# Ankläger - Prosecutor or accuser?



## Linkway

I notice that Google Translate often produces significant errors when translating from German to English.

I am not at the moment concerned with minor deviations from standard English - I want to focus on significant errors of meaning or fact.

Here is an example from today's _Deutsche Welle_ Langsam Gesprochene Nachrichten.

_Nikki Haley: Trump-Anklägerinnen sollten gehört werden:
Die US-Botschafterin bei den Vereinten Nationen, Nikki Haley, ist der Ansicht, den Frauen, die Donald Trump der sexuellen Belästigung beschuldigt haben, solle "zugehört" werden.
_
The above got translated as:
_
Nikki Haley: Trump *Prosecutors *should be heard:
The *United Nations Ambassador to the United Nations*, Nikki Haley, believes that women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment should be "listened to".
_
As you can see, the translation contains at least two serious errors.  My knowledge of German is NOT excellent, but I believe it should be "accusers" not "prosecutors" and it should be "United States ambassador to the United Nations"....
_
_
So I want to ask:

1.  Is it widely recognized that Google Translate produces, in effect, "fake news" that could mislead people?

2.  What are your opinions about this situation?

3.  Does anyone know of an existing web site that reports on significant mistranslations of this type?


----------



## Frieder

1. I never trust Google Translator. That said, it _can_ be an effective way to look up short phrases – always to be verified by other sources if it's important. I'd never try it with long quotes like yours. You have to fail 100%.
2. It's a free service. If you don't like it don't use it – plain and simple.
3. No.


----------



## Kajjo

Google translatorn is well known for producing serious and funny errors. It cannot be trusted at all.

Simply forget about it and don't use it.

to 1: Here the mistake is already in the German text, though. "Anklägerinnen" is not idiomatic here and the translation fits to the original.

to 2: US/UN is a serious mistake that should not happen.


----------



## berndf

*Moderator note:*



Kajjo said:


> Here the mistake is already in the German text, though. "Anklägerinnen" is not idiomatic here and the translation fits to the original.


*This is the relevant answer to the original question as far as this forum is concerned. Debating the general qualities and usefulness of Google Translate is beyond its scope.*


----------



## Linkway

Kajjo said:


> and the translation fits to the original.




Sorry, but I find it hard to understand that conclusion.

From the context - the all important context - it is clear that it was the *alleged victims *that were accusing Trump, not  "*prosecutors*".

Of course, out of context, an "accuser" could be a prosecutor (legal official) OR a victim (or other relevant non-legal person eg a spouse, a parent, journalist, etc).

The story itself provides the correct context (it was the alleged victims who were making accusations), but the subheading ("_Trump *Prosecutors *should be heard"_) ignores that - the subheading contradicts the text of the same item submitted for translation.


----------



## berndf

Linkway said:


> From the context - the all important context - it is clear that it was the *alleged victims *that were accusing Trump, not "*prosecutors*".


The point is that the choice of the term _Ankläger _is already wrong in the original German sentence and this fault is "correctly" reproduced in the English translation. You cannot expect Google Translate to implicitly correct a semantic mistake in the original sentence.


----------



## Linkway

berndf said:


> The point is that the choice of the term _Ankläger _is already wrong in the original German sentence and this fault is "correctly" reproduced in the English translation. You cannot expect Google Translate to implicitly correct a semantic mistake in the original sentence.



Thanks.

In the Word Reference German dictionary, it shows:      *Ankläger* m,* Anklägerin* f accuser; jur prosecutor; 

Are you saying that *Ankläger* & *Anklägerin *can only be used for *a legal official *(prosecutor, state's attorney, etc) and not for anyone who makes an accusation - for example, a woman who alleges that a named person assaulted her?   

If so, do you think the WR dictionary needs updating?


----------



## berndf

Linkway said:


> Are you saying that *Ankläger* & *Anklägerin *can only be used for *a legal official *(prosecutor, state's attorney, etc) and not for anyone who makes an accusation


It obviously depends on the jurisdiction. In those where only legal officers an indict people in criminal court, as it is the case in both the US and Germany, an _Ankläger_ is a official. In a more general or figurative sense the distinction between a prosecutor and an accuser might be blurred, but not in this context.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> the term _Ankläger _is already wrong in the original German sentence


What would a more appropriate German term be instead of _Anklägerinnen_? Be-/Anschuldigerinnen, Vorwerferinnen, Vorwurfserheberinnen, Bezichtigerinnen: all sound non-existing/non-idiomatic... Thanks for suggesting.


----------



## berndf

I guess that was exactly their problem. There is no simple expression that conveys the distinction. The verb to use is _beschuldigen _or_ anschuldigen _but their is no actor noun. You have to say something like _Frauen, die Trump beschuldigen/anschuldigen_. It sounds very clumsy.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, I think "Anklägerinnen" is possible here and better than the other terms bearded mentioned.
I see it in the following way:

There are two instances of "Ankläger", one is prosecutor, and this is the official  standard meaning, and it is formal style.


But additionally you can use it metaphorically. Zola once said "Ich klage an!" Zola: "Ich klage an" aus dem Lexikon - wissen.de | http://www.wissen.de/lexikon/zola-ich-klage ( J'*accuse* )
In a metaphorical sense everybody can be Ankläger.

The metaphorical sense is seldom used,  but I do not think it is wrong.
This is because of the special context.

Translating it is difficult, but I think, it is correct to translate "accusers".

Almost every word may be victim of metaphorical usage.


This is also true for "prosecutors". So the translation is not completely wrong considering the context.
But without context we could not understand it.


Crossposted with Bernd, so I corrected: bearded mentioned


----------



## L'irlandais

Well in the context of Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten | Deutsch lernen | Deutsche Welle, both mistakes are unacceptable.  Since the service is specificity to help learners.  Better a clumsily formed sentence, which is correct, than a slick sentence which is plain wrong.

Sorry Hutschi, our posts crossed.  But I stand by my answer, DW is aimed at learners, like myself with a B2/C1 level of German.  While this use of Anklägerinnen might be possible for C2, or native speakers, for me to use it as given, would simply be a mistake.


----------



## bearded

_


Hutschi said:



			you can use it metaphorically
		
Click to expand...

 _In Italian we would have no problems in saying _Le accusatrici di Trump _(Trumps Anklägerinnen). A metaphorical use of _accusatore/accusatrice _is very common. But in German, of course natives decide.


----------



## Hutschi

The original is:


> Nikki Haley: Trump accusers 'have every right to speak up'


Nikki Haley Says Women Who Accuse Trump of Misconduct ‘Should Be Heard’
Haley: Women accusers should be heard, even if Trump is target

So I think the translators into German had the problem to find an appropriate German translation.

I found this using the context.


----------



## Hutschi

L'irlandais said:


> Well in the context of Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten | Deutsch lernen | Deutsche Welle, both mistakes are unacceptable.  Since the service is specificity to help learners.  Better a clumsily formed sentence, which is correct, than a slick sentence which is plain wrong.
> 
> Sorry Hutschi, our posts crossed.  But I stand by my answer, DW is aimed at learners, like myself with a B2/C1 level of German.  While this use of Anklägerinnen might be possible for C2, or native speakers, for me to use it as given, would simply be a mistake.



You are right with this.

It was a translation from English "women accusers."

"Anklagende Frauen" would be possible but also clumsy. "Beschuldigerinnen" is in no way idiomatic, not even colloquially.

---
Add on:
PS: So at the end it is an anglicism and a loan translation, causing bad style (I do not feel this, but I beleave the others.)

Question to native German:
How would you translate it in a headline style to German?


----------



## berndf

L'irlandais said:


> While this use of Anklägerinnen might be possible for C2, or native speakers


For me a native speaker it is completely impossible in this context. There is absolutely nothing "metaphorical" or literary in this context and I cannot follow Hutschi's comparison with the conventional German translation of Zola at all here. And even if you accept using the verb _anklagen _it still doesn't mean you can use the actor noun _Ankläger _as it is a much more technical expression than the verb.


----------



## L'irlandais

I would go with your earlier suggestion of _Frauen, die Trump beschuldigen/anschuldigen_.
While it may sound clumsy, it is at least faithful to the original text, I think most learners understand some terms are difficult to translate.

By the way, I am horrified that the OP has faith in Google translate.


----------



## Frieder

How about "Beschwerdeführer(innen)"?


----------



## Hutschi

Hi Bernd, I see, it is not accepted, even if quoted in lots of sources in German.
Metaphorical usage: Would you accept: _Die Anklägerin ist die Natur._?
How would you translate the original English "woman accusers" text to German?

Until now there is 
_Frauen, die Trump beschuldigen/anschuldigen_.
Beschwerdeführerinnen.

(Crossposted, so I completed the list.)


----------



## berndf

Frieder said:


> How about "Beschwerdeführer(innen)"?


_Beschwerde _and _Anschuldigung _are very different things. A _Beschwerde _is a legal remedy against an administrative or legislative act or against a court decision.


----------



## bearded

Is there no difference between _Kläger _and _Ankläger_? I thought (mistakingly, it seems) the latter term could also be used outside of tribunals, i.e. ''metaphorically'', and only the former could not.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

bearded said:


> Is there no difference between _Kläger _and _Ankläger_? I thought (mistakingly, it seems) the latter term could also be used outside of tribunals, i.e. ''metaphorically'', and only the former could not.


I think you are right. "Anklägerinnen" may be a little awkward, but:


> wegen etwas beschuldigen, für etwas verantwortlich machen
> Duden | anklagen | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Synonyme


You can even find it in the renowned FAZ, or at least on faz.net; contexts: the one at hand, plus Bill Cosby, Lord Rennard, Tim Hunt:
"anklägerinnen" site:faz.net - Google Search


----------



## Kajjo

_"Die Frauen, die Trump beschuldigen, sollten gehört/beachtet werden:"
_
Absolutely idiomatic and even common! Not overly clumsy. Sometimes a single English word cannot reproduced in German with a single word. That happens and we have to deal with it properly.

_"Die Trump-Anklägerinnen" _is NOT possible at all. It means "prosecutors" here. No freedom for context possible, in my opinion.



berndf said:


> The point is that the choice of the term _Ankläger _is already wrong in the original German sentence and this fault is "correctly" reproduced in the English translation. You cannot expect Google Translate to implicitly correct a semantic mistake in the original sentence.


Thanks. Exactly my point of #3 rephrased nicely!


----------



## Hutschi

_"Die Trump-Anklägerinnen" _
One aspect why it does not work well - assuming that it works at all - is:
it is fuzzy. I think this is a point why this construction did not arrive in standard German.
You cannot see whether they accuse Trump or whether they are accussers working for trump.
This I did not see in the first place.

---
_"Die Frauen, die Trump beschuldigen, sollten gehört/beachtet werden:"
One additional question: Is it headline style?

Corrected typo: whether_


----------



## bearded

Apparently,  German media quite often and normally use ''Anklägerin'' to indicate a female accuser, not only a prosecutor. A couple of examples:
Gegen Weinsteins Anklägerin Rose McGowan läuft Haftbefehl
Dustin Hoffman: Vierte Anklägerin schildert krasse Erlebnisse.


----------



## Kajjo

bearded said:


> German media quite often and normally use ''Anklägerin


Simply extremely bad journalism with sub-level-translations. This is annoying and sad. Educational level close to zero.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Simply extremely bad journalism with sub-level-translations. This is annoying and sad. Educational level close to zero.


I don't think so. I have done some research in the newspaper corpus of DWDS. This (mis-) use of _Ankläger _only occurs in the feminine form _Anklägerin_ and only in conjunctions with accusations of sexual harassment or rape. It is either politicised language or journalistic tendency to coin new term or tweak existing ones for shorter headlines with higher recognition value in trending topics.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> journalistic tendency to coin new term


Well, yes, they do it to make shorter headlines, but this sucks. This is not a new term, but simply a wrong usage. Too parallel to English to convince me that someone thought about it. It's just quick-and-dirty and that is simply bad.


----------



## Hutschi

It was by purpose that I asked for better soulutions in headline style.
In text style _"Die Frauen, die Trump beschuldigen, sollten gehört/beachtet werden." works very well._
In headline style it is clumpsy. (I used "clumpsy" because other used it, I could also say, it works not very well, it is too long and does not compress enough.

But - as I wrote after we discussed it, it seems just to be an anglicism. And obviously, it is a compromise. I just do not think that the journalists are idiots by using such words ...


And: It is not easy to teach a program to translate such things correctly.


----------



## Frieder

Headline-style: "Nikki Haley: Trump-Opfer sollten gehört werden".


----------



## Hutschi

Yes, this works - but it turns the content perspective from accuser to victim.


----------



## Linkway

L'irlandais said:


> By the way, I am horrified that the OP has faith in Google translate.



I did NOT say that.  My real interest is in the possible consequences of machine translations which potentially mislead readers who do rely on them.

For example, Google Search specifically tells website owners NOT to publish machine-translated text, and website owners often ask why?


----------



## Linkway

I want to thank everyone who has taken part in this enlightening discussion.

You have helped me to appreciate that the specific example of _Ankläger/Prosecutor/Accuser _is a more complex issue and not simply a blatant translation error.

Thanks again.


----------

