Talk:Volker Braun

Latest comment: 13 years ago by 85.158.45.224 in topic Translation Doubts

the beer man?

edit

i changed the line to what it should mean: that braun took part in teh discussions about writer WOLF BIERMANN's expatriation (who bacame since then, imho, a self-important prick who should not be taken so serious by my contemporaries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.126.224.27 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply


Translation Doubts

edit
  • Die Akteure bewegen sich resigniert in einem unbeweglichen Umfeld.  ⇔  I don't know
  • Die weiteren, während der Existenz der DDR entstandenen Werke geben das Bild eines zunehmend deprimierenden Lebens wieder.  ⇔  I don't know
  • Wir und nicht sie  ⇔  Could be either "We und not she" or "We and not you"
  • Das Wirklichgewollte  ⇔  The Real Artifical

With the translation it may could possibly be elevated from stub. Gunnahtank (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

"wir und nicht sie" means "we and not them" ("we and not you" would be marked by capital "S" in "sie", "we and not she" is unlikely because the title refers to the opposition of "us" and "them") there are many mistakes in this article, especially in the translated titles of braun's works. my english, however, is not satisfactory for the task —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.55.24 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wir und nicht sie (1970) from Braun is a pun on another poem Sie, und nicht wir from Klopstock dated from 1790. (Note the similar numbers!) In his poem Klopstock laments that while the French obtained liberty with their revolution nothing had changed in Germany. For Klopstock Sie refers to the French and Wir to the Germans while Braun refers to West and East Germans respectively. The only meaningful translation IMHO is We and not them. I will go on and correct the main article. --88.6.87.21 (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Translation in general is dreadful and in many places doesn't make sense. I suspect Google Translate or comparable. Too much to mark line by line but just generally not very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.45.224 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply