Deutsche Reichsbahn
Joachim Pense
> I am looking for a good English word for Reich.
>
> I came across a web site that translated "Deutsche Reichsbahn" as
> German Imperial Railways.
> I know it was used as such in the Holy Roman empire of German Nations,
Note: of German _Nation_; this does not denote the different German Nations
but it means that the Roman empire kept its identity but changed the
underlying nation from (whatever the nation of the old Roman empire was) to
German.
> but Reich in post Napoleonic parlance seems to have the meaning of
> Realm or 'reach' (not rich).
>
> In this specific case German Imperial Railways is nonsense as they
> were not created until 1922, when they merged the former States
> railway and created that new entity.
As a native speaker of German, I run into similar problems with the
fine-tuned meaning of the English words you discuss, such as empire vs
realm.
Is "realm" actually used for countries or kingdoms? I know only the
metaphoric usage where it denotes various abstract kinds of domains (like
for example the "realm" of validity of a password identification in a web
server).
Having said that, I feel that "Imperial" might be ok. The Reich of 1922 was
a republican continuation of the monarchy "Deutsches Reich" that was
founded in 1870; the state did not lose its identity (other than 1816), so
it kept its name.
The name "Reich" always rises the association of monarchy; I think that the
continued usage of the term "Deutsche Reichsbahn" in the communist GDR was
just an anachronism - sometimes the GDR were proud of being keeper of
German traditions (e.g. Luther).
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> was a republican continuation of the monarchy "Deutsches Reich" that was
> founded in 1870; the state did not lose its identity (other than 1816), so
1806
Sebastian Koppehel
> I came across a web site that translated "Deutsche Reichsbahn" as
> German Imperial Railways.
Which is correct if you indeed want to translate it literally.
> I know it was used as such in the Holy Roman empire of German Nations,
> but Reich in post Napoleonic parlance seems to have the meaning of
> Realm or 'reach' (not rich).
Well, it refers to a nation-state reigned over by an emperor. This may
not be quite consistent with contemporary English usage (the British
empire which rose to fame under the decidedly post-napoleonic Queen
Victoria of the United Kingdom, empress only of India and in later
years, probably sets the standard here). But it's the word, and unless
you want to go with the "German Reich" o.ä., I don't see a better
solution - "reach" and "realm" clearly aren't preferable. It's best to
write "Empire" it with a capital "E" so people know it's a name.
> In this specific case German Imperial Railways is nonsense as they
> were not created until 1922, when they merged the former States
> railway and created that new entity.
Well, and what's the nonsense in that? It was the national railway
company of the German Empire.
- Sebastian
--
"Das Deutsche Reich ist eine Republik."
-- Artikel 1 (1) der Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs vom 11. 8. 1919
Peter Dy
"Arno Martens" <sne...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ccdf5010ktjmrocn5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:31:35 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
> >Arno Martens <sne...@sympatico.ca> writes:
[...]
> That is just the problem as I see it.
> In is generally assumed that the that the German Empire ceased to
> exist in 1918 and that it became the German State after that.
It was officially called "das Deutsche Reich" from 1871 to 1945.
> For the purpose of my original question the exact legality does not
> matter.
>
> Picture this, without much knowledge about Germany proper, someone
> looks a web pages about older railroads.
> If he now sees German Imperial Railways the mind will be switched to
> the times of the Kaiserreich whereas the fellow with his web page
> tried to tie in a period of 1923 - 1945.
Perhaps. But do you want to translate the word correctly or not? Actually,
as a proper noun, I don't think it should be translated at all. Today, in
English, we call the German railway, the Deutsche Bahn, as in this news
article:
http://www.janes.com/business/news/jtf/jtf030812_1_n.shtml
[No, the East German DR is
> usually referred to as DR (East Germany)].
I don't understand that sentence. Anyway, East Germany kept the name of
"Deutsche Reichsbahn."
Peter
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:31:35 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
>>Arno Martens <sne...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>> I came across a web site that translated "Deutsche Reichsbahn" as
>>> German Imperial Railways.
>>
>>Which is correct if you indeed want to translate it literally.
>
> Could you give me any references as to where I can find that literal
> translation.
>
> Merriam-Webster:
> relating to, befitting, or suggestive of an empire or an emperor
> The Concise Oxford Dictionary:
> Of an empire or sovereign state, ranking with an empire.
>
> Neither of which qualifies in the post 1919 Germany.
The German word "Reich" must be translated as "empire" or "kingdom",
depending on whether there's an emperor or a king. That Germany called
itself a "Reich" after abandoning monarchy was an antagonism which may
lead to antagonisms in translation.
Since the prefix "Reichs-" (very much like "Bundes-" today) was
universally used in those days to indicate that something had a
nation-wide reach, was associated with the national government, etc.,
it seems appropriate to translate "National railways". But that's not
a literal translation.
> My only access to a German dictionary is the 10th edition of
> Cassell's, 1965. Here 'Reich' can be state, making it German State
> Railroad.
> Actually, they specifically have the expression Reichsbahn (pp.376),
> translated as German railways.
Why not "East German railways", while we are at it?
> In is generally assumed that the that the German Empire ceased to
> exist in 1918 and that it became the German State after that.
I do *not* think it is consesus among historians that anything ceased
to exist in 1919 except the Hohenzollern monarchy ...
> Picture this, without much knowledge about Germany proper, someone
> looks a web pages about older railroads.
> If he now sees German Imperial Railways the mind will be switched to
> the times of the Kaiserreich whereas the fellow with his web page
> tried to tie in a period of 1923 - 1945. [No, the East German DR is
> usually referred to as DR (East Germany)].
Well, I see the problem, but picture this: The first nation of workers
and peasants on German soil, the state where "socialism in the colours
of Germany" reigns, entertains a railroad, and it's called the
"Reichsbahn". That's strange - so strange, indeed, that people come up
with theories about ominous Swedish shareholders, about how a name
change may loose the company the entitlement to operate the S-Bahn in
Berlin, or about how a name change would simply be too expensive what
with all the new logos and so on. It's not known for sure why the name
was never changed, but it always seemed out of place, and that is
exactly the inappropriateness about which the reader would stumble.
On the other hand, Germans always - from the beginning, I think -
perceived "Reichsbahn" as a name, not a description. So, the
translation should somehow make clear the nominal character of the
phrase; I am not a particular fan, however, of simply using the German
term in such cases.
(A really annoying example for this practice is the usage of
"Luftwaffe" in English, as if that somehow was a proper name.)
- Sebastian
George Hardy
> Arno Martens wrote <80ue50lhq6as5hpkq...@4ax.com>:
>
> > I am looking for a good English word for Reich.
> >
> > I came across a web site that translated "Deutsche Reichsbahn" as
> > German Imperial Railways.
"German National Railway".
GFH
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
> In is generally assumed that the that the German Empire ceased to
> exist in 1918 and that it became the German State after that.
>
As I unserstand it, from a legal point of view the German "Reich"
continued to exist after the revolution of 1918 and the country was
referred to as such in the Weimar Constitution, but it was a "Reich"
without a "Kaiser" (emperor). this would explain why an organisation
created in 1922 was called the Reichsbahn and the parliament was called
the Reichstag.
Gruß, einde O'callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:11:26 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
>>Since the prefix "Reichs-" (very much like "Bundes-" today) was
>>universally used in those days to indicate that something had a
>>nation-wide reach, was associated with the national government, etc.,
>>it seems appropriate to translate "National railways". But that's not
>>a literal translation.
>>
>
> with German. At least not in North America.
> [ ... ]
>
>> It's not known for sure why the name
>>was never changed, but it always seemed out of place, and that is
>>exactly the inappropriateness about which the reader would stumble.
>>
>>On the other hand, Germans always - from the beginning, I think -
>>perceived "Reichsbahn" as a name, not a description. So, the
>>translation should somehow make clear the nominal character of the
>>phrase; I am not a particular fan, however, of simply using the German
>>term in such cases.
>>
>
> Germans will just think of it as the entity of the State, foreigners
> as the Empire.
>
> Einde O'Callaghan, I assume (!) that you are a non native speaker of
> German. I would appreciate hearing your opinion about that, although
> you may have to go back in your mind when the word became part of the
> vocabulary.
>
I am a non-native speaker, but I live in Germany (indeed in a part of
the country where many people still refer to the railway as the
Reichsbahn) and have become used to the usage of the word "Reich" to
refer to Germany even after the Kaiserreich ceased to exist and the
country became a republic.
BTW I would translate the Reichsbahn as the State Railway.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
>
>>(A really annoying example for this practice is the usage of
>>"Luftwaffe" in English, as if that somehow was a proper name.)
>>
>
> Again, in North America the word Luftwaffe is usually reserved for the
> WWII era. At all other times it will usually be referred to as the
> German Air Force (even if a plane with the name Luftwaffe on it is
> shown during a news cast).
> --
> Arno
>
Andreas Prilop
> As I unserstand it, from a legal point of view the German "Reich"
> continued to exist after the revolution of 1918
Here you go <http://www.kommissarische-reichsregierung.de/> ;-)
--
Nicht's geht mehr ohne Apostroph.
Andreas Prilop
> I am looking for a good English word for Reich.
Reich.
> I came across a web site that translated "Deutsche Reichsbahn" as
> German Imperial Railways.
You shouldn't translate it at all. We don't translate Amtrac or SNCF
either.
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:11:26 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>Since the prefix "Reichs-" (very much like "Bundes-" today) was
>>universally used in those days to indicate that something had a
>>nation-wide reach, was associated with the national government, etc.,
>>it seems appropriate to translate "National railways". But that's not
>>a literal translation.
>>
> The word National is not a particularly lucky choice in connection
> with German. At least not in North America.
Why so? It is common to talk about "nationalizing" of railways in
English. Take the "Canadian National Railway Company" for example - it
clearly started out as a "Staatsbahn". Why shouldn't this apply to the
DRG/DRB/DR as well?
>>(A really annoying example for this practice is the usage of
>>"Luftwaffe" in English, as if that somehow was a proper name.)
>>
> Again, in North America the word Luftwaffe is usually reserved for the
> WWII era. At all other times it will usually be referred to as the
> German Air Force
That would be good, but unfortunaletly it isn't so. Apparently the
people at Wikipedia think that "Luftwaffe" is the appropriate term for
the German air force:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe
So does the Federation of American Scientists as well as the Rand
Corporation:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/tornado.htm
http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/e-getabbydoc.pl?MR-553-AF
And the United States Air Force (although their usage as a name is
somewhat justified, but they seem to like it just as "Das Eiserne-
kreuz"):
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1196/german.htm
> (even if a plane with the name Luftwaffe on it is shown during a
> news cast).
Since Johannes Rau was discontent with this inscription, he asked that
one of the two Airbus 310 planes be repainted in a more "peaceful"
colour scheme, and so it was done:
So when he visits (as he did recently) Italy or Nigeria, no bad
feelings will arise. Unfortunately, as the photo tells, he couldn't
get rid of the Eiserne-kreuz :-)
- Sebastian
Peter Dy
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:54:27 GMT, "Peter Dy" <pet...@sbcglobal.net> ,
> wrote:
> >
> >> For the purpose of my original question the exact legality does not
> >> matter.
> >>
> >> Picture this, without much knowledge about Germany proper, someone
> >> looks a web pages about older railroads.
> >> If he now sees German Imperial Railways the mind will be switched to
> >> the times of the Kaiserreich whereas the fellow with his web page
> >> tried to tie in a period of 1923 - 1945.
> >
> >Perhaps. But do you want to translate the word correctly or not?
>
> was the post 1924 DRG so that it is not being mixed up with the 1871 -
> 1919 Reichseisenbahnen Elsass-Lothringen.
The Elsaß-Lothringen railways was called Deutsche Reichsbahn? I didn't know
that. But then why do you think a potato farmer in Iowa would know that or
want to know that? Because he is interested in trains! And if he is
interested in trains, don't you think you are misinforming him somewhat if
you don't tell him that there was something called the Deutsche Reichsbahn
or German Imperial Railways even through the DDR era? As a non-native
speaker, I was surprised to learn that it was still called DR in East
Germany. Don't you think a train buff would be interested in knowing that
too? Couldn't you just include a little note on how one should interprete
the word "Reich" or "Imperial", like you've done on this thread?
Peter
Peter Dy
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:50:05 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>>it seems appropriate to translate "National railways".
> >>>
> >> with German. At least not in North America.
> >
> >Why so? It is common to talk about "nationalizing" of railways in
> >English. Take the "Canadian National Railway Company" for example - it
> >clearly started out as a "Staatsbahn". Why shouldn't this apply to the
> >DRG/DRB/DR as well?
>
> Arbeiter Partei.
Are you saying that calling it "German National Railways" brings up
conotations with the Nazis? It does not. In the US, calling something
"national" when speaking of Germany brings up no negative conotations.
Except in specialized history books, they are always called Nazis or the
Nazi Party. Indeed, few people know they were called National Socialists at
all. And how you think people get from "National" to "National Socialist",
I have no idea. Or maybe in Canada things are different?
Peter
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:50:05 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>it seems appropriate to translate "National railways".
>>>>
>>> The word National is not a particularly lucky choice in connection
>>> with German. At least not in North America.
>>
>>Why so? It is common to talk about "nationalizing" of railways in
>>English. Take the "Canadian National Railway Company" for example - it
>>clearly started out as a "Staatsbahn". Why shouldn't this apply to the
>>DRG/DRB/DR as well?
>
> Because there has never been a National Sozialistische Kanadische
> Arbeiter Partei.
Well, I doubt the *English* adjective "national" has any Nazi or even
nationalist connotations. It has in German in certain contexts
(railway companies not being one of them), but not outside of them.
How would you translate "Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald", if I may ask?
> Also, the Can Nat'l Rwy started as a government agency picking up the
> pieces of several bankrupt railroads during the war effort in 1918.
> The Canadian Northern Railway being the largest constituent at the
> time (handy, no repainting of the CNR on freight cars).
> WWI is considered to be the birth of the Canadian identity (as opposed
> to just being British) and calling it Canadian National Railways was
> quite opportune to the politicians of that time.
That may be, but it appears to me to be a descriptive name.
>>That would be good, but unfortunaletly it isn't so. Apparently the
>>people at Wikipedia think that "Luftwaffe" is the appropriate term for
>>the German air force:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe
>>
> I have a hunch that as this expression being good enough for
> http://www.verteidigungsministerium.de/forces/luftwaffe/index.php
> the other organs you cite find it to be the proper definition.
While many German federal and state agencies have English-language
web-sites, the MoD doesn't seem to be one of them. I acknowledge that
the term can be used as a name, just like people often talk about "die
Army" in German, referring to British or North American armed forces.
> The news media and the general public are not much concerned with
> exact definition but with what feels right, in this case German Air
> Force.
>
> This ties in to closing the circle with my original enquiry. People,
> in their daily lives, do not care what formal definitions are, they
> make use of expressions by feeling.
I know I'm on the verge of telling people speaking a foreign language
what words to use - which would not be right. Still it sometimes
irritates me how this and other terms are used as if they were proper
names when they simply aren't.
>>Since Johannes Rau was discontent with this inscription, he asked that
>>one of the two Airbus 310 planes be repainted in a more "peaceful"
>>colour scheme, and so it was done:
>>
>>http://www.luftwaffe.de/C1256C770036BB94/vwcontentByKey/6AF014438CC76749C1256DA300253945/$FILE/airbus3_g.jpg
>>
> I guess it's a vestige of trying to emulate the Yanks with their Air
> Force One and Air Force Two.
>
>>So when he visits (as he did recently) Italy or Nigeria, no bad
>>feelings will arise. Unfortunately, as the photo tells, he couldn't
>>get rid of the Eiserne-kreuz :-)
>>
> That could be a question of budgets. Without the Iron Cross (which
> people observe with slight amusement, just as the pickle helmets of
> the Great War) the Presidents Office rather than the DoD might get
> charged with ownership/operating costs.
Naja, das geht in die richtige Richtung. Als Luftwaffenmaschinen
tragen die Airbusse der Flugbereitschaft natürlich das deutsche
Feldzeichen. Diese Flugzeuge haben jede Menge Passagiere, und der
Bundespräsident dürfte zu den selteneren unter ihnen gehören.
Übrigens gibt es keine "Air Force Two", und die beiden Jumbos heißen
auch nicht so, sondern haben irgendwelche langweiligen Nummern. "Air
Force One" ist immer gerade der Rufname im Funkverkehr des Flugzeuges,
auf dem sich der Präsident befindet, aber nur, wenn es eine
Luftwaffenmaschine ist; bei den anderen Waffengattungen heißt es dann
eben "Army One" usw. Der Hubschrauber, der immer auf dem Rasen vor dem
Weißen Haus landet, heißt dann "Marine One".
- Sebastian
Paul Pfalzner
"George Hardy" <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote in message
news:7c7350d8.04031...@posting.google.com...
necessarily and always applies to an "empire" only? what then was the
Dritte Reich?
And should we change the words for Oesterreich and Frankreich since they
no longer are monarchies?
mpp
Einde O'Callaghan
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Bernd Felsche
>> "German National Railway".
FWIW: "realm" is probably a more generic translation of Reich.
It means little more than "belonging to".
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!
Peter Dy
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:48:17 GMT, "Peter Dy" <pet...@sbcglobal.net> ,
> wrote:
> >> >Perhaps. But do you want to translate the word correctly or not?
> >>
> >> No, I do not, I want the 'potato farmer in Iowa' to understand that it
> >> was the post 1924 DRG so that it is not being mixed up with the 1871 -
> >> 1919 Reichseisenbahnen Elsass-Lothringen.
> >
> >
> >The Elsaß-Lothringen railways was called Deutsche Reichsbahn? I didn't
know
> >that.
>
If it wasn't called the DR, then why are you worried people will mix it up
with the DR?
[...]
> > And if he is
> >interested in trains, don't you think you are misinforming him somewhat
if
> >you don't tell him that there was something called the Deutsche
Reichsbahn
> >or German Imperial Railways even through the DDR era? As a non-native
> >speaker, I was surprised to learn that it was still called DR in East
> >Germany. Don't you think a train buff would be interested in knowing
that
> >too?
>
> Thank you for making my point. Yours is the typical conclusion I
> expect from a non-native reading the word Imperial.
Even Germans, as Sebastian noted, found the use of the name strange in the
communist DDR. And I'm well aware of the conotations of the word
"imperial."
> This is not to criticize you. Without interest in the subject you just
> cannot know. But if you had happened across that web site, actually
> seeing a picture, you may have been puzzled.
No, trains don't interest me much, but I don't see what that has to do with
your problems with the word Reich. No doubt, as you and others have noted,
the word doesn't exactly correspond with English "empire" in all cases. But
to come up with several names for a name that in fact stayed the same from
1924-1990 is misinformative, IMO. In English, we also call the German
parliament building the "Reichstag". Should we change that too, even though
in German it still goes by that name?
Oh, and aren't you gonna give us a link to the page?
> > Couldn't you just include a little note on how one should interprete
> >the word "Reich" or "Imperial", like you've done on this thread?
> >
> No, I cannot, it isn't my web page, the space for copy is limited.
>
> After having received in these dialogues plenty of ideas to ponder I
> just want to ask him to replace the 'Imperial' with 'State' as your
> surprise about the designation by the GDR convinced me that 'National'
> would be the less favourable of the two.
Btw, the Wikipedia site also calls it "Imperial":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Bahn
Peter
Peter Dy
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:42:45 +0800, Bernd Felsche
> <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> , wrote:
>
> >ai...@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Pfalzner) writes:
> >
> >>"George Hardy" <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote in message
> >>news:7c7350d8.04031...@posting.google.com...
> >>> Joachim Pense <spam-co...@pense-online.de> wrote in message
> >>news:<c3809c$rkm$06$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> >>> > Arno Martens wrote <80ue50lhq6as5hpkq...@4ax.com>:
> >
> >>> > > I am looking for a good English word for Reich.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I came across a web site that translated "Deutsche Reichsbahn" as
> >>> > > German Imperial Railways.
>
Someone already corrected you: It's German Nation, not Nations.
Peter
René
> FWIW: "realm" is probably a more generic translation of Reich.
> It means little more than "belonging to".
Not worth two Euro-cents. Realm doesn't even mean "Reich" as political
structure unless you'd suspect The King of the Animals* to have a seat
at the U.N.
* cf. Im Königreich der Tiere
--
This here is my post. Is it not nifty? Worship the post.
René
> The word National is not a particularly lucky choice in connection
> with German. At least not in North America.
Now you're definitely talking out of your ass.
It's, by and large, only Germans who are ashamed of being of German
descent; and only those dwelling in the part of the former Reich that
now goes by the name Federal Republic. Jeez, get that ramrod out from
you know where and accept your history, but also your heritage. You
couldn't possibly assume that as soon as an American figures you to be
a German national, there will be finger-pointing and j'accusing, would
you? Americans /like/ Germans. They think Germans are the coolest
thing since beer-dispensing cuckoo clocks! "Einss, ssvei, drei!
Sittsen makken!"
Also, why would you attempt to dumb down, simplify a text under the
assumption that the proverbial potato farmer in Iowa couldn't possibly
follow your haughty and lofty train of thought? Just use the actual
name "Deutsche Reichsbahn", as company names aren't translated in
general.
"With the merging of the railroads of all German states into one
company, the German Reichsbahn was founded. The new company was owned
by the German state and kept the name "Deutsche Reichsbahn" for
reasons unbeknownst to the author from the period of the Second Reich,
through the Weimar years, the Hitler regime and even under the
communists in East Germany."
See? Was that so hard? Whosoever may be interested in reading anything
about the German railroad system in first place is bound to have some
background knowledge. Germans are always pissed at the way media
abroad portray them (or so the German media tell me), yet they assume
what little they glean from the media about them dang furriners is
true. Ass crickets like Michael Moore aren't really helping here,
either.
Anyway, I seem to be slipping off the topic just a tad: Americans are
NOT all yellow, overweight donut fiends working at the nuke plant.
You'd be, for instance, quite surprised to learn how many people here
in the good ole U.S. of A. are quite at home with terms like "Weimar
eagle", "Nazi eagle" and "Bundes eagle" and know how to distinguish
between them.
René
> Übrigens gibt es keine "Air Force Two", und die beiden Jumbos heißen
> auch nicht so, sondern haben irgendwelche langweiligen Nummern. "Air
> Force One" ist immer gerade der Rufname im Funkverkehr des
Flugzeuges,
> auf dem sich der Präsident befindet, aber nur, wenn es eine
> Luftwaffenmaschine ist; bei den anderen Waffengattungen heißt es
dann
> eben "Army One" usw. Der Hubschrauber, der immer auf dem Rasen vor
dem
> Weißen Haus landet, heißt dann "Marine One".
*snicker*
Hier hat sich gerade ein Tom Clancy-Leser geoutet ;)
René
> You shouldn't translate it at all. We don't translate Amtrac or SNCF
> either.
Ich kanns ganz genau sehen: das Schild an der Station zwei Häuser
weiter schreibt AMTRAK mit K :P
Bernd Felsche
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> FWIW: "realm" is probably a more generic translation of Reich.
>> It means little more than "belonging to".
>Not worth two Euro-cents. Realm doesn't even mean "Reich" as political
>structure unless you'd suspect The King of the Animals* to have a seat
>at the U.N.
>* cf. Im Königreich der Tiere
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]
Realm \Realm\, n. [OE. realme, ream, reaume, OF. reialme,
roialme, F. royaume, fr. (assumed) LL. regalimen, from L.
regalis royal. See Regal.]
1. A royal jurisdiction or domain; a region which is under
the dominion of a king; a kingdom.
The absolute master of realms on which the sun
perpetually alone. --Motley.
2. Hence, in general, province; region; country; domain;
department; division; as, the realm of fancy.
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
realm
n 1: a domain in which something is dominant; "the untroubled
kingdom of reason"; "a land of make-believe"; "the rise
of the realm of cotton in the south" [syn: kingdom, land]
2: a knowledge domain that you are interested in or are
communicating about; "it was a limited domain of
discourse"; "here we enter the region of opinion"; "the
realm of the occult" [syn: domain, region]
3: the domain ruled by a king or queen [syn: kingdom]
René
> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]
Sag ich doch.
Realm geht für "im Reich der Fabeln", aber Teutonic Realm für
Deutsches Reich ist Unsinn ;)
Andreas Prilop
> Ich kanns ganz genau sehen: das Schild an der Station zwei Häuser
> weiter schreibt AMTRAK mit K :P
OK. Even Google asks me:
Did you mean: Amtrak
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:14:18 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
>>
>>Well, I doubt the *English* adjective "national" has any Nazi or even
>>nationalist connotations.
>
> I agree, except when it is German and National.
As a matter of fact, the adjective "national" is used in relation to
German institutions day in and day out, connotations or no
connotations. Just google for "german national".
>>How would you translate "Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald", if I may ask?
>>
> I don't, although some might say Bavarian National Forrest, just like
> anyone would say Yellowstone and drop the rest.
But it's no solution to refuse to talk about national parks in Germany
at all.
- Sebastian
Einde O'Callaghan
>>> And how you think people get from "National" to "National Socialist",
>>>I have no idea. Or maybe in Canada things are different?
>>>
>>
>>In Gerany very definitely so - nbut not necessrily so.
>>
>>Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
>
>
>
>
> I'm going downstairs to let some air out of that bottle of Paddy.
> (Won it in a dart contest in Hannover by hitting the centre!!!)
>
> After all, it still _is_ St. Patrick's Day, at least over here.
>
> Erin go Brah
>
I wrote the last message after getting back from a Paddy's Day booze-up
- I'm not sure now what I was trying to say - there are some states of
mind where it is probably ill-advised to sit at a keyboard. ;-)
Gruß and Sláinte, Einde O'Callaghan
George Hardy
> "George Hardy" <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote in message
> news:7c7350d8.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > Joachim Pense <spam-co...@pense-online.de> wrote in message
> news:<c3809c$rkm$06$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> > > Arno Martens wrote <80ue50lhq6as5hpkq...@4ax.com>:
> > >
> > > > I am looking for a good English word for Reich.
> > > >
> > > > I came across a web site that translated "Deutsche Reichsbahn" as
> > > > German Imperial Railways.
> >
> > "German National Railway".
> >
> What is the problem here? is it that some think the word Reich
> necessarily and always applies to an "empire" only?
No, "the problem here" is to translate "Deutsche Reichsbahn" into
English so that it is clearly understood by the reader. Do you have
a better suggestion?
GFH
René
> No, "the problem here" is to translate "Deutsche Reichsbahn" into
> English so that it is clearly understood by the reader. Do you have
> a better suggestion?
"Deutsche Reichsbahn". Or have you ever heard of a company called
Völkische Bernkraft-Gesellschaft, for instance? No? They made my
computer monitor (hint: it's a MultiSync XE17)
andy
Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote
[
>No, "the problem here" is to translate "Deutsche Reichsbahn" into
>English so that it is clearly understood by the reader. Do you have
>a better suggestion?
>
into the UK equivalent, not of a precise translation of the original.
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]
For Austrian philately http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps
Sebastian Koppehel
> George Hardy wrote:
>> No, "the problem here" is to translate "Deutsche Reichsbahn" into
>> English so that it is clearly understood by the reader. Do you have
>> a better suggestion?
>
> "Deutsche Reichsbahn". Or have you ever heard of a company called
> Völkische Bernkraft-Gesellschaft, for instance? No? They made my
> computer monitor (hint: it's a MultiSync XE17)
It strikes me as odd on several levels to translate "Nippon" as
"völkisch".
- Sebastian
--
Americans might be amused that some Germans are outraged because they
now pay $12.40 each time they visit the doctor.
(Chris Suellentrop)
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:30:27 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
>
>>>>How would you translate "Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald", if I may ask?
>>>>
>>> I don't, although some might say Bavarian National Forrest, just like
>>> anyone would say Yellowstone and drop the rest.
>>
>>But it's no solution to refuse to talk about national parks in Germany
>>at all.
>>
> What's your problem, Sebastian?
> You ask me how I would translate something.
> I am replying that I do not translate that one.
> Then you tell me that I refuse to talk.
Now, as you might be suspecting already, I didn't ask how you would
translate the word "Nationalpark" simply because I was interested, but
rather because I wanted to make a point :-) The point being that there
really is no English word that can fully replace "national" in this
case. Do you really think Americans can't talk about German national
parks without raising Nazi associations? I very much doubt that.
> For you, maybe I better say it thusly for you:
>
> I uebersetze Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald nicht, ich lasse es wie es
> ist!
And thereby you avoid Nazi connotations?!
René
> It strikes me as odd on several levels to translate "Nippon" as
> "völkisch".
Possible brainfart here: I was thinking of the Ainu, whose name means
"people". Or possibly of "deutsch", stemming from "tiusk", meaning
"Volk". "Nippon" is not the Jap word for "humans"?
Sebastian Koppehel
> Sebastian Koppehel wrote:
>> It strikes me as odd on several levels to translate "Nippon" as
>> "völkisch".
>
> Possible brainfart here: I was thinking of the Ainu, whose name means
> "people". Or possibly of "deutsch", stemming from "tiusk", meaning
> "Volk". "Nippon" is not the Jap word for "humans"?
No, it means - you guessed it - "Japan". Etymology-wise, it has
something to do with "the origin of the sun" which is why Japan is
sometimes called the land of the rising sun.
Oliver Cromm
> Or have you ever heard of a company called
> Völkische Bernkraft-Gesellschaft, for instance? No? They made my
> computer monitor (hint: it's a MultiSync XE17)
That should be "Völkischer Electricitäts-Betrieb" (VEB).
Oliver C.
Peter Dy
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:42:06 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
> >
> >Now, as you might be suspecting already, I didn't ask how you would
> >translate the word "Nationalpark" simply because I was interested, but
> >rather because I wanted to make a point :-) The point being that there
> >really is no English word that can fully replace "national" in this
> >case.
Wieso? How is the German use of "national" in "Nationalpark" different from
the English, as in "Bryce Canyon National Park"?
Do you really think Americans can't talk about German national
> >parks without raising Nazi associations? I very much doubt that.
>
> Oh, so sorry, I didn't realize that you think Bavarian and German is
> synonymous to an American.
> >
> >And thereby you avoid Nazi connotations?!
> >
> Funny as it is, that connotation doesn't seem to exist with Bavarians,
> Austrians or any of the other ethnic German groups.
What the...? Are you an idiot?
He could have chosen any other German use of "national". In Weimar, there's
the "Deutsches Nationaltheater". In Mannheim, there's a "Nationaltheater".
There's the "Nationalmannschaft" in soccer. There's the "Germanisches
Nationalmuseum" in Nürnberg. (Yes, I know Nürnberg is in the state of
Bavaria, but it's actually Franconian. Or does Franconia also escape the
Nazi connotations like Bavaria does?)
All the above uses of "national" can be found in the United States as well:
We have "National Parks." There's the "National Theatre" in Washington, DC.
There's the "US National Team" in soccer. There's the "National Museum of
Natural History" in Washington, DC.
You are paranoid if you think Americans associate the words "national" and
"German" with the Nazis.
And quite frankly, as René suggests, you are arrogant in believing that
English-speakers somehow can't handle the word "Reich". Give me a break.
Peter
Wayne Brown
news:lpc7c.26773$_j7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
[...]
> You are paranoid if you think Americans associate the words "national" and
> "German" with the Nazis.
>
> And quite frankly, as René suggests, you are arrogant in believing that
> English-speakers somehow can't handle the word "Reich". Give me a break.
There's another thread in this news group with the heading "Lieben heißt to
love," which started on the theme that a word in English often can't just be
bashed into German, and vice versa, without the baggage that both words
carry in their own cultures. If ever a word fitted that category, then it's
"national". Those who are interested in German usage will definitely want to
learn how the word is used in the German language in Germany today. For
some, an explanation would certainly be an unusual introduction to German
culture.
The contributors to the "Deutsche Reichsbahn" thread have all made valid
points, as far as I can tell. It's definitely not my intention to stir up
the waters any more than they already are, but for the sake of fairness I
would like to mention my perceptions, as humble as they are, of the words
"national" and "Reich" in German and US-American cultures.
"National" is a very positive word in US-American culture, totally lacking
the negative connotations the word carries in German. US-Americans, I
believe, would need a series of thoughtful explanations before being able to
understand fully how certain use of that word -- and not in
"Nationaltheater" -- is extremely negative in modern German.
"Reich," in my humble opinion, is a word that carries an highly negative
connotation in American English. That was very clear in former times in
negative commentaries in US media that the railways in the German Democratic
Republic were called "Deutsche Reichsbahn." It was also underscored in
reporting in US media that the German parliament after reunification planned
to move into the "Reichstag." Anyone who doubts that need only search in US
newspaper archives.
I believe that Germans who have lived in the United States and have had met
US-Americans in all parts of the country and in all walks of life will have
their reasons for sensitivity over the use of the word "Reich" in English.
Regards, ----- WB.
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:42:06 +0100, ba...@bastisoft.de (Sebastian
> Koppehel) , wrote:
>>
>>Now, as you might be suspecting already, I didn't ask how you would
>>translate the word "Nationalpark" simply because I was interested, but
>>rather because I wanted to make a point :-) The point being that there
>>really is no English word that can fully replace "national" in this
>>case. Do you really think Americans can't talk about German national
>>parks without raising Nazi associations? I very much doubt that.
>
> Oh, so sorry, I didn't realize that you think Bavarian and German is
> synonymous to an American.
And if this astounding realization had hit you earlier, what would the
result have been?
(Better examples, if the Bavarianness of the forest is relevant, might
have been Nationalpark Boddenlandschaft, Hochharz, Eifel, Wattenmeer,
Kalkalpen, Hohe Tauern, Berchtesgaden ... not all of these are in
Germany, but all are in the Großdeutsche Reich :-))
>>And thereby you avoid Nazi connotations?!
>>
> Funny as it is, that connotation doesn't seem to exist with Bavarians,
> Austrians or any of the other ethnic German groups.
Don't take it personally, but I'm still not convinced it exists at all.
Oliver Cromm
> There's the "US National Team" in soccer.
Although nobody knows that.
;-)
Oliver
Peter Dy
"Wayne Brown" <Wayne...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:c3kcu5$f8m$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> "Peter Dy" <pet...@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:lpc7c.26773$_j7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
[...]
> believe, would need a series of thoughtful explanations before being able
to
> understand fully how certain use of that word -- and not in
> "Nationaltheater" -- is extremely negative in modern German.
Uh, aren't you gonna enlighten us? I can see how "die Nation" and
"National" might be used negatively, but not in the proper nouns I gave.
> "Reich," in my humble opinion, is a word that carries an highly negative
> connotation in American English. That was very clear in former times in
> negative commentaries in US media that the railways in the German
Democratic
> Republic were called "Deutsche Reichsbahn." It was also underscored in
> reporting in US media that the German parliament after reunification
planned
> to move into the "Reichstag." Anyone who doubts that need only search in
US
> newspaper archives.
I don't remember much of a stir. In any case, just yesterday I read a book
review in the New York Times (from Wednesday), where the reviewer throws out
"Reich" quite casually: "The Reich created by Otto von Bismarck in 1871
appeared to have a rule of law as well as a democratic parliament." I think
educated readers of that paper are quite able to understand that word
without negative connotations clinging to it. It certainly can be used in a
highly negative way, but if we are talking about historical facts, I don't
think so.
> I believe that Germans who have lived in the United States and have had
met
> US-Americans in all parts of the country and in all walks of life will
have
> their reasons for sensitivity over the use of the word "Reich" in English.
But eventually, the potato farmer is gonna ask: "Gee, what does that R stand
for on that East German train?" I don't think he'll be very convinced with
"national" or "state".
Peter
Peter Dy
"Oliver Cromm" <c1...@er.uqam.ca> wrote in message
news:1fq2fi53...@ocromm.my-fqdn.de...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 08:31:13 GMT, Peter Dy wrote:
>
> > There's the "US National Team" in soccer.
>
> Although nobody knows that.
The Mexicans certainly didn't. I was on a plane for Mexico while the US was
playing them in the last World Cup. It was easy to figure out what the
outcome was once I landed--they were not a happy bunch. ;)
Peter
Oliver Cromm
> True, for some Americans
> merely mentioning anything German makes them think of Nazis, but there's
> little that can be done about them.
Why, we could endorse the new name "Doych" for the country mistakenly
called "Germany" in English. The English are _Germanen_ too, after all.
And when "Doych" picks up negative connotations, we go on with "Allmen",
and then ...
Oliver C.
Joachim Pense
>
> No, it means - you guessed it - "Japan". Etymology-wise, it has
> something to do with "the origin of the sun" which is why Japan is
> sometimes called the land of the rising sun.
"Has something to do" - well, it is the regular composite of the
Chinese-originated words Nichi (sun) and Hon (root), so that is exactly
what it means.
Joachim
hu-mi yu
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:39:57 +0100, Wayne Brown wrote:
> "National" is a very positive word in US-American culture, totally lacking
> the negative connotations the word carries in German. US-Americans, I
> believe, would need a series of thoughtful explanations before being able
> to understand fully how certain use of that word -- and not in
> "Nationaltheater" -- is extremely negative in modern German.
>
> "Reich," in my humble opinion, is a word that carries an highly negative
> connotation in American English. That was very clear in former times in
> negative commentaries in US media that the railways in the German
> Democratic Republic were called "Deutsche Reichsbahn." It was also
> underscored in reporting in US media that the German parliament after
> reunification planned to move into the "Reichstag." Anyone who doubts that
> need only search in US newspaper archives.
I agree. National is the right American English word here.
We have a National Football league, a National Baskeball
Association, National Semiconductor, and historically supported
"nationalists" in China.
But in British English
they often use royal in this sense. For example
Canadians have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for
the national police force. Royal Railways won't work
because it is a tongue twister. In context of
Germany, imperial might be the best word.
"German Imperial Railways" is not wrong; you probably have
developed an americanized ear. Imperial has a nice
sound to it, and it is no doubt better for tourism.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAXrHakCXxu5aE9BwRAhzFAJ9YKebZxs7ExoHyQzaO3lO5urQofQCfd7fQ
dES8li/awdIz0mIpQCiteU8=
=jgQS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
andy
<mcbob...@attglobal.net> wrote
[
>I agree. National is the right American English word here.
>We have a National Football league, a National Baskeball
>Association, National Semiconductor, and historically supported
>"nationalists" in China.
>
>But in British English
>they often use royal in this sense.
No we don't. In GB, some things are Royal, because they once belonged to
or were done by the monarch, or now have her/him as Patron. Others are
National because they cover the entire country.
For example, Royal Parks (surrounding palaces), Royal Ascot (the Queen
loves horse racing), Royal Dee-side (where her Scottish home is)
But National Coal Board, Nationwide Building Society, National Parks
(chunks of mountains etc).
Agreed, there is the Royal National Lifeboat Association (Queen is
Patron, covers the country).
I leave it as an exercise for the student to speculate why we have a
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but a National
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
andy
<c1...@er.uqam.ca> wrote
>andy wrote:
>
>> I leave it as an exercise for the student to speculate why we have
>> a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but a
>> National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
>
>shorter in English than in German" - compare the above to "[Deutscher]
>Tierschutzbund/Kinderschutzbund".
>
>By the way, the "Kinderschutzbund" was founded in 1953, but the
>"Tierschutzbund" already in 1883. Might a similar history play a role
>in the choice of English adjective above?
>
RSPCA - 1824
NSPCC - 1884
hu-mi yu
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:21:40 +0000, andy wrote:
>>But in British English
>>they often use royal in this sense.
>
> No we don't. In GB, some things are Royal, because they once belonged to
> or were done by the monarch, or now have her/him as Patron.
My word. All those years the Royal Navy ruled the seas,
and now they are reduced to the Queen's bodyguard.
> Others are
> National because they cover the entire country.
Great Britain is not a country.
> I leave it as an exercise for the student to speculate why we have a Royal
> Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but a National Society
> for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
On the *island* of Great Britain, national usually refers
to something belonging to *one* of the *united* *kingdoms*.
So there may be one NSPCC in England, another in Ulster,
a third in Scotland and a fourth in Wales. Things which
refer to all of the United Kingdom typically use the word
royal or united. So there could only be one RSPCA in
all of Britain.
*Royal* also sometimes refers to *national*
institutions in former colonies that have devolved to the local
citizens but retain some connection to the crown, such as
the RCMP.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAYRuOkCXxu5aE9BwRArtAAJsFhm9mSGRl/SNaRJBP5TJ3yEzgCQCfVOqP
JWTlzeg4YQyzQ46eaNx3Mn8=
=/kB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
>
> *Royal* also sometimes refers to *national*
> institutions in former colonies that have devolved to the local
> citizens but retain some connection to the crown, such as
> the RCMP.
>
which start with the words "Royal Irish" or "Royal Hibernian" even
though the Republic of Ireland retains no ties with the British Crown
(having severed all connections in 1949) - examples of this are the
Royal Irish Academy (an organisation similar to the British Royal
Academy) http://www.ria.ie/, the Royal Irish Academy of Music
http://www.riam.ie/ (whose exams I did as a kid) and the Royal Hibernian
Academy http://www.royalhibernianacademy.com/.
There is also the Royal Dublin Society http://www.rds.ie/ (which among
other things organised the well-known Dublin Horse Show).
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
andy
<mcbob...@attglobal.net> wrote
>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:21:40 +0000, andy wrote:
>
>
>>>But in British English
>>>they often use royal in this sense.
>>
>> No we don't. In GB, some things are Royal, because they once belonged to
>> or were done by the monarch, or now have her/him as Patron.
>
> My word. All those years the Royal Navy ruled the seas,
> and now they are reduced to the Queen's bodyguard.
The Royal Navy originally belonged to the Monarch, but following some
unpleasantness at the time of Charles I is now part of the Armed Forces
of the Crown. These take action (as for example in Iraq) under the
direction of the Prime Minister, exercising the Royal Prerogative.
>
>> Others are
>> National because they cover the entire country.
>
> Great Britain is not a country.
>
>> I leave it as an exercise for the student to speculate why we have a Royal
>> Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but a National Society
>> for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
>
> On the *island* of Great Britain, national usually refers
> to something belonging to *one* of the *united* *kingdoms*.
> So there may be one NSPCC in England, another in Ulster,
> a third in Scotland and a fourth in Wales. Things which
> refer to all of the United Kingdom typically use the word
> royal or united. So there could only be one RSPCA in
> all of Britain.
>
> *Royal* also sometimes refers to *national*
> institutions in former colonies that have devolved to the local
> citizens but retain some connection to the crown, such as
> the RCMP.
>
>
The RSPCA covers England and Wales only; separate (non-Royal) societies
cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. See
<URL:http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/AboutTheRSP
CA/AboutTheRSPCA>
The NSPCC covers England and Wales and Northern Ireland; the Scottish
National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children deals with
Scotland. See http://www.children1st.org.uk/about/history.html
May I suggest that this discussion on the British Constitution,
entertaining and/or incomprehensible though it may be to mainland-Europe
readers, has reached the stage of being off-topic in a threat titled
Deutsche Reichsbahn in a group devoted to the better use of German.
René
> discussion on the British Constitution,
The what now?
Einde O'Callaghan
> andy wrote:
>
>>discussion on the British Constitution,
>
>
> The what now?
>
us who have lived in Britain may know Britain actually does have a
constitution (you can even study it for A levels) but it's unwritten.
Anyway as he also says, this is getting a bit too OT for this newsgroup.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
hu-mi yu
> This isn't strictly true. There are a number of institutions in Ireland
> which start with the words "Royal Irish" or "Royal Hibernian" even though
> the Republic of Ireland retains no ties with the British Crown (having
> severed all connections in 1949) - examples of this are the Royal Irish
> Academy (an organisation similar to the British Royal Academy)
So the usage applies even when the connection is purely historical,
as is the case with the "Imperial Railroad."
Peter Dy
"hu-mi yu" <mcbob...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.25....@attglobal.net...
Didn't you just say you think it should be called "National Railroad"??
Peter
Einde O'Callaghan
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
hu-mi yu
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:08:12 +0000, Peter Dy wrote:
> Didn't you just say you think it should be called "National Railroad"??
My opinion is that "National Railroad" is best in American
dialects, but "Imperial Railroad" is better in British
English. What I attempted to point out above is that
*national* is always positive in America, but it has
a particular or even separatist flavour (Am: flavor)
in Britain.
The choice is at the discretion of the translator;
it depends on context, audience and so on. If it is
a tourism web site, "Imperial" might be better. It sounds
more exotic to Americans. "National" sounds like modern
state supported transportation.
Mr. O'Callaghan's post reminded me that "federal" is another
word that could be used to emphasize that the central
government chartered the railroad. It carries the
same meaning in Britain as it does in America, and it
dispenses with any notion of an emperor. However the
standard German translation of federal would be Bund,
as in Bundesrepublik. If the railroad was begun in
1952 instead of 1922 it possibly would have been
called the "Deutsche Bundesbahn."
Wait a minute. There are DB trains all over Germany.
Perhaps the DB *was* organized in the 1950s?
There are probably half a dozen ways of rendering
"Deutche Reichsbahn." If it is for business purposes it
would be best not to translate too freely. You could leave
it in German, or inquire for an English name that they use.
You wouldn't want people boarding the wrong trains, would
you?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAY21skCXxu5aE9BwRArxSAJ9nzpaE7WSmMHbAhsVIlJ9BH5xqQwCeOiTs
ief5xNCHGRwIQG7qbIMHPJI=
=W8P0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----