там язык их, так чтобы одинне понимал речи другого

Говорю безумствующим: „не безумствуйте"
:D
A bit Orthodox, I know, but .. :)
 
Alsacien said:
Lähden Suomessa huomenna.
Hyvää matkaa!

On thread:
It is nicely reassuring that, however strong the socialist views might be, good old hard-core nationalism still prevails in that little brain.
(clue's in the avatar, Bugsy's that is.)
 
Excognito said:
Bugsy said:
Stanley1975 said:
In deine eigene Zeit.....

Plenty of spelling and grammar stuff to correct I think :wink:
Plenty to correct? Plenty? Sure! So let’s start with your contributions, shall we?

The expression "in your own time" is not conveyed in German with "In deine eigene Zeit". Quite apart from the grammatical and contextual errors in the term, the offhand, sardonic nature of the expression in English "geht flöten” The German: “Nimm so viel Zeit wie du brauchst dazu", or: “Nimm so viel Zeit wie (du) nötig (hast) would approach the English meaning “in etwa”.
Given that the expression is really aimed at a Brit audience with some range experience, I think Stanley's expression hits it on the mark. It's a one-to-one word mapping, easy to translate, matches a common military expression and has a nice assonance. Whereas the 'correct' German phrase disappears into the butts.
Have you ever thought of the purpose of translations? It's to render a foreign language understandable to non-speakers, believe it or not. However, working on your principle of (more or less) one-word mapping, you should have no problems with the following:

You have had pig.
I have no buck/rack/stand/trestle
There lies the hare in the pepper
Where is the horse’s hoof?
That occurs Spanish to me
That is the hook
You sing (are singing) alongside/adjacent to
Don’t keep it behind the mountain
He had at least a leaf-twenty on

But then again, that's not the real reason you posted that, is it?

para_medic said:
On thread:
It is nicely reassuring that, however strong the socialist views might be, good old hard-core nationalism still prevails in that little brain.
(clue's in the avatar, Bugsy's that is.)
I’m slightly puzzled by this. How do strong Socialist views preclude nationalism? I've never denied being an Irish Republican, in that I'd dearly like to see a United Ireland, but if some Brit with Socialist views had a union flag as an avatar, would you make the same assumption?

MsG
 
Bugsy said:
However, working on your principle of (more or less) one-word mapping, you should have no problems with the following:

You have had pig.
Most people on ARRSE had one. But looking at the content of their posts they seem to have huge problems with it.
 
Bugsy said:
Excognito said:
Bugsy said:
Stanley1975 said:
In deine eigene Zeit.....

Plenty of spelling and grammar stuff to correct I think :wink:
Plenty to correct? Plenty? Sure! So let’s start with your contributions, shall we?

The expression "in your own time" is not conveyed in German with "In deine eigene Zeit". Quite apart from the grammatical and contextual errors in the term, the offhand, sardonic nature of the expression in English "geht flöten” The German: “Nimm so viel Zeit wie du brauchst dazu", or: “Nimm so viel Zeit wie (du) nötig (hast) would approach the English meaning “in etwa”.
Given that the expression is really aimed at a Brit audience with some range experience, I think Stanley's expression hits it on the mark. It's a one-to-one word mapping, easy to translate, matches a common military expression and has a nice assonance. Whereas the 'correct' German phrase disappears into the butts.
Have you ever thought of the purpose of translations? It's to render a foreign language understandable to non-speakers, believe it or not.
I suggest you sit down with a nice stiff whiskey before reading the rest of this, ... because I do believe that the purpose of translating a foreign language it to render its meaning understandable to non-speakers of that language.

However, you have missed the entire point. The 'in deine eigene Zeit' is a literal translation of the English phrase which renders, naturally, back into English to convey an underlying British meaning to a British-military cultural audience. Whilst a native German might be rolling in the aisles at your culturally meaningful translation, the situational humour would be completely lost on back translation for the target audience.

However, working on your principle of (more or less) one-word mapping, you should have no problems with the following:

You have had pig.
I have no buck/rack/stand/trestle
There lies the hare in the pepper
Where is the horse’s hoof?
That occurs Spanish to me
That is the hook
You sing (are singing) alongside/adjacent to
Don’t keep it behind the mountain
He had at least a leaf-twenty on

But then again, that's not the real reason you posted that, is it?
Whale Oil Beef Hooked!

You're quite right - I definitely did not mean for you take up Vogon poetry.
 
Stanley1975 said:
Bugsy said:
However, working on your principle of (more or less) one-word mapping, you should have no problems with the following:

You have had pig.
Most people on ARRSE had one. But looking at the content of their posts they seem to have huge problems with it.
Strangely enough, Stanners, I haven't a clue what you're on about here. :)

The expression you quoted is: "Du hast Schwein gehabt" in German. Which means: "You were lucky/jammy". It's like the Wops say: "Hai avuto culo", which means (literally): "You have had arrse", but also conveys that you were lucky/jammy. That's why literal word-swapping transliterations often don't work.

By the way, it should be: "In deiner eigenen Zeit". Just thought you might like to know. :D

MsG
 
Jeez I'm losing will will to live, I bet the hours just fly by at your house bugsy....
 
So, Bugsy, what do you think of the Neue Rechtschreibung?
 
stoatman said:
So, Bugsy, what do you think of the Neue Rechtschreibung?
I reckon they made a right bollix of it. They got rid of a lot of unnecessary complications and introduced new ones instead.

There's still no inflection on foreign-language adjectives, which I find rather strange.

All in all, I think it was a waste of time.

MsG
 
Bugsy said:
stoatman said:
So, Bugsy, what do you think of the Neue Rechtschreibung?
I reckon they made a right bollix of it. They got rid of a lot of unnecessary complications and introduced new ones instead.

There's still no inflection on foreign-language adjectives, which I find rather strange.

All in all, I think it was a waste of time.

MsG
Well, we can actually agree on something...

When it happened it was well publicised at work... and I didn't really care. I don't write an awful lot of German for work these days, and I tend to let the dictation program/spellchecker take care of everything, especially as I'm often making rather more egregious mistakes than just the silly changes. I mean, really -- changing the rules for scharfes-s was just ridiculous. I deal mostly with the Swiss anyway so don't use the damn thing.

Bizarrely, they made suspiciously similar changes to Dutch at the same time... and nobody paid the blindest bit of notice and just cracked on as they always had (but then if you want to see properly-written Dutch you need to ask a Fleming, since at least they are taught to use their own language properly)
 
It was just the pointlessness of it all, really. When they initially proposed the introduction in 1997, I went out and got meself all the new Dudens. Then everybody and his football team started screeching about how shite it all was, so they re-revised it in 2001 and mainly did exactly what I said should have been done from the start - which is to present a revised edition but also allow the old version to continue to be valid. It's from this second re-revision that you now get bollix like "überschwenglich", but also "überschwänglich". But this new re-revision also meant that my smart new Dudens were all out of date. And I couldn't flog 'em to anybody, because nobody wanted the fückin' things anymore!

At one time there was even talk of re-editing all the published books when they came up for new run-offs. Fortunately, a few heavyweights like Grass, Leitner, Annemarie Böll (Heinrich's wife), Brandis, and, crucially Reich-Raniki, weighed in against the idea and it died the (deserved) death. You know what they say: when the Boxheeds do something, they do it 100%, even if it's 100% shite.

MsG
 
One of the worst aspects of the Dutch changes were that clearly somebody who had pull a decided that he wanted to make certain changes, and they sort of made up rules ex post facto which sort of fitted changes, except when they didn't. Like for instance when a compound word keeps or loses a silent "n" was justified in terms of "if it's an animal compounded with a plant then it loses the "N", except when it doesn't".

So you get the perfectly logical Paardenbloem turned into the ridiculous-looking Paardebloem. I believe this was one of the changes that paralleled a similar one in German.

Back in the 1950s they did an enormous modernisation of the written language -- the spoken language had diverged to such an enormous degree from the written that it seemed sensible to make substantial changes. However, the earlier spelling was more phonetic than that which replaced it -- to understand modern Dutch spelling you need to understand how and when double vowels become single vowels. Again, somebody with pull had come up with a neat system of open syllables and closed syllables for spelling rules, which was adopted. Frankly, there are still the same number of exceptions, they're just different now.

I also suspect that there was a desire to make the written language look less like German, and the complicated and obsolete German-style inflections were certainly removed, which was no bad thing really.

Example: on the gentleman's red table. Red = rood

Pre-1950s reform: Op den rooden tafel des heers.
Post reform: Op de rode tafel van de heer.

In both cases, the "o" sound is the same... the old-fashioned written form was only ever spoken by newsreel voice-overs, the Queen, and very formal speeches.

Other important changes were almost total elimination of the strict genitive (as above), except in certain specific set phrases (alle vier der elementen, Dag des Oordeels) since it just was not used in speech any more. Lots and lots of silent "N"'s were removed, except on the end of infinitives and certain plurals.

Most of the reform was good, but frankly they could have left the open/closed syllable rule. I don't have any difficulty using it, since I'm used to it, but it really was not necessary.

But what I really want to know is why on earth the Microsoft Word grammar checker was criticising me for using formal, written forms when I was writing... a formal letter earlier this afternoon. Baffling!
 
stoatman said:
But what I really want to know is why on earth the Microsoft Word grammar checker was criticising me for using formal, written forms when I was writing... a formal letter earlier this afternoon. Baffling!
Oh, Jaisus! The spelling and grammar checker for Boxheed is an absolute catastrophe. Try using conditionals and it goes bananas. If you write: "Hätte ich das Buch, so läse ich es auch", it gives you all sorts of suggestions - just not the right ones. And something like: "Er meine, dass er ein besseres Leben anstrebe" also comes up as wrong; as does something like: "Ich würde der Dinger harren wollen". If I ever have any probs with any Boxheed expressions, I just hack it into the LEO site and I get the answer. It's much better than Microsoft's effort.

I've always thought that the German language could do with a bit of a grammatical clean-up, but I'm not too sure how they'd go about it. They did allow more dative/genitive crossovers in the reform, but they never went as far as the Dutch, which is a bit of a shame, really. I reckon they could ditch a load of inflections without altering the sense at all, just like the Dutch did. It'd make things a lot easier for folks learning the language too.

The Swiss, in the spoken language, don't bother too much at all about inflections, and they get by just fine. Everybody understands what's meant when they say:

Er isch miis Früund, or;
Sie isch miis Früundin, or;
Das isch miis Ding

Surely that's an indication that some sort of sensible reform would be possible?

MsG
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top