# hat meine Ausbildung als Ingenieur geprägt



## nymamer

Hallo!

Ich versuche folgenden deutschen Satz auf Englisch treffend zu übersetzen. Könnte mir jemand helfen und sagen ob die Übersetzung grammatikalisch okay ist und ob es natürlich klingt für einen "native speaker".

Original

_“Der Gedanke, dass die Wissenschaft dem Wohl des Menschen und dem Erhalt seiner Umwelt dienen soll, hat meine Ausbildung als Ingenieur gepräg_t.”

Übersetzung

_„The thought that science shall promote welfare for mankind and sustainable shaping of our environment accompanied my education as an engineer" _

Danke im voraus.


----------



## berndf

Ich habe zwei Bemerkungen zur Wortwahl:
- _Gedanke _heißt hier _idea_ und nicht _thought_.
- _Prägen_ würde ich mit _to mo(u)ld,_ _to shape_ oder eventuell noch_ to determine_ übersetzen. _Accompanied _halte ich für zu schwach.


----------



## Frank78

Was ist mit "shaping our environment" das klingt für mich eher nach "die Umwelt beinflussen/gestalten". Ich würde eher "preservation of the environment" schreiben.
"Our" ist übrigens auch nicht wörtlich -> its environment (the mankind´s environment)


----------



## nymamer

Danke fürs Feedback.

So habe ich es nun umformuliert:

„The idea that science shall promote welfare for mankind and help preserving it's environment shaped my education as an engineer"

Cool, mir gefällt es besser. Danke...


----------



## Frank78

"its" (Possesivpronomen) nicht "it´s"


----------



## nymamer

Oops, ein Unachtsamkeitsfehler hat sich durchgeschlichen. Vielen Dank Frank78.

Final version:

*„The idea that science shall promote welfare for mankind and help preserving its environment shaped my education as an engineer"*

Cheers!


----------



## 조금만

Dazu zwei Bemerkungen

1) Meinem Muttersprachlerohr ist "**help preserving" *nicht akzeptabel. Ich glaube, es müsste heissen: "help to preserve" oder, schlichter, "help preserve"


2) In diesem Kontext kommt mir "shall" als Übersetzung von "soll" ein klein wenig grandios vor. Wäre das etwa ein Satz aus der feierlichen Schlusserklärung einer wissenschaftlichen Konvention, dann ginge das ohne weiteres. Aber in einem persönlichen Lebensbekenntnis würde ich eher zum weniger proklamativen und bescheideneren "should" neigen.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

I agree with 조금만. "Shall" is too strong here, because it would represent some (non-existent) binding commitment on the part of the scientists involved, rather than the personal wishes and motivations of one individual (however noble they may be).

My translation (re-using some of the good work already done by others on this thread) would be:

_"The idea that science should serve the well-being of mankind and the preservation of his environment shaped my education as an engineer."_

Before anyone asks:

1) Yes, _welfare_ would also work in place of _well-being_. 
2) I prefer to use "his" rather than "its" because it personalizes the sentence. Furthermore, the trouble with the (gender neutral) usage of "its" is that it can be difficult to tell what the "it" is referring back to. It could be erroneously considered here to be referring to the word "science", for example.

Abba


----------



## nymamer

Was für ein tolles Feedback, vielen Dank an alle! Echt super.


----------



## Frank78

ABBA Stanza said:


> _"The idea that science should serve the well-being of mankind and the preservation of his environment shaped my education as an engineer."_



What is "his" refering to? I guess the mankind as well but  if so why is it male (and not female)?


----------



## nymamer

I would like to have an integral approach in this sentence, even though this sounds good, giving a maculine connotation to mankind could sound, dare I say it, "sexist" for some people.

Would that be a good alternative:

_The idea that science should serve the well-being of mankind and the preservation of *the* environment shaped my education as an engineer_.


----------



## Frank78

nymamer said:


> I would like to have an integral approach in this sentence, even though this sounds good, giving a maculine connotation to mankind could sound, dare I say it, "sexist" for some people.
> 
> Would that be a good alternative:
> 
> _The idea that science should serve the well-being of mankind and the preservation of *the* environment shaped my education as an engineer_.



I just asked because I´ve made the experience that "good things" are often personalized as female while "bad things" get the male gender.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Frank78 said:


> What is "his" refering to? I guess the mankind as well but if so why is it male (and not female)?


Yes, it's referring to "mankind". When words like "man" or "mankind" are generically used to represent the human race as a whole we _traditionally_ use male pronouns. This should of course in no way be interpreted as implying that women are not equally involved or in any sense inferior to their male counterparts. To use "its" may solve the problem of _perceived_ sexism, but really grates on the ears of many native English speakers.

As you are no doubt already aware, nearly every inanimate object in the English language is (effectively) neuter and thus is referred to using the pronouns "it" or "its". Sailors (especially captains) often affectionately refer to their ships using the female pronouns "she" or "her", but that's just about the only real exception I'm aware of. Otherwise, female pronouns are only used when referring to members of the female sex.



nymamer said:


> Would that be a good alternative:
> 
> _The idea that science should serve the well-being of mankind and the preservation of *the* environment shaped my education as an engineer_.


Of course, that would be fine as well. 

Abba


----------



## elroy

I would definitely say "*the *environment."  "His environment" sounds strange to me in this context.  Also, I think that "my education as an engineer" is a literal translation from German that doesn't work in English.  I would say "my engineering studies."

Lastly, you might want to consider using "protection" instead of "preservation," even if the former is a less literal translation.  "Protecting the environment" is a common collocation and conveys the same message in the end.


----------



## Hutschi

I'm in daubt whether "Ingenieur" and "engineer" are false friends. Would a native English speaker understand what kind of education "Ingenieur" is?

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenieur


> Im engeren Sinne und modernen deutschen Sprachgebrauch beschreibt er als Oberbegriff die Summe verschiedener an Hochschulen (Technische Hochschulen, Universitäten, Fachhochschulen) erworbene Berufsabschlüsse unter Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Diplom-Ingenieurs bzw. Bachelor und Master of Engineering oder Bachelor und Master of Science oder an Höheren Fachschulen (Berufsakademien, ehemalige Technische Fach- und Ingenieurschulen) erworbene Berufsabschlüsse unter Erlangung einer entsprechenden staatlichen Bezeichnung.



Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> I'm in daubt whether "Ingenieur" and "engineer" are false friends. Would a native English speaker understand what kind of education "Ingenieur" is?


Engineer is ambiguous. It can also mean lots of different things. E.g., in AE it is used for _railway engine driver (Lokführer)_. In this respect I agree with Elroy to use _engineering studies_ because this is unambiguous.

But wouldn't agree with him, if he meant _education as a xxx_ to be wrong in general:
_Education as a physicist_
_Training as a physicist_
_Training as a carpenter_
all sound natural to me. But I would prefer _training_ to_ education_.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> But wouldn't agree with him, if he meant _education as a xxx_ to be wrong in general:


 To me, "education as a X" does not sound English, and changing "education" to "training" does not help much.  Maybe it's just me, or maybe there are regional differences, but I don't think I would ever say either.


----------



## berndf

I would also normally say "training in physics"; but "training as a physicist" does not strike me as wrong or unidiomatic.

This also sounds idiomatic to me:
_Originally from London, he joined the Royal Engineers in 2005 and completed his basic recruit training and combat engineer course before attending artisan training as a carpenter and joiner._


----------



## elroy

As I said, there may be regional differences at play.  The sentence you cite is from a British publication.

I would understand "attended artisan training as a carpenter and joiner" to mean that he was a carpenter and joiner when he attended artisan training.

I find "education/training as a X" as a translation of "Ausbildung als X" decidedly unidiomatic.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> As I said, there may be regional differences at play. The sentence you cite is from a British publication.


Das ist möglich. Britisches Englisch hat sicherlich _meine Ausbildung_ _geprägt_.


----------



## Welshie

Ich habe kein Problem mit "education/training as X" (als Britischer ). Wenn wir über eine Universitätsausbildung reden, kommt mir "education" viel besser vor. "Training" steht in Bezug auf irgendeinen prakticalischen Kurs. Ich bevorzuge folgenden Satz:

The idea that science should serve the well-being of mankind and the preservation of the environment shaped my education as an engineer.

Man kann ja auch mit "his environment" ersetzen, aber heutzutage wird diese Art von Redewende oft als "ausschließende" betrachtet. Meiner Meinung nach ist sie persönlicher und wärmer, aber ich rate von seiner Benutzung in der Berufsumgebung ab - Sie wissen nicht, bei wem Sie Anstoß erregen könnten.


----------



## berndf

Welshie said:


> Man kann ja auch mit "his environment" ersetzen, aber heutzutage wird diese Art von Redewende oft als "ausschließende" betrachtet. Meiner Meinung nach ist sie persönlicher und wärmer, aber ich rate von seiner Benutzung in der Berufsumgebung ab - Sie wissen nicht, bei wem Sie Anstoß erregen könnten.


Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding: "Umwelt" means "*the* environment" in general, pollution, green house gasses, climate change, these kinds of things; not just the environment of *a* person. I think "*his* environment" could be misunderstood.


----------



## Welshie

It's okay, I had correctly understood. "His environment" would refer to "mankind", and the environment of mankind is the Earth. When I said it was more personal and warmer, I meant in the sense of thinking as mankind as a collection of people, rather than the more cold, machine-like "its". But we're definitely into nuance-territory here. I do not think there is any chance of the phrase with "his" being misunderstood, and I prefer it on a poetic level, but I think it could be frowned upon for PC (political correctness) reasons.


----------

