Advertising
LEO

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker.

Would you like to support LEO?

Disable your ad blocker for LEO or make a donation.

 
  •  
  • Subject

    jemanden dolmetschen

    Comment
    Bei gestrigen Treffen habe ich den englischen Premierminister gedolmetscht

    (eigentlich: habe ich das ins Deutsche gedolmetscht, was der Premierminister auf Englisch gesagt hat)

    You can't "interpret" the Prime Minister, can you? At least on a linguistic level. If you interpret him, it's with hindsight and assuming what his message was.
    AuthorIlldiko (763882) 26 May 12, 02:03
    Comment
    I'm not sure, but my feeling is no. Somehow "interpret" needs an object, or something additional.

    I understand this:
    ... I interpreted for the Prime Minister
    ... I interpreted the Prime Minister's speech/words

    Hmmm. Good question.
    #1Authorcryme (795004) 26 May 12, 02:26
    Comment
    Zur Verdeutlichung von "Dolmetschen" nur dies:
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmetschen

    Es geht um die Sprache, nicht um die Person.

    Ich glaube, dass "interpret" auch die Gefahr eines "false friend" in sich birgt.
    #2Author waltherwithh (554696) 26 May 12, 09:06
    Comment
    No, you can't interpret a person. You can interpret something, i.e. try to understand what it means:

    We tried to interpret the evidence.
    Arrogance is often interpreted as insecurity.

    Or you can translate a person's words:

    I interpreted for the Prime Minister yesterday.

    You can also interpret a piece of music

    I don't like Fisher-Diskau's interpretation of Dichterliebe.

    #3AuthorMini Cooper (236699) 26 May 12, 11:40
    Comment
    The problem with "interpreting for the Prime Minister" is that it could mean interpreting the words of his advisors on his behalf or in his presence, while "den Premierminister dolmetschen" refers only to his own words.

    The problem with " interpreting the Prime Minister's words" is that it could relate to the second meaning of "to interpret", i.e. to understand it in a specified way
    #4AuthorIlldiko (763882) 30 May 12, 01:46
    Comment
    'Simultaneous translation and interpretation'?
    #5Author The Kman (702240) 30 May 12, 06:26
    Comment
    . . . interpreted for . . .
    . . . acted as interpreter for . . .

    I believe people know what an interpreter is, as opposed to a translator.
    #6Author svaihingen (705121) 30 May 12, 07:05
    Comment
    Is there a clear distinction between the terms or structures for interpreting what someone says (for the benefit of others), as opposed to interpreting the words of others (for the benefit of your client)?
    #7Author Jurist (US) (804041) 30 May 12, 07:22
    Comment
    "I interpreted for the Prime Minister" implies pretty unambiguously that you interpreted for the PM specifically, not for the PM and his entourage. If you meant the latter, you'd say so: "I interpreted for the PM and his advisors", for example.

    "I acted as interpreter for ..." is clearer still.
    #8Author captain flint (782544) 30 May 12, 08:39
    Comment
    Sorry to be so dense, but I'm still not following the distinction between rendering into another language the words the named person is speaking, vs. feeding that person something he or she can understand that comes from someone else. Or is the first part something else entirely?
    #9Author Jurist (US) (804041) 30 May 12, 09:46
    Comment
    vs. feeding that person something he or she can understand that comes from someone else
    In that case I would use "give an interpretation" rather than "interpret for".

    I would always understand "interpret for" as "repeat in another language" and find nothing ambiguous about it, but then again, I am a translator ....


    I believe people know what an interpreter is, as opposed to a translator.

    In my experience they don't, certainly not in Germany. Very often a German newsreader or journalist will use the word "translator" where "interpreter" is meant, people just don't know the difference and are very surprised there is one when you tell them.
    #10Author penguin (236245) 30 May 12, 09:54
    Comment
    I agree with penguin.
    English native speakers don't always know the difference between translating and interpreting, Germans seem to have no idea that there is a difference between übersetzen and dolmetschen. Of they believe that dolmetschen is always Simulatandolmetschen. At least that's my experience. But English native speakers know that interpreting usually means putting something into a different language. I would also say "give an interpretation" if I meant explaining or trying to understand something.
    #11Authorfailsworthpole (393014) 30 May 12, 09:58
    Comment
    Ich kann nur wiederholen, was ich schon unter #2 geschrieben habe.

    Ein Dolmetscher hat das gesprochene Wort zu übertragen/übersetzen, aber er sollte dabei nicht "interpretieren", sondern möglichst nahe am Original bleiben.

    Ich glaube, dass eine "Interpretation" zu höchsten diplomatischen Verwicklungen führte.
    #12Author waltherwithh (554696) 30 May 12, 22:37
    Sources
    Comment
    aber er sollte dabei nicht "interpretieren", sondern möglichst nahe am Original bleiben.
    That was essentially Harri Beau's argument in the thread linked above. It's based on an incorrect or incomplete understanding of "to interpret" in English.


    "I interpreted for the PM at yesterday's meeting."
    is unambiguous in English - it means dolmetschen. You could also say, "I acted as interpreter for the PM at yesterday's meeting." I see captain flint and svaihingen already suggested this.

    If you meant "interpret" in the sense of German "interpretieren" you would phrase the sentence differently in English. Notice there is usually a difference in meaning between the noun and the verb form in English. This was also discussed in the aforementioned thread.
    #13Author wupper (354075) 30 May 12, 23:46
    Comment
    Danke, wupper, dass du auf diesen Faden hingewiesen hast. Ich habe ihn gerade gesucht, aber du warst schneller! ;)

    In diesem Faden wurde eigentlich alles, was dazu wichtig ist, bereits gesagt. "To interpret" heißt dolmetschen (mündliche Wiedergabe von Gesprochenem in einer anderen Sprache) und das wiederum heißt nicht, dass man seine eigene Meinung einfließen lässt. Kürzen und zusammenfassen, wenn es zeitlich nicht anders machbar ist, ist vertretbar. Eigenes Gedankengut oder Erklärungsversuche zur Meinung des Sprechenden sind jedoch nicht angebracht.

    Und "to translate" ist streng genommen nur das schriftliche Übertragen von einem Originaltext in die Zielsprache.
    #14Author Fragezeichen (240970) 31 May 12, 00:30
    Comment
    #15Author penguin (236245) 31 May 12, 06:04
     
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  
 
 
 
 
  automatisch zu   umgewandelt