oui, j'avais retraduit du français dans lequel j'ai fait cette impasse car ça ne marche pas...

« une des dispositions plus étranges » ne va pas...
« une des dispositions plutôt étranges » passe, oui...

You're probably right, I neglected that. Changed.

"kidnaps" => "takes away"

>"kidnaps" => "takes away"

I disagree. Because we don't care what this law actually states, because we're only dealing with what it seems to imply. And it seems to imply that...otherwise, the whole sentence collapses...

I don't know what it seems to imply to you, but let me cite some of the keywords: "Wegnahme einer Person" (removal of a person), "Hat jemand eine Person herauszugeben" (If somebody is obliged to hand over a person), "Vollzugsbeamte" (enforcement officer), "herausgabepflichtig" (liable to surrender [the person]).

The only thing that could lead to any misinterpretation by a person not used to legalese German is the title of the paragraph "Verfahren bei der Wegnahme einer Person" ('Procedure for the removal of a person'). A German person not used to legalese German understands this to mean something like "Procedure if you take away a person". Reading the title the image of a kidnapping could cross the mind of our non-legalese German. But the actual text of the paragraph makes it very clear, that this has nothing to do with kidnapping at all.

The German sentence sucessfully walks on the thin line of ambiguity of the term "Wegnahme". But the English "kidnap" doesn't catch this at all. It needs to be "take away".

@slomox: You still insist on missing the most important part of this sentence, which is "seems to imply" (and which you just acknowledged...seemed to be implied, curiously...) and focus on a single word definition, missing the forest for the tree...http://blog.tatoeba.org/2010/02...eba.html#rule4
The fact that "wegnehmen" means anything is IRRELEVANT to the meaning of this sentence. It could as well mean "pink elephant", in my opinion...

>I don't know what it seems to imply to you, but let me cite some of the keywords: "Wegnahme einer Person" (removal of a person), "Hat jemand eine Person herauszugeben" (If somebody is obliged to hand over a person), "Vollzugsbeamte" (enforcement officer), "herausgabepflichtig" (liable to surrender [the person]).
>The only thing that could lead to any misinterpretation by a person not used to legalese German is the title of the paragraph "Verfahren bei der Wegnahme einer Person" ('Procedure for the removal of a person').


What you're citing here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this sentence...
Look again !!! These words you're quoting are just NOT IN THE TRANSLATED SENTENCE !
"Wegnahme"? Not there
"herauszugeben"? Not there
"Vollzugsbeamte" ? Not there
"herausgabepflichtig"? Not there
"Verfahren bei der Wegnahme einer Person"?? Not there either...

It's the first time I see somebody debating a sentence, referring to words that are just not there...It's amazing !
I just don't know what this legal text says, and I'M NOT IN THE LEAST INTERESTED, because...I'm translating this sentence here...and only THAT.

Get it now?

>I absolutely agree. "kidnap" is a complete misinterpretation and doesn't make any sense at all.

Misinterpretation of what? The text that is not there or the sentence I translate?
Did you read the German sentence (and NOT another text)?
Did you understand that it deals with a COMMENT on a legal text?
Did you read that it says that IT SEEMS TO IMPLY something?
If you reply YES to the 3 above questions, could you clarify what IT SEEMS TO IMPLY and if what IT SEEMS TO IMPLY is not a kidnapping, then what is the purpose of THIS sentence (and NOT the purpose of the Legal text it is mentioning and which is IRRELEVANT to the COMMENT on it)

>I’d also plead for ‘takes away’

To mean precisely what?
What does your sentence say that the 214 section SEEMS to imply, exactly?

But then, could you explain in detail what is the difference between what section 214 actually STATES and what it seems to imply, and what I understood as the very purpose of your sentence, please, because it means my French translation is also potentially wrong...

Also, I don't get why Slomox stated that there could be a slight misinterpretation of section 214 as dealing with a kidnapping...

But "unjustifiably taking away people" is PRECISELY what a kidnapping IS. Explain the difference, please...

To me, and by any standards, and since your sentence doesn't mention POLICE AT ALL, to forcefully remove a person from a place is called "enlever" a person in French and precisely translates into "kidnap" in English.

>‘Wegnehmen’ means ‘to take away’; when used with regard to a person here, it lets one, falsely, think of kidnapping

And that is precisely what my translation states. So the spirit of your German sentence is fully conveyed in my English translation, contrary to what slomox and arcticmonkey argue.
If I was to employ "take away", that false impression would entirely be lost, and then, the full meaning of the sentence would collapse.
Again, the "seems to imply" makes all the difference...

>Why doesn't the German sentence say "entführen" then? It clearly says "wegnehmen", which is not "to kidnap".

But, as the sentence's author CLEARLY explained, "wegnehmen" «lets one, falsely, think of kidnapping» (not my words), which "take away" wouldn't.

I am EXTREMELY surprised, that you, arcticmonkey, a corpus maintainer on Tatoeba, recommend a contributor like me to disrespect Tatoeba's rule number 4 which recommends to respect the meaning of the SENTENCE against a word for word translation, just because you're behaving like a word biggot that you are. Shame on you!

You're all wrong arcticmonkey, and you know it. You just got stuck in there for the sake of contradicting me, as usual. You're full of s..., here...

Grow up, arcticmonkey!

@Sacredceltic: Three native speakers of German now have told you that "kidnap" is the wrong word. You can explain this away by assuming that we are all "biggots". But wouldn't Ockham say that it is easier to assume that we maybe know what we are talking about?

You cling on the words «lets one, falsely, think of kidnapping».

Yes, "Wegnahme" or "wegnehmen" can prompt this notion (a remote notion). In exactly the same way as "to take away a person" prompts this notion to an English person. "kidnap" on the other hand doesn't "prompt the notion" but is an outright statement of fact.

"wegnehmen" does mean the same thing as "take away". It's not synonymous to "entführen". If a person is abducted newspapers will report that the person was "entführt" or "gekidnapt". They will _never_ say that the person was "weggenommen". That's not covered by the meaning of the word.

You can run away with your best friend's girlfriend. In that case you have "weggenommen" her from him.

§ 214 only "prompts the notion" of kidnapping because the reader is puzzled. "wegnehmen" sounds kinda pointless if you are talking about the state or enforcement officers. The state usually doesn't run away with your girlfriend. All the common meanings of the word fail to match the wording of the paragraph's title. Therefore the reader's mind tries to apply more metaphoric and non-standard applications of the word "wegnehmen". That's where the notion of kidnapping comes in. It's just the swerving of the helpless mind of the reader that tries to make sense out of the odd wording.

The same seaching for meaning swerving mind effect is invoked by "take away", but not by "kidnap".

>@Sacredceltic: Three native speakers of German now have told you that "kidnap" is the wrong word.

I don't translate words and being a German doesn't make you particularly qualified to sense whether an English word conveys the genral meaning of a sentence or not, anyway.
What is this for a GROSS AND XENOPHOBIC argument?

>Yes, "Wegnahme" or "wegnehmen" can prompt this notion (a remote notion)

That is EXACTLY what my translation conveys. It's the only question. You just approved of my translation for the umpteenth time...

>"kidnap" on the other hand doesn't "prompt the notion" but is an outright statement of fact.

Again, you keep on missing the SEEMS TO IMPLY...the degree of reality of the fact is irrelevant, since what we're interested in, here is what it SEEMS TO IMPLY.
And IMPLY kidnapping IT SEEMS...as you JUST STATED YOURSELF!

>The state usually doesn't run away with your girlfriend.

The sentence neither refers to a girlfriend nor a state. You're just obsessed with this article of S-H Code, for some reason, because you're a bigot, but this sentence I'm translating has NOTHING TO DO with this Code, but MERELY WITH WHAT IT SEEMS TO IMPLY, according to...somebody...anybody...having ingested magic mushrooms, or whatever, maybe...
That is only THIS person's impression, which is the subject of this sentence, that I'm translating, AND NOTHING ELSE from your FANTASY WORLD OF GERMAN LEGAL BIGOTRY.

This syndrome that consists in adding context of your choice, that is NOT THERE, to a sentence
is just SICK. JUST STOP THAT!

>The same seaching for meaning swerving mind effect is invoked by "take away", but not by "kidnap".

No! The meaning would definitely be lost. And you perfectly know it...

Okay, I guess it's that time of the month again and I sense you are in "the mood", where talking to you becomes meaningless.

<Okay, I guess it's that time of the month again and I sense you are in "the mood", where talking to you becomes meaningless.

Yeah, in your case, it's all year-round.
If you continue translating words that are not there, I'm very pessimistic about the quality of your share of the Corpus. You're lucky nobody is able to correct your language, probably...We'll wait and see for the disaster to uncover...

the last comments are for private messages, thank you.

>If you continue translating words that are not there

In this case the only controversial word is "wegnimmt". For which the literal translation is "takes away". You insist on "kidnaps". It seems odd that _you_ say _I_ translate words that are not there.

>You're lucky nobody is able to correct your language

Before I even started contributing to Tatoeba there were already Low Saxon sentences by samueldora, kroko, xeklat and Hans07. Esperantostern has also shown knowledge of Low Saxon. If I was a hoax they should have busted me by now, don't you think? But thanks for the nice appreciation of my contributions.

>In this case the only controversial word is "wegnimmt". For which the literal translation is "takes away". You insist on "kidnaps". It seems odd that _you_ say _I_ translate words that are not there.

Again, I'm not translating words but sentences and their meaning. So leave me alone with your "take away".
You added context that is not there in your INTERPRETATION of the German sentence because you went reading the actual Article 214. I reject this practice. I translate the sentence "as is", without prejudice. We actually don't care a fig about that article.
This sentence could perfectly be said by a drunken guy to another in a bar, who only know Article 214 through hearsay...And that's how I read it.
http://tatoeba.org/fre/sentences/show/1085525

>If you substitute the ambiguous ‘to take away’ with the unambiguous ‘to kidnap’, then you change the P; the ‘seems to imply’ has nothing to do with that.

"take away" doesn't give any hint of kidnapping people...but "wegnehmen" does as you and then slomox admitted repeatedly!

To try to make you sense the difference in between "wegnehmen" and "take away", here is a question:

Can you "wegnehmen" somebody for dinner, in German?

>"take away" doesn't give any hint of kidnapping people...but
>"wegnehmen" does as you and then slomox admitted repeatedly!

You carry really strong opinions on the meaning of German words considering you have actually no fucking idea of their meaning. Here proof that "take away" can mean "kidnap" in English: http://articles.timesofindia.in...tal-jail-staff

Or here: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/...details/67865/

Apparently from the above links it seems as if the English word "take away" is much closer to "kidnap" than German "wegnehmen". A similar news report in German would not use the word "wegnehmen".

>Here proof that "take away" can mean "kidnap" in English

Well, then, if "take away" means "kidnap", why is it that you want make me to change it, you fool???

Anybody want to earn 10,000 Euro? Private message me. Codeword is "Mathilda".