# Arbeitnehmende



## Learning

Hola, por favor, alguien me puede ayudar a traducir la siguiente frase? Aquí os pongo mi intento:

"(...),dass Selbständigerwerbende über ein höheres Mass an Selbstbestimmung verfügen als Arbeitnehmende"

"(...)que los contratistas independientes disponen de una alta medida de autodeterminación como Arbeitnehmende"

No encuentro Arbeitnehmend, y también me gustaría que me dijerais si la he traducido bien o no.

Muchísimas gracias!!


----------



## Joeke

Hey, what you are working on, is definitely no native German text! It looks more as an awful, total artificial exercise by a teacher, who has fun to "torture" all his _Learnings_. I guess, the exercise is: Usage of _Partizip Praesens_, right?

But, I'm sorry, I'm insecure, whether to let you out or not..., because the simple fact, that you are asking this question about _Arbeitnehmende, _to me, seems to indicate, that you do not understand the subject you are working on..., but I don't understand Spanish, so I don't know for sure, whether your question, probably, is only about _Partizip _(?), which wouldn't be used in this place in native German.



> "(...),dass Selbständigerwerbende über ein höheres Mass an Selbstbestimmung verfügen als Arbeitnehmende"



For the first I try to help you by giving the requested sentence - exactly with the same meaning - correctly back in native German:



> "(...),dass *selbständig Erwerbstätige* über ein höheres Mass an Selbstbestimmung verfügen als *Arbeitnehmer*"



If you do understand the sentence this way, I understand, that you only have a problem with _Partizip_.
If you do not understand the sentence, there might be a fundamental problem with the subject: I cannot understand, how it would be possible, to get that far within a text like this, without knowing the meaning of _Arbeitnehmer_.
And I cannot believe, that there could exist any dictionary without containing _Arbeitnehmer_, too. - 
On the other hand, no dictionary would contain a German verb _arbeitnehmen_ - is this the teacher's trick? - (each German would understand it, could build and use it, but never would do so, it does not exist), on which _Arbeitnehmende _as _Partizip _was built (consequently not existing, too)
So, please, tell, what the problem is.

Joe


----------



## Learning

Thanks Joeke. The text is from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung :S. We were told to translate a text choosen from us, and I have chosen this text. We have already been taught the PARTIZIP PRÄSENS, but simply I wasn't sure if Arbeitnehmend would be the same as Arbeitnehmer, because I though "If it was the same, the text could have just said ARBEITNEHMER". I am amazed that a Swiss newspaper may write in a style that don't seem native at all.

So, from what you've told, ARBEITNEHMEND is a synonim for ARBEITNEHEMER, isn't it?

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Kajjo

Learning said:


> I am amazed that a Swiss newspaper may write in a style that don't seem native at all.


This is amazing for me, too. Maybe you could give us a link to the full article? It would be nice to read a little bit more context.



> So, from what you've told, ARBEITNEHMEND is a synonym for ARBEITNEHEMER, isn't it?


Yes, you are right.

I could imagine that the author was extremely feministic and tried to avoid nouns that could convey the notion of a masculine-dominated language. While the participle is gender-neutral under all circumstances, the word _Arbeitnehmer_ is a masculine with neutral meaning. Such attempts are certainly stupid, but they do occur from time to time in German and English as well. "Arbeitnehmende" feels so wrong that it might represent either humour or extremism.

Kajjo


----------



## sisyphe

Hola Learning,

I think Kajjo's suggestion about the neutral forms in order to avoid the masculine forms is right. While some people (or men) may find it stupid, it certainly is a fact that it is a trend in modern German usage, and in some contexts it is mandatory to avoid masculine-only forms. The noun derived from the participle is used to avoid lengthy repetitions.

As to your original question, I believe your sentence ought to be slightly amended to reflect the "höheres Maß": "(...)que los contratistas independientes disponen de una *más* alta medida de autodeterminación como *que* los empleados."

Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
sisyphe


----------



## Learning

Thanks a lot, now I can understand why the author used Arbeitnehmend instead of Arbeitnehmer. In Spanish some words are said both in masculine and in feminine in order to avoid "sexism" (as some people call it) in language. So, instead of saying LOS CIUDADANOS TIENE QUE SABER QUE... dicen LOS CIUDADANOS Y CIUDADANAS..., which is unnecessary (I think I've read it in the RAE), because it's a linguistic conviction that the masculine gender refers to both sexes.


----------



## Kajjo

sisyphe said:


> While some people (or men) may find it stupid, it certainly is a fact that it is a trend in modern German usage, and in some contexts it is mandatory to avoid masculine-only forms.


Well, e.g. the usage of "Studierende" instead of "Studenten" is language-wise non-sense and only for the narrow-minded fraction. It is just a fact that certain words are meant neutrally. This is not at all about politics or society but about language. Masculine-dominated language might have its _ancient roots_ in a male-dominated world view, but certainly nowadays it is just a _part of the language_ and not part of one's political views.

Compare the questions:

_ Wer war die erste Bundeskanzlerin der Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
Wer war der erste Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
Wer ist zur Zeit Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
_ 
There are is no sensible alternatives to ask these questions, particularly the last one.

Again, this forum discusses language and not politics.

Kajjo


----------



## Jana337

Kajjo said:


> Well, e.g. the usage of "Studierende" instead of "Studenten" is language-wise non-sense and only for the narrow-minded fraction. It is just a fact that certain words are meant neutrally. This is not at all about politics or society but about language. Masculine-dominated language might have its _ancient roots_ in a male-dominated world view, but certainly nowadays it is just a _part of the language_ and not part of one's political views.
> 
> Compare the questions:
> 
> _ Wer war die erste Bundeskanzlerin der Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
> Wer war der erste Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
> Wer ist zur Zeit Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
> _
> There are is no sensible alternatives to ask these questions, particularly the last one.
> 
> Again, this forum discusses language and not politics.


Exactly. The cultural forum is a more appropriate place for gender battles. 

Here's a memorable thread.

Jana


----------



## Kajjo

Learning said:


> because it's a linguistic conviction that the masculine gender refers to both sexes.


You are right. Thanks.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Jana337 said:


> Exactly. The cultural forum is a more appropriate place for gender battles. Here's a memorable thread.


Thanks, Jana! Yes, the cultural aspects should be discussed there, but it is important to comprehend that neither "die Meise", "das Pferd" nor "der Student" implies linguistically significant information about biological sex, but only about grammatical gender. German would be highly cumbersome and to a certain degree impossible if one would try to entirely avoid feminine or masculine nouns that are meant to refer to both sexes or a group of people.

My heart beats for language, not for political correctness. The title phrase of this thread is just wrong and not in any sense, not even the political sense, correct.

Kajjo


----------



## Joeke

Learning said:


> I am amazed that a Swiss newspaper may write in a style that don't seem native at all.


WOW, yes, that's very amazing to me, too. In your place, I also would have thought: "That must be something different", additionally keeping in mind, that this is not SOME Swiss newspaper: To my reception as a German, it is THE Swiss newspaper!
_(But, talking in general, it every times might be a little risky, to refer to non-German newspapers for exercises of such a kind, if you want to find a high level of written German language for sure..., a lot of German newspapers, as well, by the way )_


Kajjo said:


> I could imagine that the author was extremely feministic and tried to avoid nouns that could convey the notion of a masculine-dominated language.


The gender aspect is a smart way of interpretation, or, to "justify" any senseful idea behind that style, but, to me, it doesn't look totally convincing, because:


> "(...),dass Selbständigerwerbende über ein höheres Mass an Selbstbestimmung verfügen als Arbeitnehmende"


If that was true, it wouldn't have been necessary, to transform _selbständig Erwerbstätige_ into _Selbständigerwerbende_...: This is a very special one-word-construction  (from a standard point of view, a wrong one, on it's own, I think - it had to be: _selbständig Erwerbende_, if it's "allowed" to be ).

So, for another trial rescuing the original author's honour: Let's go poetic?

 IF the _NZZ _is the place, where it happened, one might consider, that this could have been creative language art, intentionally constructed, first to initiate a high attention of the reader, next to express a "process view" _(the functional purpose of participle, right?)_ at, what those people are DOING, WHILE they FEEL more or less satisfied with their own work...
Considering, also, that they are FEELING it this way, BECAUSE they are DOING it this way, resp., with this MOTIVATION.

Trying to be quite, quite honest _(sometimes I'm succesfull )_, exactly THIS was my very first reception, when I saw the text. - I now remember, that I spontaneously was impressed deeply, about this fine and precise language feeling, combined with a very compact way to transport the intended information..., with high *Prägnanz *_(I hesitate, to call it "pregnant" )_, in a very typical quality of German language..., which might be hard, if not impossible, to be translated, without using a lot more words (and loosing _Prägnanz_). So, this is going to change into the opposite of all criticism before...

(At my second view then, fast I turned to "not amused".)

Do we now all have to apologize, and to go to Canossa, perhaps? (...and forget the gender thing, last, but not least?). - The longer I think on it, the more I'm convinced, that this first view was intended by the original author.


Kajjo said:


> My heart beats for language, not for political correctness.


I love that heart beat! 

Joe


----------



## sisyphe

Thanks for the link, Jana.

Given that you do not wish to discuss politics in this thread, there seems to me to be quite a strong political opinion conveyed in your posts, Kajjo. I will not comment on this any further, but would just like to come back to the newspaper's wording, or rather provide the legal basis for this for Germany, which is likely to be similar in Switzerland. Let me quote an extract from the Federal Ministry of the Interior's website:

"Am 30. November 2001 trat das Gesetz zur Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern in der Bundesverwaltung und in den Gerichten des Bundes (Gleichstellungsgesetz) in Kraft, siehe BGBI 2001, 3234.

Das Thema "Sprachliche Gleichbehandlung von Frauen und Männern" bildet einen wichtigen Teilaspekt des Gender Mainstreamings und ist in der öffentlichen Verwaltung nicht neu. Mit dieser Forderung werden maskuline Personenbezeichnungen kritisiert, die gleichermaßen auf Frauen und Männer bezogen werden. Die Strategie "Das Männliche als Norm" (MAN) widerspricht einem geschlechtergerechten Sprachgebrauch, dessen oberste Prinzipien die sprachliche Sichtbarmachung von Frauen und die sprachliche Symmetrie sind.


Das Prinzip der sprachlichen Sichtbarmachung besagt, das dort, wo von Frauen die Rede ist, dies sprachlich auch zum Ausdruck kommen muss, z.B. durch den Gebrauch schon vorhandener femininer Personenbezeichnungen oder deren Neubildung: Bundestagspräsidentin, Bischöfin, Industriekauffrau oder Feuerwehrfrau.

Das Prinzip der sprachlichen Symmetrie besagt, dass dort, wo von Frauen und Männern die Rede ist, beide gleich zu behandeln sind. Dies kann durch das sog. Splitting geschehen, d.h. durch Ausdrücke, in denen feminine und maskuline Personenbezeichnung ausdrücklich genannt werden: Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Wählerin bzw. Wähler, wir suchen: eine Fachfrau oder einen Fachmann.

Symmetrie kann auch erreicht werden, indem geschlechtsneutrale Ausdrücke verwendet werden: Ratsmitglied, Vertrauensperson, wir suchen: eine Fachkraft/Fachleute. *Auch Personenbezeichnungen, die aus Adjektiven oder Partizipien abgeleitet sind, eignen sich im Plural besonders gut für eine geschlechtsneutrale Ausdrucksweise*: die Reisende, die Grünen, die Angestellten." (my emphasis)
Source: http://www.kbst.bund.de/nn_836960/Content/Standards/Richtlinien/Gender/gender.html__nnn=true

I therefore doubt that your assertions about the wrongness of the newspaper's wordings are perfectly correct. After all, we should perhaps acknowledge that language is in a constant process of change. Hope this helps, Learning.

Best,
sisyphe


----------



## Joeke

sisyphe said:


> I will not comment on this any further, but ...


So, don't do even this... As everybody knows, those words always are the beginning of doing, nevertheless, what is negotiated to be done. Is _quoting a third party source_ no delivery of information? Or no delivery of a political point of view, if it's contained in the information?

Have a look on my just posted - completely different - way, 





> ... to come back to the newspaper's wording ...


It may be wiping out all gender politics from the original text. Are we discussing language now?

_(Me, too, by the way? -: Nobody doubted, that, what your emphasis is about, is an appropiate method for gender politics: Kajjo just used his own knowledge about that method, to recognize it's usage as a symptom for gender politics..., and, ok, his speech was engaged, perhaps, a bit too much, to be left without comment... As you can see just now, your "non-speech" was not tricky enough, to be left without comment  ... Before THIS is getting too much into not being left without comment  ..., we, perhaps, could have a lot of fun, inviting each other to a discussion at a more appropiate place..., which, I'm sure, could bring up  some new aspects, coming from a grown up (!) "softie" and "Frauenversteher", so, probably, coming from an "insider" of both parties  )

Joe_


----------



## sisyphe

Hi Joe,
was writing my post while you posted yours. Consider it acknowledged now. I differ from your view of the linguistic matter, but Learning has probably already made up his (I assume ) mind about this sentence long ago anyway.
Btw: the quotation was intended to convey information to the person who asked the question. Thanks for noting this, and thanks for all your comments.


----------



## Kajjo

Joe:
Maybe these participles are a Swiss phenomenon? I do not know enough about Swiss German to decide about the validity of my idea, but the wording surely sounds strange and kind of incorrect to my educated ears, while on the other hand the NZZ is a highly reputated newspaper to let such words slip in unwillingly.

Sisyphe:
Beamtendeutsch und gleichwohl politischer Feminismus sind für sprachliche Komplikationen bekannt. Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, daß man derartige rein politisch motivierte Verordnungen nicht als tatsächliche sprachliche Entwicklung fehldeuten darf. In meinem Bekanntenkreis gibt es niemanden, der im Alltag solche Wendungen verwenden würde -- und das unabhängig von Geschlecht, politischer Ausrichtung oder Lebensalter. Je offizieller, desto mehr werden Vorschriften befolgt -- aber gelebt und gefühlt wird dieser "Quatsch" doch wohl von keinem ernstzunehmenden Mitbürger?

_Wie viele Polizisten sind im Einsatz?
Alle Ärzte im Allgemeinen Krankenhaus streiken heute.

_Wer würde da denken, daß man die Polizistinnen nicht mitzählt oder die Ärztinnen durchaus arbeiten werden? Ich hoffe doch wohl niemand. 

Sprache soll in erster Linie der Kommunikation dienen, politische Korrektheit dagegen verschleiert die wahren Inhalte ohne der Sache selbst in irgendeiner Form zu dienen.

Kajjo


----------



## Joeke

Kajjo said:


> Joe:
> Maybe these participles are a Swiss phenomenon? I do not know enough about Swiss German to decide about the validity of my idea, but the wording surely sounds strange and kind of incorrect to my educated ears, while on the other hand the NZZ is a highly reputated newspaper to let such words slip in unwillingly.



BINGO! - You got the right track  ... a bit  ... _(Look! How clever we can be! - And I've been so close, mentioning, that it's always risky...)_ -:

The conclusion is, it's a variant, seldomly used, but occurring.
I cannot post links (not yet), so I refer this way, what I found by internal searches within the NZZ archive (LAST Matches in each and every case actually from 2007):

_Selbständigerwerbende_: Matches in 330 Docs,
_Arbeitnehmende_: Matches in 144 Docs.
But:
_Selbständige_: Matches in 2.426 Docs, and
_Arbeitnehmer_: Matches in 6.590 Docs

So, forget all our intelligent searching for a special linguistic or gender meaning. - And:

The simple truth is: NZZ is no longer a safe reference for _Hochdeutsch. _

(...As it has been, as far, as I know, and as it, obviously, still is known by foreign teachers and learners, additionally with the attribute, to be one of the safest source all over, as I heard, so that it is reference recommendation No.1!)

Now I believe, I remember a report about an internal discussion of this point from within NZZ team. They were very proud of their high quality image outside, but...: 
They decided, that they cannot refuse to reflect, that there are some people from Switzerland, too, reading this paper... 

_(Shouildn't we send them a link to this thread? To let them know, "what they have done to our soul"?  )

_


Kajjo said:


> Sprache soll in erster Linie der Kommunikation dienen, politische Korrektheit dagegen verschleiert die wahren Inhalte ohne der Sache selbst in irgendeiner Form zu dienen.


Yes.

Joe


----------



## Learning

Oh ! Reviewing the text I have noticed that perhaps I haven't understood the sentence. 
1) What does Selbständigerwerbende  means?
2) Which of the following translations is correct, A, B or C?

 a) "(...)que los contratistas independientes disponen de una mayor medida de autodeterminación como trabajadores"
 b) "(...)que los contratistas independientes disponen de una mayor cantidad de autodeterminación que los trabajadores"
 c) "(...)que los contratistas independientes disponen de una alta medida de autodeterminación que los trabajadores"

3) If possible, could you give me your translation (if not in Spanish, in English). I'm very confused. 

Thanks a lot and sorry


----------



## Sepia

I don't quite understand why you all want to change a totally normal Swiss-German text into Federal-German style. In legal texts of Swiss origin you often find the word "Arbeitnehmende". Actually it was obvious all from the beginning that it is a Swiss text, I should say.

Translation:

... that independent contractors enjoy a higher degree of self-determination than workers/employees.


----------



## Joeke

Sepia said:


> I don't quite understand why you all want to change a totally normal Swiss-German text into Federal-German style. In legal texts of Swiss origin you often find the word "Arbeitnehmende". Actually it was obvious all from the beginning that it is a Swiss text, I should say.
> 
> Translation:
> 
> ... that independent contractors enjoy a higher degree of self-determination than workers/employees.



Help me, not to get you wrong: Have you just been trying to help? Or is that the proclamation of a correct Swiss-English translation?

Why we all wanted to change? To help for a foreign German-Learner's understanding, perhaps (not ours or yours)?
Should federal Germans know, what "totally normal Swiss-German texts" are containing? Or "legal texts of Swiss Origin"?
And is it this kind of text? Or does it come from a source, formerly known as one of the best references for _Hochdeutsch_?
Did you really look at the thread? And you did not notice, that we were missing those informations about "normal Swiss-German texts"?
Did you look at the statistics about NZZ archive? Didn't you see, how normal this normal text ist?

Sorry to say, but your translation does not fit in its purpose:

_Worker _is not synonym to _employee_, _employee _is ment.
_Independent contractor_ is a correct re-translation from the Spanish text (and is, at least, not totally wrong in its meaning), but doesn't match the author's point of view: The author ist talking about two groups of _Erwerbstätigen _(English seems to miss an equivalent term, what I found -_ "person gainfully employed" _- doesn't include _Erwerbstätige_, who are not  employed, but earnig money by working). The two groups:
- (Erwerbstätige, die abhängig beschäftigt sind) _Arbeitnehmer / Employees_, which are less self-determining, what they are working on (the employer is telling, what...), and
- (Erwerbstätige, die nicht abhängig beschäftigt sind, sondern...) _Selbständige / Self-employers_, which are more self-determining, what they are working on ("only" customers are telling, what...) 
_Self-employers_ definitely are not the same as _contractors _(literally: _Vertragspartner_), _entrepreneurs (Unternehmer)_, or _employers (Arbeitgeber)_, even, though all those terms could be true for one and the same person, but for different aspects.
So, finally the best matching translation to English, to my opinion, is:

"... that self-employers enjoy a higher degree of self-determination than employees."


----------



## Kajjo

Sepia said:


> I don't quite understand why you all want to change a totally normal Swiss-German text into Federal-German style.


1. We did not know that these participles are "totally normal Swiss". I still doubt it, but it actually might be more acceptable in Swiss than in German. However, the statistics of NZZ do not support this idea.

2. We did not intend to translate Swiss into German. Our aim was to help a foreigner to understand the phrase.



> In legal texts of Swiss origin you often find the word "Arbeitnehmende".


OK, I believe that it is a normal word in political and legal documents. However, it still sounds very weird to me.

Kajjo


----------



## heidita

Learning said:


> "(...),dass Selbständigerwerbende über ein höheres Mass an Selbstbestimmung verfügen als Arbeitnehmende"
> 
> "(...)que los autónomos / los empleados por cuenta propia disponen de mayor autodeterminación que los empleados por cuenta ajena.
> Muchísimas gracias!!



Ich muss sagen, ich bin überrascht über die Diskussion , ob das üblich oder unübliches Deutsch ist. Der Frager hat übrigens wiederholt gefragt, ob seine Antwort richtig sei, was nicht beachtet wurde.

Ich habe meine erste Antwort gegeben, ohne die anderen durchgelesen zu haben. Ich habe als Laie also sofort verstanden, worum es sich handelte. Finde ich eine unverständliche Diskussion.


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:


> Exactly. The cultural forum is a more appropriate place for gender battles.
> 
> Here's a memorable thread.
> 
> Jana


On no, Jana! <groan>

That thread started with good intentions but became so distorted that I don't think anyone could learn anything from it!

As for "Arbeitnehmende", "Arbeitnehmerin" already exists. Isn't that much more common?

But where does it end? Arbeitnehmerinnen?

You will not find a more enthusiastic supporter of Women's Rights than me. So far I just don't see the purpose of such forms.

Is it okay for me to say that in this thread?

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Link

This should have been the first thing we did, link to the source for context!

I have to admit that the article was very easy to read and did not, considered as a whole, seem like something terrible.

But perhaps that is my ignorance showing. 

Gaer


----------



## Joeke

gaer said:


> ...This should have been the first thing we did, link to the source for context! ...


Ja, Mensch, danke!
Danach wurde auch gestern schon gefragt, ohne Erfolg. Habe selbst mit dem Textstring gegoogelt und hatte gestern null Treffer...: Da werde ich wohl nicht der Einzige gewesen sein, und jetzt haben sie es in der Datenbank.


gaer said:


> ... I have to admit that the article was very easy to read and did not, considered as a whole, seem like something terrible. ...


 Nein, natürlich nicht! Mein erstes "Entsetzen" entstand ja auch ohne Kenntnis der Seriosität verströmenden Quelle. Und der Verwendungsgrund für diese - nach hochdeutschem Sprachgefühl allerdings wirklich furchtbaren - Partizipien (_Selbständigerwerbende_, _Arbeitnehmende_) ist inzwischen ja auch - als schweizerische Sonderform - geklärt.

Übernimm diese Worte bloß nicht in Deinen deutschen Wortschatz!  Es bleibt dabei: Im Hochdeutschen gibt es die nicht, und auch die _NZZ _verwendet meistens die hochdeutschen Formen (_Selbständige_, _Arbeitnehmer_).

Joe


----------

