Lancashireman Mar 8, 2017:

Translation is Our Business (continued) 1) Translation Is Our Business
NY Times upstyle (Ramey and Michael correct me if I’m wrong)
2) Translation is our business
British headline style (Guardian, Times, Telegraph)
3) Translation is our Business
German style (Nouns deserve Caps)
4) Translation Is our Business
Nouns and verbs reign supreme
5) Translation is Our Business
Anything Longer Than Two Characters Qualifies For an Initial Cap

(For more information download our brochure Buyer's Guide)

Murad AWAD Mar 8, 2017:

Answer found elsewhere Dear Jo,

I am interested about the answer found elsewhere!

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Very nice one, Thomas.

Thomas Pfann Mar 8, 2017:

Ist KudoZ eine Schicksalsgemeinschaft? Es sollte eher ein Verhältnis sein, das für beide Seiten fruchtbar ist.

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Can I hear a hallelujah?

Lancashireman Mar 8, 2017:

Translation is Our Business Here at KudoZ, we understand how important your projects are. We won’t sacrifice substance for style – we can do both. Our askers come first and we make sure we are in tune with their requirements.
http://www.ajhlanguageservices.com/
http://www.proz.com/profile/136890

Michael Martin, MA Mar 8, 2017:

Hey Jo! What's jammin' in Jo's garage..?

Björn Vrooman Mar 8, 2017:

@Michael
Not sure whether you were addressing me as well: I'm talking about "sogar," which precedes the German word Jo asked for.

@Ramey
Yes, a second option would be to say (and I can agree with that one!), "It was not just a marriage of convenience." But that, of course, depends - as you said - "on how freely you want to approach the text." It's far removed from the German (your statements increase "incrementally" in importance, while the German goes back and forth), even though the outcome is basically the same, IMO.

@Orla
Yes, as you said further below. I'll think about the other part, but "destiny" just seems wrong. Typically, a Schicksalsgemeinschaft is one being brought together by a Schicksalsschlag. Maybe you understand what I'm trying to get at, but I think "destiny" is much broader; there isn't any "plan" - it's a "stroke/twist of fate" that got both to end up where they are now.

BTW, it's not like this sentence is going to ruin the whole story however you translate it.

So, to all of you: Enjoy your evening!

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Hey Jo! WHAT did you find? Please don't be put off by our discussion (bickering?). It's all in the name of accurate translating (at least I believe it is).

oa_xxx (X) Mar 8, 2017:

@Bjorn That makes sense, and I think what I was trying to get at, too, in my last post - special relationship-destiny/fate?-not quite but fruitful for all concerned! Don't agree with Phil that "common destiny" is the exact, literal translation of Schicksalsgemeinschaft, but its one interpretation that fits in this context

Michael Martin, MA Mar 8, 2017:

Schicksalsgemeinschaft came first. Whatever interpretations we attribute to EHER or anything else cannot influence the rendering of that term since they didn’t come into play UNTIL AFTER that term was first introduced. Thus, a conventional interpretation (not idiosyncratic to this situation) would have to prevail. Wouldn’t make sense to handle it differently, in my opinion.

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

The 'sogar' is what led to my suggestion.
Could it have been a marriage of convenience?
I believe it was and is more like a fortuitous fellowship.

Björn Vrooman Mar 8, 2017:

@Ramey
Actually, I didn't see the forest for the trees right now - I'll admit that right away. You and I seemed to have overlooked the word "sogar." It completely alters the meaning and I'll take back what I said about Phil's comment - he has it right. Andrew suggestion seems closest, IMO.

There's already a contrast between "besondere Beziehung" and "Schicksalsgemeinschaft" - the latter is a stronger version of the former (e.g., what I said below "[whatever] by fate").

The contrast between "Schicksalsgemeinschaft" and "fruchtbar" is that with the latter, you are toning down the former, i.e., he wouldn't call it inevitable, but it is and has been mutually beneficial.

Else, something with "fate" still seems more apt than something with "destiny." Can't seem to explain it right now.

@orla
Thanks! That's all I wanted to know. Re subjective: Frankly, the German term looks a bit odd here. It doesn't sit quite right with me.

oa_xxx (X) Mar 8, 2017:

@Bjorn Entwined/bound by fate, bound doesn't quite work for me (or chained), too rigid, imposed from above, if that makes sense, but entwined could - pretty subjective I know!

oa_xxx (X) Mar 8, 2017:

The other option is - do we share a common destiny/was it fate/written in the stars? etc. followed by ... imo it is (more,rather,simply) a relationship that is and always has been mutually beneficial (was and continues to be...for both...) - sense of contrast that way too.

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

a marriage of convenience CAN be positive, as I said earlier. And of course, I'M talking about the ENGLISH. This is a metaphor, attempting to get across the idea, that the relationship has (always) been fortuitous - it was NOT MERELY a random union (Schicksalsgemeinschaft), but more (EHER) of a fruitful relationship.

Björn Vrooman Mar 8, 2017:

"you CAN'T take the term out of context"

I know and I don't think I am. It continues with "Mir scheint es eher ein Verhältnis zu sein, das für beide Seiten fruchtbar war und ist."

You cannot tell me that any "marriage of convenience" cannot turn into a fruitful relationship (there are definitely examples to the contrary). The issue with finding the "appropriate English synonym" is that the intended meaning of the German source needs to be understood first. This is the point at which I'm getting involved usually; I'm still talking about the German; I made two suggestions (which someone could use), albeit without getting a response, but will gladly agree to any other proposal if I believe the terms are a match.

I don't like "destiny" either for some reason; I think "fate" is still the best option (although not in combination with "shaped"). A related word is "Schicksalschlag."

In my opinion, "marriage of convenience" puts too much weight on practicality ("utilitarism," if you will), while the German emphasizes the randomness of the event. It's just my opinion - not agreeing or disagreeing to any answer right now.

That's why I am posting my stuff in the d-box.

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Ach, Björn! you CAN'T take the term out of context - in this particular context, we are looking for an appropriate, English synonym for Schicksalsgemeinschaft, albeit without the calamitous overtones. Ad I NEVER called a hostage situation a marriage of convenience. I was referring to many couple who married after the war for more practical than emotional reasons. manomanomano

Björn Vrooman Mar 8, 2017:

@Ramey Thought about cancelling out Phil's disagreement, since I don't think that there is no negative subtext here (see below). However, "eher" like "rather" doesn't really have to indicate a contrast and your suggestion doesn't work for other reasons, IMO:

"a marriage contracted for social, political, or economic advantage rather than for mutual affection; broadly : a union or cooperation formed solely for pragmatic reasons"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage of conve...

I know what the term means and I'm not going to raise the same objection as Brigitte or Michael. The issue is that marriage of convenience and "für beide Seiten" are not mutually exclusive. You got into that sort of relationship for pragmatic reasons - or fate wanted it so, which doesn't change the fact that the relationship can be "fruchtbar" later. Besides, I'd never call a bond formed by a shared experience, such as a hostage situation, a marriage of convenience...

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Frustrating! The all-defining 'EHER' in the source text places the Schicksalsgemeinschaft in CONTRAST to the fruitful relationship. It is SUPPOSED to be somewhat negative.

Björn Vrooman Mar 8, 2017:

I wonder... The explanation on Wiki is actually quite accurate:
"Eine Schicksalsgemeinschaft ist eine Gruppe von Personen, die einem gemeinsamen Schicksal ausgesetzt ist, z. B. einer risikobehafteten oder gefährlichen Situation.

Beispiele hierfür sind Schiffbrüchige, Geiseln oder in einem Bergwerk eingeschlossene Personen. Teilweise entsteht zwischen Geiseln und deren Geiselnehmern eine besondere Schicksalsgemeinschaft, die zu einem Stockholm-Syndrom führen kann."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schicksalsgemeinschaft

Any objections to "entwined/bound by fate" (not sure about "chained")?

Or rephrase, as Phil and orla suggest: "Fate may have brought them together, but..."

BrigitteHilgner Mar 8, 2017:

@ orla & Ramey Okay, I accept your comments, it seems that my idea of marriage of convenience (at least one party is not influenced by fate) is wrong.

oa_xxx (X) Mar 8, 2017:

@Brigitte But your example fits marriage of convenience perfectly?!

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Hi Brigitte yes! That's exactly what a 'marriage of convenience' conveys (figuratively). Whether fated (thousands of examples in post-war marriages) or deliberated (planned marriages), the idea is the same as in your example.

oa_xxx (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Duden describes it as a "Gemeinschaft von Menschen, die das gleiche schwere Schicksal verbindet", whereas it often seems to be used to simply mean shared/common destiny without the "schwer" part - considering the contrast mentioned below, could something along the lines of 'fate may have thrown us together but...' (subsequent relationship has benefited all) - not too far from Ramey's marriage of convenience (perhaps born out of necessity, perhaps it even began as a marriage of convenience but ...) There have always been close ties between xxx and yyy. While fate may have thrown us together, our relationship is and has always been ... the 'eher' makes no sense otherwise.

BrigitteHilgner Mar 8, 2017:

I don't like "marriage of convenience" ... in this context, for me, "marriage of convenience" is too deliberate. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience
"Schicksalsgemeinschaft" is different: fate brought the parties together. Since the asker does not provide any context, let me construe an example:
a privately owned company is forced to leave Germany in 1934 and finds a new location just across the border, in a small Swiss town with empty covers. The town offers the company attractive conditions hoping that it (the town) might eventually benefit from this.

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

These are all indications of a marriage of convenience, a transferrable metaphor accenting the practicality of the union without emotional bonds. a marriage of convenience CAN be positive, but usually indicates that both parties come together out of necessity rather than out of desire. The suggestion also eliminates the 'community' issue. Now back to work.

Jo Hance (asker) Mar 8, 2017:

Thanks Brigitte... Exactly. None of my (old) German dictionaries were more helpful either. I am trying to convey the speaker's sense of ambiguity - "distress" and "misfortune" are too pejorative here, although there is a slight negative connotation I feel.

BrigitteHilgner Mar 8, 2017:

Einige Hinweise, ... ...damit das Rad nicht wieder ganz neu erfunden werden muss.
Ein Blick ins kudoz-Glossar ist, wie so oft, zu empfehlen:
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/german_to_english/social_science_s...
Außerdem gab es da auch schon eine Diskussion bei leo:
http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=159...
Mein alter Langenscheidt meint:
eine Schicksalsgemeinschaft bilden = to share a common destiny,
mein alter Pons Collins schließt sich diesem Vorschlag an.
Für "Schicksalsgemeinschaft" alleine bietet Langenscheidt "companions in distress", während Pons Collins "companion in misfortune" als Übersetzung für "Schicksalsgefährte" vorschlägt.
Möglicherweise muss man berücksichtigen, unter welchen Umständen Stadt und Unternehmen zu einander fanden ...

phillee Mar 8, 2017:

Not sure ... 'Community' fits here. This could be misinterpreted to mean the 'Gemeinde'.

I think the intention here is to highlight the partnership between the company and the community?

But I might be wrong of course.

Jo Hance (asker) Mar 8, 2017:

Phil... Thanks for your suggestion, it helps, but in this case I think the former is intended, as it is in this town that the company was founded by 2 men defecting from another company in the late 1900s.

phillee Mar 8, 2017:

Question to me is ... what is really meant here? Is it a partnership that fate brought together (unlikely) or is is it a partnership of shared interests and goals? I think it's more likely that the latter is intended.

I have a feeling that this needs rephrasing to get the intended meaning across. There is no snappy noun to replace the original.

Jo Hance (asker) Mar 8, 2017:

Thanks Thomas Am liking your way of thinking... am playing with your suggestions... is there any less formal way of saying it (linguistically speaking) in English?

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Hi Thomas true, there is a contrast being offered, rendering my suggestion inappropriate. I think I'll just go back to bed.

Thomas Pfann Mar 8, 2017:

The 'Schicksalsgemeinschaft' is not entirely positive, though. That's why the author puts it in contrast to the 'fruchtbare Verhältnis' saying it was more than just a 'Schicksalsgemeinschaft'.

Maybe something with 'necessity'? A relationship born of necessity? A relationship by fate?

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Yes, of course. Just the ole turnaround turning up in the wrong place.

Jo Hance (asker) Mar 8, 2017:

Neither, do I... au contraire... it is an upbeat speech about how the exhibition reflects that the company has been an integral part of the community for many years

Ramey Rieger (X) Mar 8, 2017:

Ach verflixt! Hi Steffen, my dyslexia is getting worse! I read furchtbar instead of fruchtbar!!!

Steffen Walter Mar 8, 2017:

I don't see ... ... any negativity here. ??