# design



## Annabel Lee

Hi friends,

Could you please held me to translate these two sentences into English:

1. Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht, mit Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß macht, und jenen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.
(I don't understand only the first part here)

2. David ist stets zu Experimenten bereit und weiß genau, was er nicht will - wenn er es erstmal gesehen hat.
(I don't understand only the second part here )))


Thank you very much for your assistance!


----------



## Whodunit

Annabel Lee said:
			
		

> Hi friends,
> 
> Could you please held me to translate these two sentences into English:
> 
> 1. Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht, mit Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß macht, und jenen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.
> (I don't understand only the first part here)
> 
> 2. David ist stets zu Experimenten bereit und weiß genau, was er nicht will - wenn er es erstmal gesehen hat.
> (I don't understand only the second part here )))
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for your assistance!



A very literal translation:

In the middle of a scene, as the Mecca of business and tourists called Manhatten has not to present anymore since a long time. He compares it to the Greenwich Village of the 70s, with lots of mom-and-pop stores where shopping is still fun and that small cozy cafés where you can still drink some coffee in peace while reading your newspaper.

David ist stets zu Experimenten bereit und weiß genau, was er nicht will - wenn er es erstmal gesehen hat.

David is always ready for experiments and knows exactly what he doesn't want - if he just has seen it once!


----------



## elroy

I have modified the translations so that they sound smoother.  However, I'm still confused about the "wie sie" in the first sentence.  I took a guess, but I'm not entirely convinced that the colored parts are correct.  It doesn't sound like a complete sentence.  Do you have more context, perhaps?  



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> A very literal translation:
> 
> *In the middle of a scene - how it no longer has to feature the business and tourist mecca Manhattan, which he compares to the Greenwich Village of the seventies - with corner grocery stores where shopping is still fun, and with those small cozy cafés where one can just calmly drink some coffee and read the newspaper.*
> 
> David ist stets zu Experimenten bereit und weiß genau, was er nicht will - wenn er es erstmal gesehen hat.
> 
> *David is always ready for experiments and knows exactly what he doesn't want - that is, provided he's seen it first.*


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> I have modified the translations so that they sound smoother.  However, I'm still confused about the "wie sie" in the first sentence.  I took a guess, but I'm not entirely convinced that the colored parts are correct.  It doesn't sound like a complete sentence.  Do you have more context, perhaps?



Ehrlich gesagt, den Teil habe ich auch nicht ganz kapiert. Und den allerletzten Satz mit "David" auch nicht, zumindest nicht den Sinn.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Ehrlich gesagt, den Teil habe ich auch nicht ganz kapiert. Und den allerletzten Satz mit "David" auch nicht, zumindest nicht den Sinn.


 
Wir brauchen auf jeden Fall den Zusammenhang.

We need context in any case.


----------



## Annabel Lee

Thank you very much, this is still very helpful, and I'll add some more context this evening.

Thanks a lot again!


----------



## Whodunit

Annabel Lee said:
			
		

> Thank you very much, this is still very helpful, and I'll add some more context this evening.
> 
> Thanks a lot again!



Well, the problem is that it's already 4th August and you haven't given us some more context yet.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> A very literal translation:
> 
> In the middle of a scene, as the Mecca of business and tourists called Manhatten has not to present anymore since a long time. He compares it to the Greenwich Village of the 70s, with lots of mom-and-pop stores where shopping is still fun and that small cozy cafés where you can still drink some coffee in peace while reading your newspaper.


Who,

Let me give you what I am able to pick up. I'm also staying as literal as possible, which creates a VERY long, awkward, pompous sounding English sentence.

"The middle of a scene of the business and tourist mecca of Manhattan as it (the scene???) has not been seen for a long time and that he compares with Greenwich Village of the 70s with mom-and-pop stores in which shopping is still fun and with those small, comfortable cafés in which on one may also drink coffee and read the newspaper, undisturbed."

The words "wie sie" are problems for me. What does "sie" refer to? The scene? We are all getting the right picture, but we don't know who "er" is. A man in the play? And I have to tell you, I really HATE this kind of German. Does it bother you too? To me it's pretentious, inflated, deliberately (and needlessly) complicated in a way that just irritates me. I can think of about 1,000 ways to write the same ideas much better in English, and I'm sure any German could write those ideas much more clearly in German.  

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> The words "wie sie" are problems for me. What does "sie" refer to? The scene?    We are all getting the right picture, but we don't know who "er" is. A man in the play? And I have to tell you, I really HATE this kind of German. Does it bother you too? To me it's pretentious, inflated, deliberately (and needlessly) complicated in a way that just irritates me. I can think of about 1,000 ways to write the same ideas much better in English, and I'm sure any German could write those ideas much more clearly in German.
> 
> Gaer



Yes, "sie" refers to the so-called scene. And I don't know who "er" is either. I think that way to write it in German is okay, but not the pmost perfect one. I don't like your English version either, not because it's grammatically or logically wrong, but because it sounds awful as well as Elroy's variant. Things like "tourists mecca of Mahatten" or "read the newspaper, undisturbed" sound totally off to me, but that's just a non-native impression.

Please let me ask why you two lower-cased "Mecca". It's a town?!


----------



## gaer

Who, let me paste in the original German sentence in order to refer to it:

1. Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht, mit Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß macht, und jenen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.

First, the easy question to answer. Both "Mecca" and "mecca" are accepted when you are using the word figuratively:

Main Entry: mec·ca 
Usage: often capitalized
: a center of activity sought as a goal by people sharing a common interest 

So it's really a choice, in English. Choose whichever solution appeals to you. 

Now, what I wrote, so that I can refer to it:

"The middle of a scene of the business and tourist mecca of Manhattan as it (the scene???) has not been seen for a long time and that he compares with Greenwich Village of the 70s with mom-and-pop stores in which shopping is still fun and with those small, comfortable cafés in which on one may also drink coffee and read the newspaper, undisturbed."


> Yes, "sie" refers to the so-called scene. And I don't know who "er" is either. I think that way to write it in German is okay, but not the most perfect one.


Perhaps it would be okay, in context. We are missing key information. 


> I don't like your English version either, not because it's grammatically or logically wrong, but because it sounds awful as well as Elroy's variant.


Oh, I hate my English version, but not for the reasons you mentioned. "Tourist mecca of" is a standard phrase. 

Google it. It's fine. In fact, you will find two hits for "tourist mecca of Manhattan", and one capitalizes mecca, the other does not. 

And I believe that Elroy was doing much the same thing I was doing, writing an overly literal translation on purpose. But I'll let him explain his purpose.


> Things like "tourists mecca of Mahatten" or "read the newspaper, undisturbed" sound totally off to me, but that's just a non-native impression.


Change "tourists" (your mistake, I think) to "tourist" and it's fine. But here is the second problem:

in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.

The whole problem here is whether or not "ungestört" refers just to drinking coffee or also to reading the newspaper. My interpretation is that it means both. After all, what good is it to be allowed to drink coffee in peace if you can't read your newspaper in peace? In english, IF you want to make it clear that both things are done in peace, you have to move the position of the descriptive word. You can't, after all, write "in which one simply in peace coffee drink and the newspaper read may. 

But that's not the worst problem. Why is "he", whoever he is, comparing the business and tourist part of Manhattan with Greenwhich Village. That makes no sense. These are different parts of Manhattan. It would be quite different if he were comparing Greenwhich village, as it is now, with the same place, in 1970. Greenwhich Village was never a center of business. It was known as being an ARTISITIC center in Manhattan. At best, whoever has written this center doesn't know much about NYC. Garbage in, garbage out. If you write a crappy German sentence, expect a crappy translation.

We are talking about two different problems. First, the German sentences is extremely vague, even illogical, at least without context, and even then I don't think it works.

The second problem, the one I think you are talking about, is that it is necessary to write more than one sentence in English, otherwise you end up with a correct English sentence, theoretically, that DOES sound horrible, as mine does. But I can't rewrite it, to make it smoother AND make it mean what it should when the source itself is so strange.

You know I am usually pretty reasonable about matters that are not "black and white", but I insist that the source German sentence is poor, not because of grammar or structure, but because of logic. It simply does not make sense. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Main Entry: mec·ca
> Usage: often capitalized
> : a center of activity sought as a goal by people sharing a common interest
> 
> So it's really a choice, in English. Choose whichever solution appeals to you.



Okay, this is clear.



> Perhaps it would be okay, in context. We are missing key information.
> 
> Oh, I hate my English version, but not for the reasons you mentioned. "Tourist mecca of" is a standard phrase.



Well, Toursitenmekka wouldn't sound good at all in German, so I thought it wouldn't either in English.



> And I believe that Elroy was doing much the same thing I was doing, writing an overly literal translation on purpose. But I'll let him explain his purpose.



We can wait for him and let him explain his intentions.



> Change "tourists" (your mistake, I think) to "tourist" and it's fine. But here is the second problem:



Maybe ... it's eventually not as unpronounceable as "tourists mecca" .   



> The whole problem here is whether or not "ungestört" refers just to drinking coffee or also to reading the newspaper. My interpretation is that it means both.    After all, what good is it to be allowed to drink coffee in peace if you can't read your newspaper in peace? In english, IF you want to make it clear that both things are done in peace, you have to move the position of the descriptive word. You can't, after all, write "in which one simply in peace coffee drink and the newspaper read may.



Very good comparison and just as good explanation.   



> But that's not the worst problem. Why is "he", whoever he is, comparing the business and tourist part of Manhattan with Greenwhich Village. That makes no sense. These are different parts of Manhattan. It would be quite different if he were comparing Greenwhich village, as it is now, with the same place, in 1970. Greenwhich Village was never a center of business. It was known as being an ARTISITIC center in Manhattan. At best, whoever has written this center doesn't know much about NYC.    Garbage in, garbage out. If you write a crappy German sentence, expect a crappy translation.



Wonderful idiom. I'd like to you that even I don't know who is "er". So why don't we wait for Annabel to enlighten us ().



> The second problem, the one I think you are talking about, is that it is necessary to write more than one sentence in English, otherwise you end up with a correct English sentence, theoretically, that DOES sound horrible, as mine does. But I can't rewrite it, to make it smoother AND make it mean what it should when the source itself is so strange.



Do you think you could make it if there were more information?


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> And I believe that Elroy was doing much the same thing I was doing, writing an overly literal translation on purpose. But I'll let him explain his purpose.


 
I was trying to gather as much as I can from the German sentence, and I did concede that there was aspects of my attempt of which I was unsure.

Either way, though, I wouldn't go so far as to say that my English translation sounded awful [as English].  Once again, I would urge Who not to be so quick in making impetuous generalizations.  Some of us might not like that.


----------



## elroy

Let me try to elaborate on the problems that I have with the original version:



> Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht, mit Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß macht, und jenen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.
> (I don't understand only the first part here)


 
Mitten in einer Szene: in the middle of a scene - so far, so good.
wie...hat: relative clause? If so, what does the "wie" refer to? There is no main verb in "mitten in einer Szene" so what does "how" (or possibly "as") refer to? The clause seems to say "how/as it does not have to feature the business and tourist mecca Manhattan for a long time," but that doesn't make much sense to me. That's why I suggested "no longer" but pointed it out as shaky. Why would a scene have to feature anything? The clause as written is unclear. It doesn't have a clear antecedent, and the "has to feature" structure is inexplicable.
die...vergleicht: This is fine, I think. The "die" refers to the scene, and I don't think it's crucial to know who "er" is.
in...darf: This part is fine.

Overall: This is not a complete sentence. It's long, but it's one big giant fragement. It's saying "In the middle of a scene, how it no longer has to do something, but which he compares with something, in which one can do something." Quite nonsensical.

Let's hope we get some more information on the German version that can help us come up with a better English translation.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Overall: This is not a complete sentence. It's long, but it's one big giant fragement. It's saying "In the middle of a scene, how it no longer has to do something, but which he compares with something, in which one can do something." Quite nonsensical.



Maybe ... it's a heading. Why not? An introduction of a scenery, i.e. a theatre performance etc.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Maybe ... it's a heading. Why not? An introduction of a scenery, i.e. a theatre performance etc.


 
Well, the fact that it's a fragment makes the "wie" dilemma even more quizzical.  We need more context to understand it better.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Well, the fact that it's a fragment makes the "wie" dilemma even more quizzical.  We need more context to understand it better.



Okay, in this case I totally agree with you: We need more context.


----------



## gaer

Who,

Let me start out with the last part:



> Do you think you could make it [a better translation] if there were more information?


No. I would be interpretting the meaning from several sentences or a paragraph. The problem is that the sentence is not merely unclear. It's actually saying something wrong.

Look at the German again:

_Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht,…_

What is this saying? Forget about the wording. We are viewing a scene or we are in the middle of scene. That part doesn't matter. You can interpret that according to whether or not you are "viewing" through the eyes of the actors or those in the audience. Now, what's the next part about? Something to do with the business and tourist part of Manhattan. "Tourist mecca/Mecca" is a set phrase in English, but that doesn't really make any difference either. The problem is that the famous business part of Manhattan is (or was) in a different place. I have never been able to afford to travel much, but I was lucky enough to have spent nearly a month in Greenwich Village in the late 1970s. The difference between that section of Manhattan and the business section is like night and day, although it is true that Greenwich Village has always been a popular place to visit (tourism). At the time I was there, "Off-Broadway" shows were fantastic, and there was just SO much to enjoy there.

So that's what really mixed me up. What does the business section of Manhattan have to do with Greenwich Village in the 1970s or today? As for the rest, I can't tell you what has changed. For instance, perhaps there are very few privately owned businesses left. I simply don't know.

But if you understand what I'm saying, the German sentence is just wrong, Who. It's comparing two different parts of Manhattan while also attempting to contrast Greenwich Village as it was in the 70s to a later date.

That's why I said, "Garbage in, garbage out". You can't translate this sentence. You have to FIX it, which is not the job of a translator!

I think everything else is clear. If the German made sense, I would definitely use at least two sentences in English. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I think everything else is clear. If the German made sense, I would definitely use at least two sentences in English.


 
I have to tell you that I got the German sentence whenm I read it the first time. I'm sorry, but I understand the German one. There's actually missing the predicate in the main clause, but everything else is fine.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I have to tell you that I got the German sentence whenm I read it the first time. I'm sorry, but I understand the German one. There's actually missing the predicate in the main clause, but everything else is fine.


 
So what does it mean then?  Maybe you could explain it to us in simple German, if you're so sure of what it means...


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I was trying to gather as much as I can from the German sentence, and I did concede that there was aspects of my attempt of which I was unsure.
> 
> Either way, though, I wouldn't go so far as to say that my English translation sounded awful [as English]. Once again, I would urge Who not to be so quick in making impetuous generalizations. Some of us might not like that.


Elroy,

I should have been more specific. Only one part of it sounded very wrong, and that was the exact part that caused both of us to stumble:

In the middle of a scene - _how it__ no longer has to feature the business and tourist mecca Manhattan_, which he compares to the Greenwich Village of the seventies - with corner grocery stores where shopping is still fun, and with those small cozy cafés where one can just calmly drink some coffee and read the newspaper. 

Just that one part is awkward, and you yourself said that you did not understand what was going on there. I don't think any of us do, to be honest, because that's precisely the part of the German that is so ambiguous. The rest of it is actually perfect, in my opinion, and much better than what I wrote, because I was being overly literal with things like "in which" instead of "where". Also, your placement of "calmly" is better because it refers to drinking coffee and reading the newspaper. I did it much more awkwardly by tacking "undisturbed on the end".

In fact, I should have read your version through more carefully, because the way you solved the rest of the problems actually works very well.

Remember, when I can't figure how to solve a problem in English, you are the first person I always ask to assist me in straightening them out. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I have to tell you that I got the German sentence whenm I read it the first time. I'm sorry, but I understand the German one. There's actually missing the predicate in the main clause, but everything else is fine.


No. It's not fine. It may be grammatically correct, but it does NOT make sense, for reasons that I made explicit in PM earlierl. 

A sentence can be correctly constructed and still express nonsense, which is EXACTLY what the first part of this German sentence does. Please read my PM regarding Greenwich Village and the business section of Manhattan! 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Elroy,
> 
> I should have been more specific. Only one part of it sounded very wrong, and that was the exact part that caused both of us to stumble:
> 
> In the middle of a scene - _how it__ no longer has to feature the business and tourist mecca Manhattan_, which he compares to the Greenwich Village of the seventies - with corner grocery stores where shopping is still fun, and with those small cozy cafés where one can just calmly drink some coffee and read the newspaper.
> 
> Just that one part is awkward, and you yourself said that you did not understand what was going on there. I don't think any of us do, to be honest, because that's precisely the part of the German that is so ambiguous. The rest of it is actually perfect, in my opinion, and much better than what I wrote, because I was being overly literal with things like "in which" instead of "where". Also, your placement of "calmly" is better because it refers to drinking coffee and reading the newspaper. I did it much more awkwardly by tacking "undisturbed on the end".
> 
> In fact, I should have read your version through more carefully, because the way you solved the rest of the problems actually works very well.
> 
> Remember, when I can't figure how to solve a problem in English, you are the first person I always ask to assist me in straightening them out.
> 
> Gaer


 
Gaer, 

There was no need for you to defend yourself.

I was referring to this comment made by Who:



> I don't like your English version either, not because it's grammatically or logically wrong, but because it sounds awful as well as Elroy's variant.


 
which made it sound like neither of our English versions had any merit.

I will repeat that the red and blue parts in my translation were not intended to sound good - they were manifestations of my attempt to grapple with the incomprehensible German.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I will repeat that the red and blue parts in my translation were not intended to sound good - they were manifestations of my attempt to grapple with the incomprehensible German.


I understood that. No problem.  My position is a bit different than yours. I'm not ready to say that there are structural problems with the German sentence. I would only come to that conclusion if several Germans agreed that they too saw a "linguistic" problem.

To clarify, my objection is to the comparison of the business and tourist "Mecca" to Greenwich Village, which is logical nonsense. The business area of Manhattan is not in the same place, so how can you compare the two? How can you compare the part of Manhattan that we would associate with Wall Street, for instance, with the artistic and Bohemian atmosphere of Greenwich Village? The only logical thing is to compare Greenwich village now (or at the time we might assume a play was written) with Greenwich Village in the 1970s.

So for me it is the SENSE of the sentence, not the grammar or structure, which I find ridiculous beyond words—the sense, not the structure!. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> I understood that. No problem.  My position is a bit different than yours. I'm not ready to say that there are structural problems with the German sentence. I would only come to that conclusion if several Germans agreed that they too saw a "linguistic" problem.
> 
> To clarify, my objection is to the comparison of the business and tourist "Mecca" to Greenwich Village, which is logical nonsense. The business area of Manhattan is not in the same place, so how can you compare the two? How can you compare the part of Manhattan that we would associate with Wall Street, for instance, with the artistic and Bohemian atmosphere of Greenwich Village? The only logical thing is to compare Greenwich village now (or at the time we might assume a play was written) with Greenwich Village in the 1970s.
> 
> So for me it is the SENSE of the sentence, not the grammar or structure, which I find ridiculous beyond words—the sense, not the structure!.
> 
> Gaer


 
Well, then that just makes it even worse. 

I do see a problem with the structure - namely, what I described before with the "how" and the "has to feature" - and would be more than happy to have it cleared up by a German who sees no linguistic problems in the text.

Until then though, I still maintain that the structure is lousy and obscure.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> No. It's not fine. It may be grammatically correct, but it does NOT make sense, for reasons that I made explicit in PM earlierl.
> 
> A sentence can be correctly constructed and still express nonsense, which is EXACTLY what the first part of this German sentence does. Please read my PM regarding Greenwich Village and the business section of Manhattan!
> 
> Gaer


 
Did you send me a PM? I didn't get any.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Did you send me a PM? I didn't get any.


 OOPS! I did explain, but I did it in this thread.
here:

Basically I explained that Greenwich Village is in a different place from the business center of Manhattan. That's what's wrong with the German. But I don't want to continue this any more. I've clearly explained the problem. Anyone who is fluent in German and English AND who knows NYC is going to immediately wonder what's going on. In a way it's a "geography problem". 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> So what does it mean then? Maybe you could explain it to us in simple German, if you're so sure of what it means...


 
Let me try to reword it in my own words:

Wir befinden uns inmitten Manhattens, ein einst weltberühmtes Business- und Touristenziel, das schon seit Langem nichts mehr dergleichen bieten kann. Es ließe sich mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleichen, mit seinen Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß machte, und einigen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach nebenbei ungestört mal einen Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen kann.

Hier der Vergleich zum Original:

Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht, mit Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß macht, und jenen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.

Erst jetzt fällt mir eure Sorge auf: Ihr versteht den ersten Satz nicht und was es mit Manhatten auf sich hat. Ehrlich gesagt: Ich auch nicht. Es kann sein, dass es hier hauptsächlich um Manhatten geht, es kann aber auch sein, dass es nur des Vergleichs wegen hier eingeschoben wurde. Also, daran habe ich nun eine Weile getüftelt und mehr oder weniger den obigen Text zusammengekraxelt.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> OOPS! I did explain, but I did it in this thread.
> here:
> 
> Basically I explained that Greenwich Village is in a different place from the business center of Manhattan. That's what's wrong with the German. But I don't want to continue this any more. I've clearly explained the problem. Anyone who is fluent in German and English AND who knows NYC is going to immediately wonder what's going on. In a way it's a "geography problem".
> 
> Gaer


 
Oh, now I get you two! Yes, the first sentence is really a problem, I can't settle now. But we can wait for Jens or Ralf.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Oh, now I get you two! Yes, the first sentence is really a problem, I can't settle now. But we can wait for Jens or Ralf.


Good idea! 

But I'd wager they (Jens, Ralf, Axl) will say the same thing, because (as I said) the problem is not language (although there MAY be problems there too) but rather in logic. Therefore no matter who translates the German, no matter how perfectly, something has to be changed to make logical sense. And don't forget, we are still missing context!!!

Gaer


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Let me try to reword it in my own words:
> 
> Wir befinden uns inmitten Manhattens, ein einst weltberühmtes Business- und Touristenziel, das schon seit Langem nichts mehr dergleichen bieten kann. Es ließe sich mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleichen, mit seinen Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß machte, und einigen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach nebenbei ungestört mal einen Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen kann.
> 
> Hier der Vergleich zum Original:
> 
> Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht, mit Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß macht, und jenen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.
> 
> Erst jetzt fällt mir eure Sorge auf: Ihr versteht den ersten Satz nicht und was es mit Manhatten auf sich hat. Ehrlich gesagt: Ich auch nicht. Es kann sein, dass es hier hauptsächlich um Manhatten geht, es kann aber auch sein, dass es nur des Vergleichs wegen hier eingeschoben wurde. Also, daran habe ich nun eine Weile getüftelt und mehr oder weniger den obigen Text zusammengekraxelt.


 
Kannst du bitte diesen Teil

*wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat*
 
grammatikalisch bzw. syntaktisch analysieren?


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Kannst du bitte diesen Teil
> 
> *wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat*
> 
> grammatikalisch bzw. syntaktisch analysieren?


 
Ich probiere es mal:

wie - Konjunktion, verbindet den ersten und den zweiten Satz (da ist nicht mehr zu sagen, wie würdest du how analysieren?)
sie - 3. Sg. f. Bezug auf Szene
das - best. Artikel neutrum
Business - nglizismus, Nomen
_Bindestrich _- Bezug auf das folgende Nomen
und - Konjunktion
Touristen - Plural von Tourist, masulinum
Mekka - Eigenname im Nominativ neutrum
Manhatten - Apposition zu ...-Mekka
längst - Temporaladverb, bezug zur Vergangeheit
nicht - Negationsadverb
mehr - hier in Zusammenhang mit "nicht mehr": undefiniertes Pronomen eines Negationsadverbes
zu - Konjunktion zur Verbindung zweier oder mehr Verben
bieten - Infinitiv eines unregelmäßigen Verbes
hat - Ver der 3. Sg. f. von "haben"

Zufrieden?


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Ich probiere es mal:
> 
> wie - Konjunktion, verbindet den ersten und den zweiten Satz (da ist nicht mehr zu sagen, wie würdest du how analysieren?)
> sie - 3. Sg. f. Bezug auf Szene
> das - best. Artikel neutrum
> Business - nglizismus, Nomen
> _Bindestrich _- Bezug auf das folgende Nomen
> und - Konjunktion
> Touristen - Plural von Tourist, masulinum
> Mekka - Eigenname im Nominativ neutrum
> Manhatten - Apposition zu ...-Mekka
> längst - Temporaladverb, bezug zur Vergangeheit
> nicht - Negationsadverb
> mehr - hier in Zusammenhang mit "nicht mehr": undefiniertes Pronomen eines Negationsadverbes
> zu - Konjunktion zur Verbindung zweier oder mehr Verben
> bieten - Infinitiv eines unregelmäßigen Verbes
> hat - Ver der 3. Sg. f. von "haben"
> 
> Zufrieden?


 
Nein - das hilft leider nicht sehr.

Ich hätte "semantisch" statt "syntaktisch" sagen sollen, da ich wissen will, wie man die Bedeutung (wenn es irgendeine eindeutige Bedeutung gibt!) von der grammatikalischen Struktur des Satzes ableiten kann.

Ich fange mal mit meiner Hauptfrage an: was ist mit diesem komischen "wie"?  Wie "verbindet es den ersten und den zweiten Satz"?  

Ich bin vollkommen verwirrt.


----------



## Ralf

Hallo allerseits,

Gaer hat mich in einer PM darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass es im folgenden Satz ein kleines Verständnisproblem im folgenden Satz gibt. 





> ...eine Szene, *wie sie* das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat.


Ich hatte aus verschiedenen Gründen diesen Faden nur "nebenbei" beachtet und hatte vom "Konfliktpotential" des vorgenannten Satzes daher nicht allzuviel mitbekommen. Ich möchte im folgenden einfach nur meine Gedanken zum fraglichen Satz "veröffentlichen", die ich ihm in meiner Antwort auf seine PM mitgeteilt hatte. Ich habe mir jedoch nicht die gesamte Historie des Problems zu Gemüte geführt und bitte um Nachsicht, falls ich hier irgendetwas schreibe, was ohnehin schon klar ist oder, schlimmer noch, zur weiteren Verwirrung beitragen sollte  :





> Good grief! ... Ein *Problem*, wie *es* nicht schwieriger formuliert werden kann!  Unfortunately I'm lightyears away from claiming to be an expert in grammar. So please take the following as a mere attempt to approach the problem:
> 
> Firstly, let me modify the sentence in question for reasons of simplification and clarification:
> 
> (Das ist) eine Szene, wie sie nur Manhattan zu bieten hat.
> 
> Practically we have two sentences or sentence clauses, respectively, identifying the same object.
> 
> (1) Das ist eine Szene. (s - p - o)
> (2) Nur Manhatten bietet sie. (s - p - o) (sie = die(se) eine Szene = a town scenery as provided by further context either prior to the sentence in question or after it). The same can be applied to the original sentence:
> (2) Manhattan hat sie (= die(se) eine Szene) längst nicht mehr zu bieten. (s - p - o - temporal adverb - adverbial phrase (negation))
> 
> Now both sentences will be combined using the (comparative) "*wie*" (conjunction), which turns the second sentence into a separate sentence clause causing the word order to change to: "..., *wie* sie (= die(se) eine Szene) Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat. (s - p - o - temporal adverb - adverbial phrase (negation))
> 
> Thus we finally have the sentence:
> "Das ist eine Szene, *wie *sie (= die(se) eine Szene) Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat.
> 
> "Das ist" may be replaced by any other construction referring to "eine Szene" or might be even omitted for stylistic reasons (expressing surprise, emphasizing the second part) leaving the object to be identified by the second sentence clause:
> 
> Eine Szene, wie sie Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat.
> 
> A scenery (of some sort) that Manhattan has stopped to offer/being famous for a long time ago.
> A little more literal:
> A scenery *like that* (scenery), Manhattan has stopped to offer a long time ago. (I hope it doesn't sound too awkward in English)
> 
> Hope this helps a bit.


Ralf
__________________


----------



## MrMagoo

> Mitten in einer Szene, wie sie das Business- und Touristen-Mekka Manhattan längst nicht mehr zu bieten hat, und die er [whoever "he" is...?!  ] mit dem Greenwich Village der 70er Jahre vergleicht, mit Tante-Emma-Läden, in denen das Einkaufen noch Spaß macht, und jenen kleinen, gemütlichen Cafés, in denen man auch einfach ungestört mal Kaffee trinken und die Zeitung lesen darf.


 

Ohne mich jetzt großmächtig durch eure sämtlichen Posts zu wühlen, eine kleine Anmerkung meinerseits:

So wie ich es sehe, würde ich dieses "wie" am besten mit "which" oder "that" ins Englische übersetzen:

In the midst of a scene, which (or: that) the business and tourist mecca Manhattan has no longer to offer, and which (or: that) he compares to (the) Greenwich Village of the 70s, with corner shops, where shopping still is a lot of fun, and those cozy cafés, where you can enjoy a coffee and may read your newspaper without any troubles.

"wie" (auch "welche" würde hier passen) bezieht sich in beiden Fällen auf "Szene" zurück, kann aber nicht die "Szene" selbst vertreten, dafür braucht man im deutschen noch das Personalpronomen "sie".

Ich glaube, daß das Problem darin liegt, daß dieses "sie" im Englischen einfach nicht übersetzt werden kann?!
Ich versuche mal Näheres herauszufinden; eine interessante Konstruktion...

I hope I could help you out nevertheless so far - all the best

-MrMagoo


----------



## MrMagoo

ralf said:
			
		

> Ich hatte aus verschiedenen Gründen diesen Faden nur "nebenbei" beachtet und hatte vom "Konfliktpotential" des vorgenannten Satzes daher nicht allzuviel mitbekommen. [...] Ich habe mir jedoch nicht die gesamte Historie des Problems zu Gemüte geführt und bitte um Nachsicht, falls ich hier irgendetwas schreibe, was ohnehin schon klar ist oder, schlimmer noch, zur weiteren Verwirrung beitragen sollte


 

So ist's auch bei mir - meine Anmerkung ist ebenso nur ein Vorschlag meinerseits ohne genaueres Hintergrundwissen.

Gruß
-MrMagoo


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Nein - das hilft leider nicht sehr.
> 
> Ich hätte "semantisch" statt "syntaktisch" sagen sollen, da ich wissen will, wie man die Bedeutung (wenn es irgendeine eindeutige Bedeutung gibt!) von der grammatikalischen Struktur des Satzes ableiten kann.
> 
> Ich fange mal mit meiner Hauptfrage an: was ist mit diesem komischen "wie"? Wie "verbindet es den ersten und den zweiten Satz"?
> 
> Ich bin vollkommen verwirrt.


 
Ich auch - und jeder andere auch. Es ist schwierig, diese Konstruktion zu beschreiben, geschweige denn sie ins Englische zu übertragen.


----------



## gaer

Ralf, Jens, thanks to both of you for posting about this.

My solution is very similar:

Middle of a scene, *one* (a kind of scene) *that* Manhattan's business and tourist Mecca has not been able to offer for some time and that he (a character in the play) compares with [the] Greewich Village of the 70s—with mom-and-pop stores, where shopping is still fun, and those small, charming/comfortable cafés, where you may simply drink coffee and read the newspaper, undisturbed.

I'm simply using "one that" for reasons of flow. Such contracted phrases such as "middle of a scene" are very common in stage directions.

But I would translate it more like this, more freely, and I would concentrate on breaking it up into at least two sentences that work in English:

_We are in the middle of a scene in which Manhattan's business and tourist Mecca is shown as it has not been for some time. He [a character in the play] compares it to Greewich Village of the 1970s, where one could enjoy shopping in mom-and-pop stores and where one could still sit undisturbed in cozy cafés, drinking coffee and reading the newspaper._

And I will mention, for one last time, that comparing the business and tourist "Mecca" of NYC, now (or in the future) to Greenwich Village, as it was in the 1970s, is a senseless comparison. In truth, the contrast is between GREENWICH VILLAGE, as it is at the time of the play and as it was earler. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> But I would translate it more like this, more freely, and I would concentrate on breaking it up into at least two sentences that work in English:
> 
> _We are in the middle of a scene in which Manhattan's business and tourist Mecca is shown as it has not been for some time. He [a character in the play] compares it to Greewich Village of the 1970s, where one could enjoy shopping in mom-and-pop stores and where one could still sit undisturbed in cozy cafés, drinking coffee and reading the newspaper._


 
That sounds perfect and contains exactly the same ideas the German "text" (if we can call it a text) does.


----------



## elroy

Oohhhhhh, ok!! 

One of the things that threw me off is that I thought "sie" was in the nominative ... which no one corrected me on. I guess it was so "selbstverständlich" that people didn't see the need, but to me, unfortunately it was not.  

Anyway, I still find the structure a little strange. I guess the following is as close as possible to a literal translation:

In the middle of a scene, *in such a way* that it has/had not been portrayed by the business and tourist mecca Manhattan for a very long time. 

Either way, it's clearer now...thanks, everyone. What a sentence!


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Oohhhhhh, ok!!
> 
> One of the things that threw me off is that I thought "sie" was in the nominative ... which no one corrected me on. I guess it was so "selbstverständlich" that people didn't see the need, but to me, unfortunately it was not.


 
Now I have to say it: Don't be too hard on yourself. 



> Anyway, I still find the structure a little strange. I guess the following is as close as possible to a little translation:
> 
> In the middle of a scene, *in such a way* that it has/had not been portrayed by the business and tourist mecca Manhattan for a very long time.
> 
> Either way, it's clearer now...thanks, everyone. What a sentence!


 
Nevertheless, I find Gaer's version much better as far as good English is concerned. Not that yours is bad, but I find Gaer's "one that" a bit smoother. And then his "altered" version sounded much better than "in such a way", I think. But that's just my humble opinion.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Now I have to say it: Don't be too hard on yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, I find Gaer's version much better as far as good English is concerned. Not that yours is bad, but I find Gaer's "one that" a bit smoother. And then his "altered" version sounded much better than "in such a way", I think. But that's just my humble opinion.


 
Of course.  I just realized I made a typo: I meant to type "literal" instead of "little."  I was trying to come up with as *literal* a translation as I could of the crazy "wie."


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Of course. I just realized I made a typo: I meant to type "literal" instead of "little." I was trying to come up with as *literal* a translation as I could of the crazy "wie."


 
Ok, I didn't even found that typo.   But now I can agree with you.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, I find Gaer's version much better as far as good English is concerned. Not that yours is bad, but I find Gaer's "one that" a bit smoother. And then his "altered" version sounded much better than "in such a way", I think. But that's just my humble opinion.


I appreciate the support, Who, but let me make a point which is really important here.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I understood, from the start, what the German was saying. So my only thought, from the start, was trying to find a way to get a complicated German sentence, that I understood, into some kind of smooth English.

Remember also that I STILL insist that the German sentence is poor because it compares Manhattan, as a whole, to Greenwich village.

Elroy's purpose was not primarily to translate. In this situation, he was, I believe, (Elroy, correct me if I am wrong) remaining more literal in order to get to the bottom of a problem. You might remember that many posts went by without anyone mentioning that "sie" in the sentence in question functions as a direct object would.

If any one of us had simply given him a sentence such as this, I think his question would have been immediately answered:

Riedenburg - Salzburg - ein stadtteil *wie* *ihn* kaum einer kennt.

I'm not commenting on the style of the above sentence, which may be poor. Shouldn't there be a comma? But you see, "ihn" gives the clue and illustrates this totally alien, non-English word order which all of us stumble over at one time or another—all of us who are not German.

The real problem was that not one person recognized the problem, which I think Elroy actually asked about very clearly. I hesitated, thinking that you or someone else would take care of it, but it took awhile.

Many times the situation has been reversed, and it will happen again in the future. By that, I mean that something will not make sense to me, and in an effort to pinpoint what I am not understanding, I will give a "translation" that is overly literal for the PURPOSE of getting help, to illustrate what I am no understanding.

The point is not about who translated better or more smoothly. The point is that many times we do not UNDERSTAND the question that someone is asking. And surely you know, from your own experience, how utterly frustrating it is to attempt to get an answer when people are not understanding your questions, right? 

*To sum up: I'm quite sure that Elroy would have come up with an equally clear and smooth translation days ago if we had answered his question, Who, and that was the problem!   *

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> I appreciate the support, Who, but let me make a point which is really important here.
> 
> IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I understood, from the start, what the German was saying. So my only thought, from the start, was trying to find a way to get a complicated German sentence, that I understood, into some kind of smooth English.
> 
> Remember also that I STILL insist that the German sentence is poor because it compares Manhattan, as a whole, to Greenwich village.
> 
> Elroy's purpose was not primarily to translate. In this situation, he was, I believe, (Elroy, correct me if I am wrong) remaining more literal in order to get to the bottom of a problem. You might remember that many posts went by without anyone mentioning that "sie" in the sentence in question functions as a direct object would.
> 
> If any one of us had simply given him a sentence such as this, I think his question would have been immediately answered:
> 
> Riedenburg - Salzburg - ein stadtteil *wie* *ihn* kaum einer kennt.
> 
> I'm not commenting on the style of the above sentence, which may be poor. Shouldn't there be a comma? But you see, "ihn" gives the clue and illustrates this totally alien, non-English word order which all of us stumble over at one time or another—all of us who are not German.
> 
> The real problem was that not one person recognized the problem, which I think Elroy actually asked about very clearly. I hesitated, thinking that you or someone else would take care of it, but it took awhile.
> 
> Many times the situation has been reversed, and it will happen again in the future. By that, I mean that something will not make sense to me, and in an effort to pinpoint what I am not understanding, I will give a "translation" that is overly literal for the PURPOSE of getting help, to illustrate what I am no understanding.
> 
> The point is not about who translated better or more smoothly. The point is that many times we do not UNDERSTAND the question that someone is asking. And surely you know, from your own experience, how utterly frustrating it is to attempt to get an answer when people are not understanding your questions, right?
> 
> *To sum up: I'm quite sure that Elroy would have come up with an equally clear and smooth translation days ago if we had answered his question, Who, and that was the problem!   *
> 
> Gaer


 
Absolutely, Gaer.  I couldn't have put it better.

It's enough that we have to internalize the fact that a "Szene" is a "she" - but then on top of that to have to know when it's nominative and when it's accusative ... well, it's just one more thing I'll have to get _really_ used to.


----------

