User:KaSnyder

SoSe 2016 "Translating Wikipedia" class (April 2016 - July 2016)

Record of work

Pairing up with user:RLFett

Week 1: 21.04.2016	U-Bahn Zuerich: translating paragraph 3	30 min. (at home)
Week 2: 27.04.2016	U-Bahn Zuerich: editing & correcting paragraph 3	90 min. (in class)
01.05.2016	U-Bahn Zuerich: translating paragraph 5	60 min. (at home)
Week 3: 04.05.2016	U-Bahn Zuerich: editing & correcting paragraph 5	90 min. (in class)
07.05.2016	U-Bahn Zuerich: translation of paragraph 13	45 min. (at home)
Week 4: 09.05.2016	U-Bahn Zuerich: editing paragraph 13	30 min. (at home)
11.05.2016	U-Bahn Zuerich: correcting paragraph 13	90 min. (in class)
Week 5: 16.05.2016	Schluckbildchen: translation of paragraph 3 "Schluckbildchen"	45 min. (at home)
19.05.2016	Schluckbildchen: translation of paragraph 4 "Hersteller und Verkauf" and paragraph 6 "Verwandte Objekte"	120 min. (at home)
Week 6: 25.05.2016	Schluckbildchen: editing whole translated text, copying links and pictures from original text	90 min. (in class)
28.05.2016	Gutmensch: starting translation of beginning, including "Allgemeines"	60 min. (at home)
Week 7: 01.06.2016	Schluckbildchen: creating new page, categories etc.	90 min. (in class)
Week 8: 06.06.2016	Gutmensch: creating subpage for joint translation, translation of paragraph "Verwendung in der politischen Diskussion"	120 min. (at home)
08.06.2016	Schluckbildchen: inserting links to translated text in appropriate articles / Gutmensch: continuing with translation of paragraph "Verwendung in der politischen Diskussion"	90 min. (in class)
Week 9: 13.06.2016	Gutmensch: continuing with translation of paragraph "Verwendung in der politischen Diskussion"	90 min. (at home)
15.06.2016	Gutmensch: continuing with translation of paragraph "Verwendung in der politischen Diskussion" and putting in links	90 min. (in class)
Week 10: 20.06.2016	preparing the presentation of what we have done so far as a team	60 min. (at home)
21.06.2016	continuing to prepare presentation	60 min. (at home)
22.06.2016	class cancelled	--
Week 11: 27.06.2016	Gutmensch: continuing with translation of paragraph "Verwendung in der politischen Diskussion" and putting in links	60 min. (at home)
29.06.2016	presentations in class and proofreading Gutmensch	90 min. (in class)
Week 12: 04.07.2016	Gutmensch: finishing translation of paragraph "Verwendung in der politischen Diskussion" and putting in links	70 min. (at home)
Week 13: 11.07.2016	Gutmensch: translation last paragraph "Unwort des Jahres"	45 min. (at home)
13.07.2016	Gutmensch: editing translated text	90 min. (in class)
Week 14: 20.07.2016	Gutmensch: creating new page, categories etc. / putting all information about translations on user page (end of term)	90 min. (in class)

1) Translation of U-Bahn Zürich

Class translation, paragraphs are separated. Here are the paragraphs I have translated together with user:RLFett

Paragraph 3

In 1946, Kurt Wiesinger, professor of engineering at the ETH Zurich, put forward plans for a highspeed train that would have covered the distance between Zurich main station and Oerlikon in two minutes.[1] Architect Wolfgang Nägeli presented a more realistic project in the Schweizerische Bauzeitung in 1947. Several tramlines were to be relocated underground. He proposed building a tunnel underneath the “Bahnhofsstrasse” between “Bürkliplatz” and “Platzspitz”, along with lines branching off from “Paradeplatz” to “Sihlstrasse” and from Zurich main station to “Weinbergstrasse”. This first draft consisted of 2.7 kilometres of tunnels, as well as 0.2 kilometres of ramps and bridges. He calculated the costs would be between 35 and 40 million Swiss Francs. In a second step, he planned another underground route from "Weinbergstraße" to "Beckenhof" covering 1.1 kilometres of distance (plus 0.7 kilometres for ramps) and costing another 14 to 18 million Swiss Francs.[5]

Remarks / difficulties: dealing with lexical problems, e.g. Ultra-Schnellbahn, Zweigstrecken ...

Paragraph 5

On 30th May 1959, another committee handed in two civic appeals concerning the "realization of the Zurich underground on behalf of all voters". The first one addressed the City Parliament (legislative authority) asking for provision of 200 000 Swiss Francs that would be used for a report on two underground lines (Enge - Kloten and Altstetten - Tiefenbrunnen), with a total length of 19.7 kilometres. Since that type of appeal falls under the responsibility of the city council (executive authority), it was dismissed. The second one instructed the city council to solve traffic problems, in a way it would have enabled establishing an operating company for the Zurich underground on a public economical basis. As the City Council had already issued a similar report, it advised the eligible voters to turn that request down. In the following election campaign there were several opinions saying that the plans were unrealistic and not properly thought through. According to them, Zurich didn´t have the required size for an underground system and the costs would have been too high.[13] On election day, 14th February 1960, 69.8 % (48'502: 20'944 votes) voted against the Zurich underground.[11][14]

Remarks / difficulties: Dealing with lexical problems, e.g. Motionen, Stimmberechtigte, Gemeinderat vs Stadtrat, gemeinwirtschaftlich, Betriebsgesellschaft, überrissen, also dealing with reported speech etc. Additionally, it is very time consuming to match own translation with the translation of your partner. Due to the fact that there is no ideal translation, it is very hard to meld two very different versions of one text into one translation. That process includes a lot of debates and some give-and-take.

Paragraph 13

Constructional and legal preparations

Even before the underground project was completely planned, several locations were prepared for construction. In correlation to the extension of the airport which took place from 1966 to 1968, a indoor car park was built under the motorway feeder road in front of the terminal. It was constructed in a way that rebuilding it into a subway station could have been done without much effort.[54] From 1968 to 1970 the shopping mall “Shopville” was built underneath Zurich main station. Also, side walls for the possible underground station were built in the same place. Furthermore, a pedestrian subway was constructed at “Schaffhauserplatz”, which could have been used as an entrance for the underground station.[55] In order to not slowing down the construction of the motorway feeder road “A1L”, a resolution was passed, to shell build Schöneichtunnel along with the 1364 m long part of the subway branch to “Schwamendingen” that lies underneath. The municipal authorities explicitly emphasized the possible usage as a tramline, should the underground project fail against expectation. On 14th March 1971, the people of Zurich agreed on this expensive part of the project that would cost 31 million Swiss Francs. Voter participation lay at 56.2 %, 111'413 yes votes (78.47 %) standing against 31'395 no votes.[41][11]

As a complement for the metro, the SBB had plans for an urban railway system, with the purpose of covering most of the traffic in the outskirts of Zurich. This required the construction of the Hirschgrabentunnel and the Zürichbergtunnel. Initially, the costs for that project (estimated 1.7 billion Francs) were to be divided among the federal government, the canton of Zurich and the involved communities. As it then turned out, though, there was no legal basis for the federal government to support a city traffic system, thus denying the federal aid for the metro project. It was then decided, that the government would instead cover the costs for the urban railway system, being estimated with 650 million Francs, while the funding of the metro was left to the canton of Zurich and the communities.[56] On 6th March 1972, the Cantonal Council of Zurich unanimously decided on changing the existing legal constitution, allowing the canton to financially support public transportation projects and found publicly governed transportation companies on a regional level. The council also approved (145:1 votes) a regional traffic law dealing with the implementation of the newly acquired constitutional adjustment. On 4th June 1972, the two bills were put to vote in the canton of Zurich. Both bills made it through election. Voter participation lay at 48.6 %, 223'587 yes votes (82.57 %) standing against 47'205 no votes for the constitutional change bill, and 224'546 yes votes standing against 47'502 no votes for the implementation bill.[57][11] On 13th March 1973, after having had passed the National Council and the Council of States, the “Federal Agreement on the delegation of authority for an underground railway system in the Zurich region” became effective.

Failure after initial optimism

These types of transportation projects of the 1960s were typical for this episode of great economic euphoria caused by seemingly endless growth. For example, a vision existed, wanting to turn the Stauffacher/Sihlporte region into a gigantic modern business center – the “Sihl-Manhattan” – making Zurich a true global city. At the beginning, there was no real opposition to this euphoria, except for the Partei der Arbeit (local) and the Sozialdemokratische Partei (cantonal), who opposed both the above- and underground railway projects.[58] A 1971 opinion poll showed that 81 % of the Zurich population was in favour of both projects.[52] The first real opposition towards this flow of traffic expansion arose in 1970, when plans for rebuilding the Heimplatz in a car-friendly manner did not make it through a local referendum. Protests continued in 1971, with the heavy resistance against the Zürcher Expressstrassen-Y. Opposition/disapproval grew even bigger, after the Club of Rome had published its “Die Grenzen des Wachstums” at the 1972 St. Gallen Symposium, slowly establishing an anti-growth stance/attitude in the wider public.[52]

Remarks / difficulties: Same problems as above. The grammatical structure, though, became more complex. The original text in German deals only with the planning of Zurich underground rather than describing what has actually been built. This means we encountered a lot of would have and could have sentences.

2) Translation of Schluckbildchen

Here are the paragraphs I have translated:

Schluckbildchen

Schluckbildchen had a square, rectangular or round size and a feed size of 5 to 20 mm. So they were the smallest form of devotional art design. Small pictures of the 19th century were partly bigger, like the version that was produced in Einsiedeln (32x22 mm). Also Schluckbildchen were produced on light sheets of paper; one sheet could hold 130 pieces. Both possible were series of one theme as well as different themes which would always have the same style. Schluckbildchen can be detected after the middle age. Up to the 19th century copper engraving printings were most likely, including some notes (for example in Mariazell) which were produced with a woodcarving technique. Later, colour printing was used; in the 20th century also photomechanical reproduction of old artworks.

Schluckbildchen often show the Virgin Mary as a picture of mercy in a specific pilgrimage location, sometimes other saints or portrayals from Christian iconography, like the Nomen sacrum or Titulus INRI. Usually, under the theme an inscription is placed naming the location of pilgrimage or the saint that is portrayed. Frequently, someone made the effort also to put on details of the devotional art design. The symmetry of the rectangular, triangular, diamond-shaped, round or elliptical-shaped frame elements concentrated the effect of the picture on the central theme. Also effects like rays of light as well as the floating on clouds put emphasise on the transcendental character of the picture.

Producer and sales

Esszettel were sold not only by merchants in pilgrimage locations, but also by charlatans. It is passed on that a charlatan was travelling through Saxony in 1898, who gave Sympathiezettelchen (litaeral translation: sympathy notes) that were written in unreadable words, for an optional prize from 0.30 up to one Deutsche Mark to ill people to eat. Esszettel were also prescribed by a Saxon quack in 1913, known under the name “the Reinsdorf miner”.

In former times, Schluckbildchen were sold in all pilgrimage locations. Producers were (among others):

• F. Gutwein, Augsburg
• J. M. Söckler, Munich
• F. Pischel, Linz
• Jos. Nowohradsky, Graz
• Frères Benziger, Einsiedeln.

Brandzettel (literal translation: notes of fire), which were used for the recovery of animals, were available at Franciscan in Tölz. Schluckbildchen were from time to time a flourishing business of some monasteries. At the beginning of the seventies in the 19th century, “Schluckbildchen” were still sold in Mariazell, Naples, and Sata Maria del Carmine in Florence. Schluckbildchen of Our Dear Virgin of Everlasting Aid were sold from Rome to the whole world. Ethnologist Dominik Wunderlin, department manager at the Museum der Kulturen Basel, reported in 2005 that a woman`s monastery in Bavaria, which was not named in that connection, was still giving away Schluckbildchen at the entrance gate.

Resembling objects

Esszettel were known as Fieberzettel (literal translation: fever notes) already in antiquity. In Carolingian Indiculus superstitionum, there was talk about a consumption of an image of deity which was baked in bread. In late Roman medicine the ash of burnt papyrus sheets („charta combusta“) was used as an ingredient for ointment and for orally and rectally applied medicine. Those notes were supposed to have a healing effect both labelled and unlabelled.

Resembling qualities to the Esszettel also has “fever altar bread” which was given away by the minorities in the end of the 18th century. Wafe was also used as healing medicine in the turn of the 15th century as it was described in the poem Bluemen der tugent by the Tyrolese Hans Vintler: „Vil di wellen auf oblat schreiben / und das Fieber damit vertreiben“.

Further examples are the grated clay Madonna , which were common up to the 20th century, and from which you grated the surface to eat. For the same purpose water was used, with which relics and resembling objects were cleaned.[11] Also the “protecting notes”, which were known in the Thirty Years` War as art from Passau, were also swallowed while facilitating ritual rules.

A printing plate, which was found in the second decade of the 19th century in Eastern Mongolia, proves that also in that culture “eating notes” were used.[12] In small squares from approx. 34x29 mm the printing plate contains several Tibetan spells that enclose also the connected purpose. Apparently, it originated from Tibetan Lamaistic folk medicine and was probably used by a Lamaistic migrant medical practitioner. Depending on the indication those notes had several instructions for use, e.g. “Eat when having flu” or “Eat nine when having stomach ache”.

From Uganda it is known that in the end of the 1990s followers of a famous Christian charismatic preacher and magic healer soaked his photographs in water and drank from it in order to swallow up parts of his healing power.

Remarks / difficulties: Dealing with a lot of lexical problems, e.g. Schluckbildchen, Esszettel, Andachtsgrafik, Kupferstichdrucke, Holzschnittverfahren, Gnadenbild, Quacksalber, Kurpfuscher, Gekritzel, Sympathiezettelchen, Wunderdoktor, Brandzettel, Fieberzettel, Minoriten, Fieberhostien, Schabmadonnen, Druckstock, lamaistisch etc.

Translated text online: Devotional pictures for swallowing

3) Translation of Gutmensch

Insert translations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KaSnyder/Gutmensch

Here are the paragraphs I have translated:

Gutmensch

Gutmensch (German cultural term similar to do-gooder; literally good human) is an ironic, sarcastic, mean and inhumane dispraise of a person or a group/milieu ("do-goodism"). In the view of the critics, Gutmenschen are presumed to have an overstating wish to be good and are overeagerly seeking approval. This comes along with moralising and proselytising behaviour and a dogmatic, absolute perspective, which does not allow deviant views. In political rhetoric Gutmensch is used as polemic term.

General introduction

Users of the term think that people or groups of people with a specific morale attitude show a wrong or problematic behaviour. Therefore, it was used as popular term in the 1980s for people who valued humanistic, altruistic, but also religious and human goals in life higher than utilitarian ones. They organise their actions, politics as well as their lives accordingly.

The term Gutmensch is also connected to the term political correctness and has been used in an denunciating manner since the mid 1990s. In public language use it is always used for a negative connoted foreign appellation. A use that is meant in "a nice way" can often be found only in face-to-face conversations, such as the saying "having a heart of gold", in generosity or in an overstating form of altruism

The term also hints at the possible difference between "meant well" and "well done". Gutmenschen have good intentions, want to solve specific problems or have the desire to create a better world. In the view of those who use the term Gutmensch in a negative way, evaluate their actions and/or used techniques as problematic or as unnecessary. This is how the term is used in everyday language. The German dictionary Duden, which included the term in 2000, defines Gutmensch as "a naive person who is acting in an uncritical, overstating or tedious way while fighting for political correctness."

Use of the term in political debates

The term is used with a different purpose and frequency in the overall political spectrum, i.e. as a polemic term in a discussion with (actual and would-be) representatives of a "political correctness", but mainly in the field of conservativeness, rightwing populism and rightwing totalitarianism.

Use of term within areas critical of society

Occasionally, people, who see themselves as critics of society, ironically condemn would-be campaigners who criticize society without facing the claims they represent themselves. The term Gutmensch sees criticism on racism as only symbolic, when the own racist behaviour is not reflected. That kind of criticism means that political utterances, which don’t seek for consequences, the speaker acts only for receiving approval. Especially Sunday speeches of politicians will be criticized, if they pretend to be advocates for "victims". People who are concerned determinedly reject a locking up into a role as victim.

The "friend of foreigners", having good intensions, is a specific example. According to humanistic approaches, he or she thinks everyone is equal, in a foreign person, however, "own needs, ethical and moral ideas and goals" are imposed <ref>jemandem etwas aufzwingen, aufdrängen; siehe

Norbert Bolz (TU Berlin), an academic in media and communication, said in a programme of radio "Deutschlandfunk" on 11th August 2014:

{{quote|Gutmenschen are people who have oral presentation techniques that have got a name in the last couple of decades, i.e. political correctness. This political correctness can be described precisely and therefore also the Gutmensch is described; it is composed of political moralisation, from a kind of hygiene of speech, in a vast amount of speech taboo and furthermore, also from a kind of puritan frigid attitude.

Moralistic strategy

In political discussions the usage of the term Gutmensch gains a moral polarized shape, which is convenient to decrease the respect of the political opponent and to discredit them. There are strategies in political rhetoric to discuss political topics either on a factual level or on a moral level. Stigmatizations of political opponents by using terms like “pc” (political correctness) or Gutmensch moralize communications. Therefore, the position of the political opponent is discredited and he is forced to change position, if he doesn`t want to lose reputation. Especially obvious becomes the strategy, if there are actual or claimed taboos. The art of the rhetoric is working when terms like Gutmensch or "moralizing prig" bring the political opponent in discussions into situations where the reply is supposed to say "my opinion or the tabooed view". This rhetoric proves as effective, because only under difficult circumstances can factual matters be discussed analytically. Clemens Knobloch (Universität Siegen) refers to this relationship.

Term used as "ideological code"

According to a discourse analytical survey, which was published by political scientist Katrin Auer in the Österreichischen Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ÖZP), are especially topics placed by the political right under the cipher "pc" (the term coming up usually because of Gutmenschen) of which the society was not able to talk openly without falling victim to the "terror of Gutmenschen". Gutmenschen thereby revealed were often pictured club swinging, in this context talking about "moralizing prig", "racist prig", "fascist prig", "Auschwitz prig" or similar, so Auer. Therefore, a concept of the enemy and a concept of the taboo came up, in which in particular misogynist, racist and anti-Semitic comments appeared rebellious and taboo breaking, it was said in the article. The term Gutmensch functioned here as code in order to being able to talk and being understood in this paradigm without having to expose one’s own attitude, Auer adds. A well-known example was to replace the word "Jew" by the term Gutmensch in anti-Semitic speeches. Parts of the audience which understood themselves not as anti-Semitic, were allowed to agree without hesitation, concludes Katrin Auer.

Unwort des Jahres

Germany annually nominates a populist word that has a bad connotation. It is called "Unwort des Jahres" (in German the prefix Un- can be added to certain nouns, denoting undesirability and depreciating the original meaning). The jury consists of four German linguists and one journalist, who are independent and change every year.

Gutmensch was nominated in 2011 (second position) and 2015 (first position). In 2011 the jury stated: {{quotation|"By using the term the ethical idea of the good man is picked up maliciously in internet forums in order to vilify all dissidents without considering their arguments. The term "Wutbürger" (enraged people) is used in a similar way, although the term Gutmensch violates principles of democracy (...). The term has been used in that way for already 20 years. However, it has gained more influence in different socio-political contexts in 2011 and has therefore increased its potential of vilifying dissidents."

The statement in 2015 said that the term is connected to the refugee crisis. Here, especially those are insulted who voluntarily help refugees or stand against refugee asylums attacks.The choice was influenced by the refugee crisis in 2015. The term Gutmensch was selected because "readiness to help others" vilified everyone who helped as naive, stupid and unworldly.The criticism was not only against populists of the right, but also against journalists of important media channels who would use the term "Gutmensch".

Remarks/difficulties: Dealing with German left branching syntax and very complex lexical problems such as Verunglimpfung, Kampfbegriff, Modewort, nervtötend, vermeintliche Vertreter/Mitstreiter, Fürsprecher, Festschreibung, "Fremdenfreund", oktroyieren, Sprachhygiene, politische Rechte, Realitätsverlust, Reflexionsvermögen, Sozialschmarotzer, Schlechtmenschen, Rassismus- und Ausländerfeindlichkeitsvorwurf, "Moralkeule" etc. Also dealing with the translation of idioms, e.g. "Das Herz am rechten Fleck haben", "in einem guten Licht dastehen" or collocations and phrases like "entschieden zurückweisen", "eine Rhetorik pflegen" , "eine Art puritanischer lustfeindlicher Haltung".