# Ostalgie ist ungeheuer gefährlich



## Whodunit

Bevor meine letzte Übersetzung korrigiert wird, möchte ich schon die nächste Anbieten, die mir Jana aufgegeben hat. Blöd war nur, dass darin das Wort "Ostalgie" vorkam, was sich natürlich nicht übersetzen lässt. Mal sehen, wie ihr meinen Versuch findet:



> Mit Interesse und zum Teil mit Unmut habe ich in den vergangenen Tagen und Wochen die Artikel und auch die Leserbriefe zum Thema "Ostalgie" in der WELT verfolgt. Ich habe die DDR-Shows im Fernsehen nicht gesehen und kann mir deshalb kein Urteil über deren Inhalt erlauben. Mich regt jedoch auf, wenn sich manche Leute anmaßen zu sagen, solche Sendungen seien gefährlich und verniedlichen oder verzerren das Geschichtsbild. Ich frage ich mich ernsthaft: Hatten oder haben solche Fernsehshows überhaupt den Anspruch, geschichtliche Fakten darzustellen? Quelle


 
_With interest and partially displeasure I followed the articles and letters to the editor dealing with the topic “Ostalgie” (a German word that refers to nostalgia; it’s a play on words, of which the English equivalent would be “eastalgia”) in the German newspaper "Die WELT" in the past days and weeks. I didn’t watch the GDR shows on TV, so I can’t form a judgment about their contents. However, people who take it upon themselves to say that those shows be dangerous and belittle the view of history or distort it are those who are most annoying to me. I really have to wonder: Were or better are such TV shows entitled to present historic facts at all?_

Ich fand die Übersetzung gar nicht so schwer, bis auf diese Unklarheiten:

Gibt es ein schöneres Wort für "Leserbriefe" im Englischen? "Letters to the editor" ist viel zu lang und klingt auch nach einer billigen Übersetzung.

Im Deutschen steht ein Konjunktiv nach "sagen", den ich auch im Englischen sehr angebracht finde. Allerdings bin ich mit dem Gebrauch des englischen Konjunktiv I nicht ganz so vertraut.

"historic" und "historical": In diesem Satz ist es meines Erachtens ein Streitfall, welche Version man nimmt. "Historic" heißt, so weit ich weiß, dass es geschichtlich und emotional bedeutsam war, "historical" heißt, dass es sich auf die tatsächliche Vergangenheit bezieht. Da der Autor aber von der Ostalgie schreibt, finde ich "historic" angebrachter. Über Erörterungen zu diesem Thema wäre ich sehr dankbar.

Also dann, auf zur Korrektur!


----------



## Ralf

Whodunit said:
			
		

> ....
> Gibt es ein schöneres Wort für "Leserbriefe" im Englischen? "Letters to the editor" ist viel zu lang und klingt auch nach einer billigen Übersetzung.
> ...


So "billig" klingt das nun auch wieder nicht. Hier hatte ich mich, zwar in einem anderen Zusammenhang, mal kurz mit Gaer zu diesem Thema unterhalten. Sein erster Vorschlag war auch 'letters to the editor'.

Ansonsten ist mir nichts weiter aufgefallen. Vielleicht könnte man für 'letters ... dealing with the topic "Ostalgie"' kürzer 'letters ... on the subject "Ostalgie"' schreiben ... oder ist das zu umgangssprachlich?

Ralf


----------



## gaer

Who, quickly, "off the top of my head". Perhaps others will clarify things or correct mistakes.
====
Mit Interesse und zum Teil mit Unmut habe ich in den vergangenen Tagen und Wochen die Artikel und auch die Leserbriefe zum Thema "Ostalgie" in der WELT verfolgt. 

With interest and with some displeasure[,] I followed the articles and letters to the editor from previous days and weeks dealing with the topic of “Ostalgie”* in "Die WELT".

*Ostalgiea, a German play on words that combines the word "Ost" (east), referring to [former] East Germany with "nostalgia".

[There should be no need to explain "die WELT". It's a major magazine.]

Ich habe die DDR-Shows im Fernsehen nicht gesehen und kann mir deshalb kein Urteil über deren Inhalt erlauben. 

I haven't seen the East-German programs and am therefore unable to make a judgement [form an opionion] about their contents. 

[DDR = Deutsche Demokratische Republik, which does not even exist in LEO now as an abbreviation. At the time this abbreviation was in use, the term "East Germany" was always used in English. If this is about something current, then I don't have a solution. "GDR" is an abbreviation that will probably not be understood by people who do not know German, and I have not heard it in use at all since "the fall of the Wall". I don't understand your use of "DDR" in reference to what appears to be the present…]

Mich regt jedoch auf, wenn sich manche Leute anmaßen zu sagen, solche Sendungen seien gefährlich und verniedlichen oder verzerren das Geschichtsbild. 

However, it annoys me when people assert that such shows are dangerous and belittle or distort "the historical picture". (I can't think of a better translation at the moment.)

Ich frage ich mich ernsthaft: Hatten oder haben solche Fernsehshows überhaupt den Anspruch, geschichtliche Fakten darzustellen?

I am seriously asking myself: Did such such TV shows have or do they have the right to present historical facts at all?
====
Gaer

EDIT: Your use of subjunctive "be" is archaic. It is not used that way in modern English, not in such a sentence, but I can't explain why. 

"Historic" is a problem. My own sense of language says that it must be "historical facts".

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,890,000 for "historical facts".
Results 1 - 10 of about 122,000 for "historic facts". 

BUT:

Results 1 - 10 of about 28,100 for "historical occasion". 
Results 1 - 10 of about 262,000 for "historic occasion".

If you want a reason, someone else will have to give it to you!


----------



## FloVi

> Ich habe die DDR-Shows im Fernsehen nicht gesehen und kann mir deshalb kein Urteil über deren Inhalt erlauben.
> 
> I haven't seen the East-German programs and am therefore unable to make a judgement [form an opionion] about their contents.



Könnte das nicht missinterpretiert werden als die "Programme, die in der DDR gesendet wurden"?


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:
			
		

> Könnte das nicht missinterpretiert werden als die "Programme, die in der DDR gesendet wurden"?


That's the problem I'm having. I don't understand the use of "DDR". There is obviously something basic I don't know.

I only know of "DDR" in reference to the FORMER "East Germany". Is this same abbrevation still used for Eastern Germany today? If so, someone else will have to correct my suggestion. If it refers to NOW, then I would suggest something like "Eastern Germany", but even then you have to know a bit about Germany history to understand what it's all about.

Trust me when I advise all the people here to never underestimate the ignorance of most people in the west when it comes to German history, as I've found out personally, much to my disappointment. 

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> That's the problem I'm having. I don't understand the use of "DDR". There is obviously something basic I don't know.
> 
> I only know of "DDR" in reference to the FORMER "East Germany". Is this same abbrevation still used for Eastern Germany today? If so, someone else will have to correct my suggestion. If it refers to NOW, then I would suggest something like "Eastern Germany", but even then you have to know a bit about Germany history to understand what it's all about.
> 
> Trust me when I advise all the people here to never underestimate the ignorance of most people in the west when it comes to German history, as I've found out personally, much to my disappointment.
> 
> Gaer


Die neuen Bundesländer werden normalerweise auf keinen Fall als "DDR" bezeichnet. Aber wenn man über die DDR-Zeiten spricht, benutzt man die Abkürzung natürlich sehr oft. Und die DDR-Zeiten sind heutzutage ein unheimlich populäres Thema - nicht so oft in der Richtung Vergangenheitsbewältigung, sondern vor allem (oder so scheint es mir) im _Entertainment_. Es gibt im Fernsehen viele "ultimative Ostshows". Ich kann nicht berichten, was dort abläuft, weil ich mich, genauso wie der Author des Briefes, eher für die gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen der Retrowele interessiere als für den tatsächlichen Inhalt. Hier kann man es nachlesen.

Ich gehe davon aus, dass die Abkürzungen DDR und GDR für einen uneingeweihten Leser gehopst wie gesprungen sind. Ich würde deswegen bei "DDR-Shows" bleiben und es mit einem Vermerk versehen. Genauso würde ich mit "Ostalgie" gar nichts machen. 

Jana


----------



## Bonjules

What is wrong with 'Eastalgia'? I think it works very well;
the word play is almost as good in English as in German and should be
easily understood. 
'Die Welt' is not a magazine, but (unless this has changed) one of the biggest ('serious') daily newspapers in the country (-incidentally, with its mind set also one principally responsible for the mess that is giving rise to the new wave of 'Ostalgie')


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> With interest and with some displeasure[,] I followed the articles and letters to the editor from previous days and weeks dealing with the topic of “Ostalgie”* in "Die WELT".


 
I have never heard "previous" in this context. It's always been "in the past (few) days/weeks/years" what I have heard, so I don't understand that correction/suggestion.



> *Ostalgiea, a German play on words that combines the word "Ost" (east), referring to [former] East Germany with "nostalgia".


 
This sounds good, although I would "eastalgia" as a good comparison, for those who don't know that the German word is "Nostalgie". Therefore, I'd rephrase it like this:

_Ostalgie is a German play on words that combines the word "Ost" (east), referring to former East Germany, with "Nostalgie" (nostalgia), for which the English equivalent would be "eastalgia."_



> [There should be no need to explain "die WELT". It's a major magazine.]


 
Maybe. But not everyone knows the Daily Mirror either, for example. I find it better to explain things, as long as the translation space is not limited. 



> I haven't seen the East-German programs and am therefore unable to make a judgement [form an opionion] about their contents.


 
Isn't "form a judgment" very common?



> "GDR" is an abbreviation that will probably not be understood by people who do not know German, and I have not heard it in use at all since "the fall of the Wall".


 
Well, if people don't know the GDR (DDR) or Czechoslovakia, they usually don't know what "Die WELT" is, right?



> I don't understand your use of "DDR" in reference to what appears to be the present…]


 
Today, there are lots of retro TV shows that were popular in the former GDR - as Jana explained correctly. Most people are against them, but obviously there are too many who like them, so that this retro wave almost can't be stopped. 



> However, it annoys me when people assert that such shows are dangerous and belittle or distort "the historical picture". (I can't think of a better translation at the moment.)


 
I found "is annoying to me" astonishingly often on Google, so I have just taken it. What does it sound like to you? "To take it upon o.s. to do sth." is a phrase I found in my dictionary and I like it. What do you think?



> "Historic" is a problem. My own sense of language says that it must be "historical facts".


 
But when do you use "historic" then? I feel that it carries more emotion than "historical".


----------



## Jana337

Whodunit said:
			
		

> But when do you use "historic" then? I feel that it carries more emotion than "historical".


"Historical" means something that happened X years ago, "historic" is something of enormous importance. You can call an important speech or a decision historic.
A historic enlargement: Ten countries join the European Union

Jana


----------



## Bonjules

Nun, wer weiss was die 'tatsaechlichen historischen Gegebenheiten' sind?Das ist oft ebonso strittig wie alles andere. Agree w. Jana:
'Historic' carries the flavor of 'Haupt-und Staatsaktionen", anything less than that is 'historical'( although it seems to me that in contrasting something vs. its fictional character, they would be interchangeable:'The historic(al) Charlemagne....)
So finde ich das letztere (historical) hier angebrachter.


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> "Historical" means something that happened X years ago, "historic" is something of enormous importance. You can call an important speech or a decision historic.
> A historic enlargement: Ten countries join the European Union
> 
> Jana


 
That's exactly what I mean, therefore I chose "historic facts" and not "historical."


----------



## Jana337

Whodunit said:
			
		

> That's exactly what I mean, therefore I chose "historic facts" and not "historical."


Aber in dem Brief war keine Rede über bedeutende Ereignisse, die man für "historic" halten kann. Es war eine reine Beschreibung der Vergangenheit.

Jana


----------



## gaer

Bonjules said:
			
		

> What is wrong with 'Eastalgia'? I think it works very well;
> the word play is almost as good in English as in German and should be
> easily understood.
> 'Die Welt' is not a magazine, but (unless this has changed) one of the biggest ('serious') daily newspapers in the country (-incidentally, with its mind set also one principally responsible for the mess that is giving rise to the new wave of 'Ostalgie')


What in the world was I thinking?   Sorry about turning a newspaper into a magazine. 

"Eastalgia" is probably fine, although I still claim that people in the US, at least where I live, know nothing about Germany and would have to have it explained. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Ich gehe davon aus, dass die Abkürzungen DDR und GDR für einen uneingeweihten Leser gehopst wie gesprungen sind. Ich würde deswegen bei "DDR-Shows" bleiben und es mit einem Vermerk versehen.


Thank you for the explanation, Jana, and I understood the idea of "DDR-Shows", I think, which I assumed had to do with "former East Germany". When I talk about people who live in the part of today's unified Germany that was once the DDR, I always refer to that part of the country that way. "So and so lives in what we know of as former East Germany." If I used DDR or GDR, they would have no idea what I meant.

Genauso würde ich mit "Ostalgie" gar nichts machen.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. However, I'll wager that if I show this word to people I work with, none of them will have any idea what it is, even WITH a big of background. You may know German and Germany, but I know the US, and you all will have to trust me when I say that I am not exaggerating the ignorance of the average person here. 

Gaer

Jana[/quote]


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I have never heard "previous" in this context. It's always been "in the past (few) days/weeks/years" what I have heard, so I don't understand that correction/suggestion.


I did not use strikeouts and colors as some of you do because by the time I do this, I become so confused that I no longer know what I'm thinking.

I assumed that other people would "chime in" by also offering ideas, and I also assumed other people would disagree with some of my suggestions. Take my translation as my view. Rather than "defend" the choices I made, I would prefer other people to comment, but I'll try to answer your questions later. If I do it now, I won't make it to work. 

But let me make a couple quick comments:


> Well, if people don't know the GDR (DDR) or Czechoslovakia, they usually don't know what "Die WELT" is, right?


You are right, and as you saw, I screwed it up myself. Several magazine names were "floating through my brain", and I was thinking of a German magazine that I read few years back. I don't even know if it still exists. I don't read magazines or newspapers, which will probably shock you. Not in English either. So I've been "busted". 


> I found "is annoying to me" astonishingly often on Google, so I have just taken it. What does it sound like to you? "To take it upon o.s. to do sth." is a phrase I found in my dictionary and I like it. What do you think?


Let's find out what others think. The first seems okay, but the second seems wordy. Not wrong, just "inflated". But others may disagree.

And now I have to leave quickly, because I am almost late—again. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Who,

I'm actually quite disappointed that no one else tried to answer some of your questions. 

Usually several people chime in with alternate translations or suggestions. I tried to answer in more detail at work, during a break.

Let's take a look at the German and your first sentence of your translation with the parentheses removed:


> Mit Interesse und _zum Teil mit Unmut_ habe ich _in den vergangenen Tagen und Wochen_ die Artikel und auch die Leserbriefe zum Thema "Ostalgie" in der WELT verfolgt.
> 
> With interest and partially displeasure I followed the articles and letters to the editor dealing with the topic "Ostalgie" in the German newspaper "Die WELT" in the past days and weeks.


I took a liberty with "zum Teil mit Unmut" because "partially displeasure" sounds wrong to me. The MEANING is 100% correct. For the same reason "in the past days and weeks" is 100% correct for meaning but sounds Denglish to me. Someone else may have a better English solution. I went with something that sounds idiomatic. I'm hoping that other members will help me here. I'm not sure why you put "Die Welt" in all caps. I still have doubts about "Eastalgia" working. But in context it might be fine.


> I have never heard "previous" in this context. It's always been "in the past (few) days/weeks/years" what I have heard, so I don't understand that correction/suggestion.


"In the past days and weeks" might work this way:

_With interest and partially displeasure I followed the articles and letters to the editor _in the past days and weeks_ dealing with the topic…_


> Isn't "form a judgment" very common?


I don't think what you wrote is wrong. I think "make a judgement" is more common when expressing your meaning. Judgment is AE, judgement is BE but also acceptable in AE. (The deletion of the "e" was a change by Noah Webster, and it has been causing problems in the US ever since…)


> Well, if people don't know the GDR (DDR) or Czechoslovakia, they usually don't know what "Die WELT" is, right?
> 
> All three are potential problems, I think. It depends on how sophisticated the people are who are reading what you are translating.


I found "is annoying to me" astonishingly often on Google, so I have just taken it. What does it sound like to you? "To take it upon o.s. to do sth." is a phrase I found in my dictionary and I like it. What do you think?

I think both phrases are fine by themselves. I won't say that your translation is wrong, but I would prefer something a bit more to the point. It is a matter of style only.


> But when do you use "historic" then? I feel that it carries more emotion than "historical".


Yes and no. The use of "historic" vs. "historical" is so complicated that it probably should be its own thread, and probably in the English forum.

G


----------



## Whodunit

Okay, danke schön, Gaer, für die ausführliche Erklärung. Ich werde einen Thread im English-Only-Forum über "historic vs. historical" erstellen. Die Diskussion über "historic/historical" kann nun hier auf Englisch fortgesetzt werden.

Wie gesagt, ich bin mit vielen Korrekturen natürlich einverstanden, wenn es so besser klingen mag, aber ich würde ich wirklich über weitere Anmerkungen freuen.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay, danke schön, Gaer, für die ausführliche Erklärung. Ich werde einen Thread im English-Only-Forum über "historic vs. historical" erstellen Den Link dazu gebe ich später hier an.
> 
> Wie gesagt, ich bin mit vielen Korrekturen natürlich einverstanden, wenn es so besser klingen mag, aber ich würde ich wirklich über weitere Anmerkungen freuen.


I would also like to see comments from other people, for reason I mentioned.

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

> I am seriously asking myself: Did such such TV shows have or do they have the right to present historical facts at all?


Ich würde sagen: Can we expect TV shows to present historical facts at all?

To be entitled/to have a right - mag ich nicht. Aber vielleicht liegt es an der Vorlage. 

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Ich würde sagen: Can we expect TV shows to present historical facts at all?


 
Bedeutet das denn "ist es ihnen gestattet ..."?



> To be entitled/to have a right - mag ich nicht. Aber vielleicht liegt es an der Vorlage.


 
Und was magst du daran nicht? Sie klingen doch ganz natürlich.


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Ich würde sagen: Can we expect TV shows to present historical facts at all?
> 
> To be entitled/to have a right - mag ich nicht. Aber vielleicht liegt es an der Vorlage.
> 
> Jana


Hatten oder haben solche Fernsehshows überhaupt den Anspruch, geschichtliche Fakten darzustellen?

1) Hatten oder haben: this words fine in German, not so well in English. Could you accept this?

Do or did such TV-shows even have ???? to present historical facts at all?

I'm stumped as to the exact meaning of "den Anspuch haben" in this sentence. Do you have any ideas? I think my translation was too literal.

This is exactly why I was hoping for feedback. There are many parts of what I translated that I was not fully happy with. 

Gaer


----------



## FloVi

Geht das?
"Do TV-shows really claim to present historical facts at all?"


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:
			
		

> Geht das?
> "Do TV-shows really claim to present historical facts at all?"


Hmm…

Hatten oder haben solche Fernsehshows überhaupt den Anspruch, geschichtliche Fakten darzustellen?

If "den Anspruch haben" could be expressed in that way, which I don't fully undestand, then you could do this, I think:

"Can or could TV-shows really claim to present historical facts at all?"

I like the two tenses in German. It makes a point that is easily lost.

But my real problem is with the German "Anspruch" here. Could you give me a couple sentences as examples to narrow down the nuance of that word as used in this sentence?

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

FloVi said:
			
		

> Geht das?
> "Do TV-shows really claim to present historical facts at all?"


 Mit "at all" mag ich den Satz nicht, sonst ja.

Was "Anspruch" angeht, müssen wir hier etwas Fundamentales klären, nämlich den Unterschied zwischen "Anspruch haben" und "beanspruchen". Ich hoffe, dass es ihn nicht nur in meinem Kopf gibt.

Anspruch haben - ein Recht auf etwas haben (ob man sich dafür auch einsetzt, bleibt unklar)
etwas beanspruchen - einen Anspruch erheben, sich dafür einsetzen

In dem Brief geht es eigentlich (trotz der Wortwahl) nicht darum, ob die Shows auf etwas Anspruch haben, sondern darum, was wir von ihnen erwarten, oder noch anders gesagt, ob unsere Erwartungen angemessen und gerechtfertigt sind.

Deswegen habe ich Zweifel über "entitled to". Das klingt, als würden sich die Sender darum bemühen, eine objektive Darstellung der Vergangenheit zu liefern. Das stimmt natürlich nicht. Sie wollen nur Unterhaltung (was auch immer wir davon halten) anbieten. Und das Problem, mit dem sich der Brief auseinandersetzt, ist doch die Reaktion einiger entrüsteten Leser.

Ich mag FloVis Übersetzung. Obwohl sie nicht zu wörtlich ist, trifft sie den Punkt perfekt:

Ein verärgerter Zuschauer: Diese hanebüchenen Shows stellen die DDR-Zeiten dar, als wäre es nur Spaß. Es wurde dort doch gefoltert, Menschen wurden bei der Flucht erschossen!
Der Author des Briefes: Na und? Haben die Sender jemals behauptet (= to claim), dass sie eine vollständige Darstellung der Vergangenheit ausstrahlen? Nein, haben sie nicht. Warum erwartet man es von ihnen eigentlich?

Jana


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> But my real problem is with the German "Anspruch" here. Could you give me a couple sentences as examples to narrow down the nuance of that word as used in this sentence?
> 
> Gaer


Hier. 

Jana


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Mit "at all" mag ich den Satz nicht, sonst ja.
> 
> Was "Anspruch" angeht, müssen wir hier etwas Fundamentales klären, nämlich den Unterschied zwischen "Anspruch haben" und "beanspruchen". Ich hoffe, dass es ihn nicht nur in meinem Kopf gibt.
> 
> Anspruch haben - ein Recht auf etwas haben (ob man sich dafür auch einsetzt, bleibt unklar)
> etwas beanspruchen - einen Anspruch erheben, sich dafür einsetzen
> 
> In dem Brief geht es eigentlich (trotz der Wortwahl) nicht darum, ob die Shows auf etwas Anspruch haben, sondern darum, was wir von ihnen erwarten, oder noch anders gesagt, ob unsere Erwartungen angemessen und gerechtfertigt sind.


That was my understanding and my gut feeling, but I could not find any evidence to support my intuition. I now think my translation was clearly wrong, and that was why I was hoping for a clarification!


> Deswegen habe ich Zweifel über "entitled to". Das klingt, als würden sich die Sender darum bemühen, eine objektive Darstellung der Vergangenheit zu liefern. Das stimmt natürlich nicht. Sie wollen nur Unterhaltung (was auch immer wir davon halten) anbieten. Und das Problem, mit dem sich der Brief auseinandersetzt, ist doch die Reaktion einiger entrüsteten Leser.


Right.


> Ich mag FloVis Übersetzung. Obwohl sie nicht zu wörtlich ist, trifft sie den Punkt perfekt:
> 
> Ein verärgerter Zuschauer: Diese hanebüchenen Shows stellen die DDR-Zeiten dar, als wäre es nur Spaß. Es wurde dort doch gefoltert, Menschen wurden bei der Flucht erschossen!
> Der Author des Briefes: Na und? Haben die Sender jemals behauptet (= to claim), dass sie eine vollständige Darstellung der Vergangenheit ausstrahlen? Nein, haben sie nicht. Warum erwartet man es von ihnen eigentlich?


I like that translation too, but I'd love to get the "have or had" concept across in English, and so far I'm stumped. To me that is also important.

However, I believe there is a nuance to "entitled" that is different from what you have in mine, and I THINK it may have been what I was thinking. Right now I'm not sure that other people would agree with me. When I used "entitled", I was not thinking of "having the right to do something" in the sense of morality, legality, etc.

It is that meaning, which may be somewhat slang, that made me feel Who's original idea worked.

I was thinking more in the line of "suitable", which sounds awkward to me.

Is it suitable for such a TV-shows to present historical facts?
Do such TV-shows "have any business" presenting historical facts?

I like this best, but I'm still very open to suggestions:

_*Do such TV-shows have any business claiming to present historical facts? And have they ever?*_

(And should we take anything in such shows seriously?)

_Hatten oder haben solche Fernsehshows überhaupt den Anspruch, geschichtliche Fakten darzustellen?_

Why does this work so smoothly in German? It just refuses to translate!

Gaer


----------



## FloVi

gaer said:
			
		

> _Hatten oder haben solche Fernsehshows überhaupt den Anspruch, geschichtliche Fakten darzustellen?_
> 
> Why does this work so smoothly in German? It just refuses to translate!



"Hatten oder haben" ist beinahe so etwas wie eine Redewendung. Es gibt sicher in jeder Sprache solche entwickelten Formulierungen, die kaum oder gar nicht in andere Sprachen übertragbar sind, weil sie sich dort merkwürdig anhören.


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:
			
		

> "Hatten oder haben" ist beinahe so etwas wie eine Redewendung. Es gibt sicher in jeder Sprache solche entwickelten Formulierungen, die kaum oder gar nicht in andere Sprachen übertragbar sind, weil sie sich dort merkwürdig anhören.


Yes, but this same form is common in English too.

It just won't work in this particular sentence!

It is or was true.
It does or did work.
I'm sure I have it or had it somewhere in the house. I need to check.

This is what drives me crazy about German. One moment it is so much like English, it is child's play to translate. The next moment the simplest thing causes a huge problem. 

It had and has no right to make such claims. See? 

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> _*Do such TV-shows have any business claiming to present historical facts? And have they ever?*_


Ich glaube nicht, dass der "business" dem Satz hilft. It just does not flow.

"Is it suitable for shows to present historical facts?" geht meines Erachtens am Zeil vorbei, weil es nicht ausdrückt, dass einige Leute glauben, die Sender nehmen diese Rolle für sich in Anspruch.

Jana


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Ich glaube nicht, dass der "business" dem Satz hilft. It just does not flow.
> 
> "Is it suitable for shows to present historical facts?" geht meines Erachtens am Zeil vorbei, weil es nicht ausdrückt, dass einige Leute glauben, die Sender nehmen diese Rolle für sich in Anspruch.
> 
> Jana


Well, I tried. I'm licked. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

Ein etwas freier Übersetzungsvorschlag: 

_With interest and a certain degree of displeasure, I have spent the past few days and weeks following the articles and letters to the editor in_ Die Welt_ that have to do with the topic "Ostalgie" (nostalgia for the pre-1989 days during which Germany was divided).  I myself haven't seen any "DDR shows" (shows about the past) on TV so I can't really allow myself to make a judgment about their content.  But what really ticks me off is when some people take the liberty of saying that such shows are dangerous, or that they underplay or distort the image of history.  I seriously have to wonder: Have such TV shows ever pretended to represent historical facts in the first place?_ 

Ich glaube, "have...pretended" schließt sowohl die Vergangenheit als auch die Gegenwart ein.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Ein etwas freier Übersetzungsvorschlag:
> 
> _With interest and a certain degree of displeasure, I have spent the past few days and weeks following the articles and letters to the editor in_ Die Welt_ that have to do with the topic "Ostalgie" (nostalgia for the pre-1989 days during which Germany was divided). I myself haven't seen any "DDR shows" (shows about the past) on TV so I can't really allow myself to make a judgment about their content. But what really ticks me off is when some people take the liberty of saying that such shows are dangerous, or that they underplay or distort the image of history. I seriously have to wonder: Have such TV shows ever pretended to represent historical facts in the first place?_
> 
> Ich glaube, "have...pretended" schließt sowohl die Vergangenheit als auch die Gegenwart ein.


I've spent too much time examining the German to go back and do it again, so I'll leave that to others, but I like the "tone" here. It has the informal feeling of many letters written by readers. "Ticks me off" is a nice touch. 

I'll be interested in responses. 

Gaer


----------

