Alle Sprachen    |   EN   SV   IS   RU   RO   FR   IT   PT   NL   HU   SK   LA   FI   ES   BG   HR   NO   CS   DA   TR   PL   EO   SR   EL   |   SK   FR   HU   PL   NL   SQ   RU   IS   ES   SV   NO   FI   IT   CS   DA   PT   HR   BG   RO   |   more ...


Online-Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch: Begriff hier eingeben!
  Optionen | Tipps | FAQ | Abkürzungen

Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
 Could you proofread this text? »

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 11:14  like dislike  Spam?  
Der Widerspruch ist kostenlos und kann formfrei erfolgen
I find "formfrei" quite hard to translate, so if we can find a solution that can go in the dict, that would be great.
Things that can be "formfrei" sometimes seem to have to be sent to an email address or a postal address, so I'm guessing it can't mean "by any mode of communication". I think it probably means that there is no specific wording required. Can anyone confirm this and can anyone think of a good way of expressing "formfrei" in English?
What about with any wording ?
If I'm wrong about the means of communication, then how about:
by any means (of communication) ?
Also, does formfrei differ at all from formlos?
same as "formlos" - informal(iy), without any formal requirement  #907018
von RedRufus (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 12:15  like dislike  Spam?  
oder:  can be filed by simple objection
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 14:10  like dislike  Spam?  
Thanks, RedRufus. Unfortunately I don't think any of those is clear in English, but in case that's just me, I'll ask the other native English speakers on this forum
4;native English speakers, how do you understand "informally" and "without any formal requirement"? I understand "informally" to mean "without formality"/"in a relaxed and friendly or casual way". I'm assuming this isn't the intended messaged behind formfrei/formlos.
"without any formal requirement" has a similar problem for me, but conveys a less clear (and therefore in its favour, probably less misleading) message. I think it may mean "something you are formally required to do" to me. I suspect it's intended to mean "without any requirement as to form", but that phrase only gets 3 Google hits, so clearly isn't in frequent use.
Does anyone understand what "can be filed by simple objection" conveys? Would you know how to object if you saw that written there or would you just be thinking "why have they used the word 'simple'?"
I suspect that this may be partly a cultural problem, as I struggle to imagine what the opposite of formlos/formfrei is
von timfefe (AU/AT), 2019-04-02, 14:37  like dislike  Spam?  
"Der Widerspruch ist kostenlos und kann formfrei erfolgen, möglichst an: datenschutz4;"
The/Your objection is free of charge and can be sent/submitted to us on datenschutz4; No specific wording or format is required. Oder: There are no formal requirements as to wording or format.
von Windfall (GB), 2019-04-02, 14:40  like dislike  Spam?  
Thanks, Timfefe. How do you understand "formal requirements"? What's the difference between "There are no formal requirements as to wording or format" and "There are no requirements as to wording or format"?
Btw, as ever, that's not my text. This is simply a word that comes up in translations and makes me wish there were a go-to translation I could be sure of and makes me think it would be a good entry for the dict.
the opposite of formlos/formfrei - förmlich  #907024
von RedRufus (DE), 2019-04-02, 14:50  like dislike  Spam?  
förmlich  -  es ist eine Form vorgeschrieben, z.B. Ausfüllen eines bestimmten Formulars, vor einem Notar,  schriftlich, mit x Kopien,....
formfrei, formlos  -  es ist keine Form vorgeschrieben, es kommt nur darauf an, dass die Willenserklärung dem Empfänger zugeht, z.B. telefonisch, schriftlich, zur Niederschrift, per Email, ...
von timfefe (AU/AT), 2019-04-02, 14:52  like dislike  Spam?  
I see "formal requirements" as requirements that are stipulated in a formal document. Now that you have asked me about it, I'd like to revise my suggestion from "There are no formal requirements as to wording or format" to "There are no specific requirements as to wording or format".

I think it sometimes happens that a word in one language does not have an equivalent in another, and a whole sentence or phrase needs to be formulated in order to convey the correct message. This could be one of those cases.
von Windfall (GB), 2019-04-02, 15:10  like dislike  Spam?  
4;Timfefe, yes, I agree, there is no one-word equivalent. This comes up sufficiently often in translations that a phrase that is equivalent or at least a description would be useful in the dict, as Linguee suggests it's currently being translated in a way that's difficult for English speakers to understand.
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 15:24  like dislike  Spam?  
4;RedRufus, thanks. That's really helpful, although definitely not something we can easily express in English, as I don't think we have a word that covers either förmlich or formfrei/formlos in those senses. What I'm getting from this is that it's not exactly about the wording or the mode of coummunication, although mode of communication is definitely covered. I think Timfefe's onto something with their use of the word "specific". I get the impression that "förmlich" is a requirement something be submitted in a specific way (I think this phrase covers in writing, notarised etc.). I think "in a specific form" might potentially work, but could also be misleading, as the tendency might be to assume "form" meant "Formular".
So, the opposite of this, I guess, is in any manner, e.g.:
Der Widerspruch ist kostenlos und kann formfrei erfolgen
The objection can be made free of charge and in any manner.
What do you think?
yes, "in any manner / way" should cover it  #907028
von RedRufus (DE), 2019-04-02, 15:24  like dislike  Spam?  
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 15:30  like dislike  Spam?  
Thanks, RedRufus.
4;Timfefe, dictionary entries strike me as something you're very knowledgeable about. Assuming you agree with "in any manner" or "in any way", can you think of anyway of disambiguating that so that it's restricted to the meaning of "formnlos"/"formfrei"? e.g. in any manner [the form in which communication can occur]
von timfefe (AU/AT), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 16:12  like dislike  Spam?  
Thank you.

Making an objection "in any manner" seems to me a bit too "loose". Mit ausgestrecktem Mittelfinger auch? (I'm exaggerating in order to illustrate the point)

Formlos disambiguation suggestions:
> Not subject to specific or formal requirements.
> Not encumbered by any restrictions (this would be useful in a legal context, where some text may be subject to copyright restrictions or an NDA).
> Not subject to any conditions as to content or format.
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 16:32  like dislike  Spam?  
4;Timfefe, I don't think "formal requirements" is helpful here. I think it's a false friend that leads to incorrect conclusions.
I can understand why you're looking for something more complicated, but actually if you read privacy policies (like the one that this particular example of "formfrei" came from and a key text type in which I've been finding "formfrei/formlos recently), in British English they are usually written very clear, simple language and tend to avoid legalese. Two key points are important in translation: the translation should be as clear as possible to the target audience and it should be in a register appropriate to the target audience. While I agree with you that on its own without context "in any manner" does not express "formfrei", with appropriate context I think it does (although more opinions on this would be welcome). That's why I feel like it needs disambiguation if it goes in the dict, but is still potentially an appropriate entry. Here are some sentences that translate "Der Widerspruch ist kostenlos und kann formfrei erfolgen" based on your suggestions. Have a look at them and see if the message of how you can make the objection would be clear to you without having read this thread (and then imagine that you are someone who struggled at school and left at the age of 18 and think about whether you'd still understand it, as privacy policies have a target audience of everyone who uses the Internet, which definitely includes people who struggled at school):
The objection can be made free of charge and is not subject to specific or formal requirements
The objection can be made free of charge and  is not encumbered by any restrictions
The objection can be made free of charge and is not subject to any conditions as to content or format
Actually, re-reading those, ignoring the somewhat problematic way in which it works with "kann", I rather like that last one. Perhaps without any conditions as to content or format
von timfefe (AU/AT), 2019-04-02, 16:43  like dislike  Spam?  
Yep, "without any conditions as to content or format" sounds good.
Some readers would interpret "in any manner" as relating to the means of communications (telephone, email, etc.) rather than to the content.
von Windfall (GB), 2019-04-02, 16:47  like dislike  Spam?  
I got the impression from RedRufus's description of förmlich that "formfrei" includes any form of communication, but I think that's covered by "förmlich". I'll wait a bit before I stick without any conditions as to content or format in the dict, as sometimes when you leave these posts a bit, people have more useful comments to make
without ANY conditions as to CONTENT ?  #907036
von RedRufus (DE), 2019-04-02, 17:16  like dislike  Spam?  
the content surely must include words to the effect that somebody disagrees with, doesn't want something, contradicts sth. or similar ?
von Windfall (GB), 2019-04-02, 17:21  like dislike  Spam?  
4;RedRufus, for me the "any" doesn't make the lack of conditions any stronger. Would you prefer: "without any conditions as to wording or format" or just "without any conditions as to format "? And do we need to add anything else that there aren't any conditions on? To be honest, if this were written in English first, there probably wouldn't be any phrase there, but translations typically require a translation for every phrase or a lengthy explanation to the client as to why you didn't.
I suspect this may be an example of was nicht erlaubt ist ist verboten vs. was nicht verboten ist ist erlaubt.
I feel if you tell sb. to use everyday's language you shouldn't us legalese yourself  #907038
von RedRufus (DE), 2019-04-02, 17:36  like dislike  Spam?  
Der Widerspruch ist kostenlos und kann formfrei erfolgen  -  If you object to anything just let us know. It doesn't cost anything
von Windfall (GB), 2019-04-02, 17:41  like dislike  Spam?  
It's not quite what it says in German, unfortunately. Although that register is used in some British privacy policies, there's no sign that this privacy policy is using a German equivalent of this register. I do use "let us know" in plenty of my translations, but it doesn't seem appropriate here.
Your suggestion also doesn't express "formfrei". It's going to give the proofreader a headache and will probably not impress the client, whilst not adding significant clarity for the target audience.
Or was that a rhetorical question?
formfrei/Formfreiheit ist nicht gleich formlos // förmlich immer als "förmliche Zustellung", förmliches Verfahren", "f. Beanstandung" etc.  #907040
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 18:21  like dislike  Spam?  
"Mit Formfreiheit bezeichnet man den Grundsatz, dass Rechtsgeschäfte in keiner bestimmten Form abgeschlossen werden müssen, wie z.B. schriftlich oder vor einem Notar. Es genügt ein formfreier mündlicher oder konkludenter Abschluss.

Beispiel: Die zwischen Freunden auf dem Fußballplatz in der Spielpause per Handschlag getroffene Vereinbarung eines Autokaufs ist rechtlich wirksam und bindend.

Manche Rechtsgeschäfte bedürfen aber einer bestimmten Form, diese wird vom Gesetz in Formvorschriften angeordnet."

"Von formlos, z.B. formlosen Antrag, spricht man, wenn an die Form eines Aktes keine Anforderungen gestellt werden. Wenn etwas formlos erfolgen kann, muss es weder bestimmte Angaben enthalten noch in Schriftform erfolgen, es muss nur erkennbar sein, was bezweckt wird. Dabei kann die Formlosigkeit auch beschränkt werden, z.B. ein formloser schriftlicher Antrag."
PS konkludent,  #907041
von hausamsee (DE), 2019-04-02, 18:18  like dislike  Spam?  
"Von einer konkludenten Willenserklärung wird gesprochen, wenn die Willenserklärung nicht ausdrücklich, sondern durch schlüssiges Verhalten abgegeben wird. Die konkludente Willenserklärung wird aus den Handlungen des Erklärenden abgeleitet.

Beispiel: Durch das Einsteigen in eine Straßenbahn gibt man konkludent eine Willenserklärung ab, mit der das vom Verkehrsunternehmen durch Bereitstellung der Straßenbahn konkludent abgegebene Angebot einer Beförderung gegen Entgelt angenommen wird."
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 18:45  like dislike  Spam?  
Thanks, hausamsee.
It sounds like " [without any specific conditions as to content or form beyond those specified]" might be a good match for formlos, but not formfrei (I've added the "specific" to overcome RedRufus's legitimate objection to saying there are no conditions at all, because you do need to include your objection and I've changed "format" to "form" because I don't think it can be misunderstood as "Formular" here). Do people agree with that translation? Or have I got them muddled up, as they still sound awfully similar to me, making it hard to translate without those full definitions
That leaves formfrei. I wonder if that might either be "without any specific conditions as to content or form " or "without any specific conditions as to form", as the Formfreiheit definition doesn't seem to mention content.
In case it helps, here are my (fallible) translations of the lexeakt defintions:
"Formfreiheit" describes the principle that legal transactions need not be concluded in any particular form, e.g. in writing or in front of a notary". "Formfrei" verbal conclusion or implied conclusion is sufficient.

We call something "formlos", e.g. a formlos application if no requirements are made for the form of a ?record/file?. If something can be done in a formlos way, no specific information needs to be included nor does it need to be in writing, only what is intended needs to be identifiable. However, Formlosigkeit can also be restricted, e.g. a formlos written application.
Liebe Leute, ihr macht euch viel zu viele Gedanken ...  #907043
von RedRufus (DE), 2019-04-02, 18:32  like dislike  Spam?  
... es geht hier doch nicht darum, einen ausgefeilten gerichtsfesten Text zu formulieren, sondern darum, den Leuten die Scheu vor einem Widerspruch zu nehmen. Das geht am besten in einfacher und verständlicher Sprache
von hausamsee (DE), 2019-04-02, 18:42  like dislike  Spam?  
4; Windfall: Sorry, ich habe meinen Kommentar geändert. Jetzt (18:21) steht im ersten Absatz das vollständige Zitat. Du hast unten meine einleitenden Worte mit übersetzt. Also entspricht Deine Übersetzung nicht mehr dem "Original". (Nur zur Sicherheit, damit keine Missverständnisse entstehen.)
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-02, 18:52  like dislike  Spam?  
4;hausamsee, I've edited my version to match now. I really don't want to include anything about implied conclusion of contracts in translations of "formfrei", given that this can be used when there's no talk of contracts (at least I don't if there's only one entry for it), what do you think of
formfrei - without any specific conditions as to form
formlos [without any specific conditions as to content or form beyond any conditions specified in the context]
Or do you see the difference as greater than that?
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-03, 19:10  like dislike  Spam?  
ich bin jetzt eine Zeit lang AFK. Auch müsste ich über die Übersetzungen ins Englische zuerst gründlich nachdenken und die verschiedenen Versionen durchlesen ... Bei juristischen Texten ist es allgemein von nicht geringer Wichtigkeit, die Logik zu verstehen.

Z.B. ist bei "formlos" von Akten die Rede (an deren Form keine Ansprüche gestellt werden), während es beim Prinzip der Formfreiheit um Rechtsgeschäfte geht. Bei "formlos" stellt sich die Frage nach dem "content" also vermutlich weniger hinsichtlich der Form, sondern dergestalt, dass ohne content wahrscheinlich der entsprechende "Akt" gar nicht zustande kommt. Beim Prinzip der Formfreiheit genügt ein "konkludenter" oder "formfreier mündlicher" Abschluss. Der "formfreie" Abschluss ist jetzt wieder als "mündlicher" spezifiziert, während es beim konkludenten genügt, z.B. in die U-Bahn einzusteigen, damit der Vertrag mit der U-Bahn-Gesellschaft zustande kommt. Bei diesem zweiten Akt, dem Einsteigen, von einem "Inhalt" zu sprechen, wäre aber etwas gewagt. - Demgemäß ebenso wenig (edit:) sinnvoll von einem "formfreien" Akt (des Einsteigens).

In unserem Beispiel würden nach dieser Logik "formlos" wie "formfrei" auf dasselbe hinauslaufen bzw. das Letztere das Erstere implizieren. (D.h. der Aspekt des Konklusiven kann weggelassen werden.) Die 'performativen' Aspekte (der 'Akt' des Widersprehens usw.) der Ausgangssprache in die Zielsprache zu übersetzen, scheint oft nur schwer möglich. performativ: (Sprachw.) eine mit einer sprachlichen Äußerung beschriebene Handlung ("Akt") zugleich vollziehend (z. B. ich gratuliere dir ...). Sich diese Logik aber klarzumachen, wird es aber schließlich möglw. erlauben, umso prägnantere Übersetzungen zu erstellen.
a f k b e d e u t e t   „ a w a y   f r o m   k e y b o a r d“  #907047
von rkcba (DE), 2019-04-02, 21:12  like dislike  Spam?  
Die Abkürzung leicht erklärt. ...
Die Abkürzung „afk“ kommt aus dem Englischen und bedeutet „away from keyboard“.
Beim „keyboard“ handelt es sich nicht etwa um ein Klavier, sondern es ist Englisch für die Tastatur.
Ganz wörtlich übersetzt heißt afk also „weg von der Tastatur“.11.09.2017
In legal parlance, often without any form requirements  #907048
von Proteus-, 2019-04-02, 22:59  like dislike  Spam?  62.116.61...
Google: "without any 'form' requirements" site:uk
Google: "without any 'form' requirements"
Cf. 5. Simple contracts - forms

   'Some' simple contracts are required to be in writing, eg land contracts. It is important to check whether there are any 'form' requirements to your particular simple contract before you enter into it.
formal letter/ non-formal letter  #907049
von tessy99, 2019-04-02, 23:35  like dislike  Spam?  37.201.117....
A formal letter is by tradition or culture a formulated structured way to express informations comparable but unlike a formular. The difference to a formular is that in the formal letter the sentances are worded in full.
Every single information has it's specific place. The letter can be filled over the whole page. (or more)
It has a dry, respectful, non-emotional tonus. It is mostly used with courts, lawyers, institutions, may be also with landlords and employers ( e.g. application)...
It has a generally cpecific form of formulation, for that it is formal.

The non-formal letter also has a respectful form like the address of the sender, the address of the receiver, the place and date, the subject line, salutation.
But then the body/main text can be just one or two sentences.
The signature is also important. This letter is much shorter and easier for the writer to use. The formulation can be more in a tone like a writer would speak:

"No great demands are made on the contents of the letter of objection. It is only important that it becomes unmistakably clear that the person concerned does not agree with the decision. He does not necessarily have to use the word contradiction. And even if he uses terms such as protest, objection, appeal or complaint, there is no disadvantage for him. Such terms may describe something other than an opposition, but the authority will interpret the letter correctly."

...wich does not mean that the writer gets uncontrollably sloppy in choosing his words...

-so, in other words, the "formlose/formfreie" letter does not mean it does not have any form, but it's form is giving more leeway...or in other words, the expression of the content is having more leeway...

I hope it helps a little.
von Windfall (GB), 2019-04-03, 09:12  like dislike  Spam?  
Thanks, Proteus.
Thanks, tessy. There are a lot of false friends between English and German in this area, so I struggled a little to work out what you were trying to say.
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-03, 19:44  like dislike  Spam?  
4; Windfall. Beforehand: I´m quite sure that "Akt" in the definition of "formlos" is simply "act" (or action?) and that it´s not to be confused with translations of "Akte" (?record/file?).

I agree that the "implied conclusion" needs not to be included. (Your comment yesterday, 18:52) Very simple: the adjective "konkludent" has another meaning than "formfrei". "konkludent" is governed by the principle of "Formfreiheit". Both adjectives, "formfrei" & "konkludent", describe sorts of actions that lead to something legally binding or at least "meaningful" in a legal sense. In the case of legal transactions, these actions are described as "Willenserklärung". It´s an interesting philosophical question if an action can lack any "form", but it seems to be evident in the first case that it does not make much sense that an action described in terms of "behavior" (implied conclusion) should be "free of form" in any sense. The principle of "Formfreiheit" seems to amount to something like a "freedom of choice" of the form of legal transaction.

Now, I can´t imagine any context where the adjective "formfrei" would describe any sort of action that wouldt not result in something potentially (legally) "meaningful", e.g. to ring up the competent authorities, writing a letter, to show up and holding a speech; or the "products" of that, i.e. the letter or phone call or the speech themselves, that suffice to have legal consequences. So, some gibberish, a letter in a bottle, explaining your complaint at length to your cat would not suffice. What I´m trying to say: for both cases (formfrei, formlos) some "content" (Gehalt) is afforded as to have what I´ve called "consequences". What is described as 1.) "formlos" or 2.) "formfrei" must contain something (have the "Gehalt") that can be identified as 1.) the "aim" (es muss nur erkennbar sein, was bezweckt wird) or - because the principle of "Formfreiheit" is applied to legal transactions - 2.) a "Willenserklärung" (intention). But this can be tricky. What must be identifiable as your "aim" or serve as (the declaration of) your intention could theoretically be considered as "formal", i.e. as having the "form" of a (meaningful) message (implied conclusion left aside). But obviously "form" in this sense doesn´t matter here. As long as you act (see "Akt" in 1.)) this way, both aspects that one could consider (theoretically) as "content" or "form" are considered as given or included in your very performance. They are not separable anymore. Given your aim or the intention is identifiable, your performance has already succeeded.

That´s why I would be very cautious to use the term "content". [without any specific conditions as to content or form beyond those specified] - This must be misleading because it´s up to you to make clear the "content": What is your aim, what is your intention? If you leave that open you will not succeed. (I guess you can add "Jesus loves you" or something of that kind, but that that will be considered as meaningless gibberish.) In both cases specific conditions can be made as to the form. "formlos" - "e.g. a formlos written application" (your translation). "formfrei" - "Manche Rechtsgeschäfte bedürfen aber einer bestimmten Form, diese wird vom Gesetz in Formvorschriften (Link) angeordnet."

In the end, if you don´t like to explain the principle of "Formfreiheit" (in the context of legal transactions) but give an explanation/translation of the adjective "formfrei" as in "verbal conclusion", both function quite similar. In practice, they even seem to be used interchangeably. The ladies on the phone always only asked me to send a "formlose Erklärung/ Antrag/ ..." even when technically it possibly should have been something "formfrei". I guess simply because they didn´t want to confuse me.  - So, here I agree with RedRufus! ;-)
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-03, 19:31  like dislike  Spam?  
Right, so what we seem to have is two words in German, formfrei and formlos, that possibly mean slightly different things, and neither of which has an equivalent that is in use by native English speakers, because we assume that the way you make an objection/agreement etc. is up to you unless specified otherwise. Most native German speakers who have answered can reach no agreement that I can see as to what these terms literally mean, you just have a feeling for roughly what they mean and to be certain that all suggestions so far as to how to express them in English are wrong. Proteus has offered "without any form requirements", which is certainly uncommon in English. Although, given that this term rarely seems to be used in English beyond in translations from German, this is not necessarily a problem. It is slightly more of a problem that I think people who aren't used to legal language probably won't understand this, but sometimes something is better than nothing. I am now wondering about "without any requirement as to form" as a possibly more comprehensible way of expressing both formfrei and formlos, as I am yet to understand a difference that tells me that this can only apply to one of these, and if so, which one.
It looks to me that we will not reach an agreement on an entry to the dict and that any way I express these (with the possible exception of "without any form requirements" - although presumably there are some of you who would only consider that to cover formlos or formfrei, but not both), someone will have and objection as to why this is incorrect and I should have said something else. Does that about sum up the situation we've reached so far?
Who considers "without form requirements" a good match for either "formlos" or "formfrei" or both? (4;Proteus, I'm already assuming you like it, I'm now trying to see if consensus can be reached on anything at all, but I'm afraid that whatever its merits in other situation, "simple contract" won't do at all when the context of "formfrei" or formlos is making an objection)
word-by-word or verbatim, functional translation  #907103
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-04, 20:11  like dislike  Spam?  
my abilities are limited, but when I retranslate the two versions the outcomes are more or less the same. A word-by-word-translation of "without form requirements" would read "ohne Formanforderungen" or "ohne Anforderungen an die Form". "without any requirement as to form" would read "ohne jede Anforderungen die Form betreffend". No difference. I cannot judge the English as such but I don´t see why a verbatim translation shouldn't work for these definitions. I don´t have the impression that anything is missing or is lost in your translations (formfrei):

" transactions need not be concluded in any particular form, e.g. in writing or in front of a notary." Der Unterschied zu "Formlosigkeit" ist, dass  "keine Anforderungen daran gestellt werden, in welcher Form Rechtgeschäfte abgeschlossen werden". (This is my retranslation of my unprofessional attempt in English including 'requirements': "no requirements are made as to which form in particular".)

Ein Teil des Problem ist, dass es selbst oder gerade für Deutsche ziemlich schwer ist, "formlos", "formfrei" zu verstehen oder einem oder einer Deutschen zu erklären. Der typische Deutsche hat Angst vor der Freiheit, gerät in Panik und ist völlig verloren, wenn er, ganz auf sich gestellt, seinen Punkt klarmachen soll, ohne dabei irgendwelchen Anforderungen, die von den Autoritäten an ihn gestellt werden, gerecht werden zu müssen. Um ihm klarzumachen, dass er das darf, sind diese juristischen Fachbegriffe erfunden worden.
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-05, 09:57  like dislike  Spam?  
There is fundamentally no difference in meaning between "without form requirements" and "without any requirements as to form", it's just for me, "without any requirements as to form" seems slightly easier for non-lawyers to understand. If I have understood you correctly, then you are happy with the translations:
without form requirements = formlos
without any requirements as to (its) form = formlos
I'm still struggling to see the difference with "formfrei", but if I've understood you correctly, then it's
without any requirements as to the specific form = formfrei
I'm slightly uncomfortable with this, as I barely see a difference from adding "the specific", but then I barely see a difference between formfrei and formlos, so perhaps that's not wrong.
von hausamsee (DE), 2019-04-04, 21:10  like dislike  Spam?  
ah, I have to think about it.

But today, I think I´m too tired to think any longer about logical structures of any source (or target) languages or produce something reasonable. Interesting ... good night!
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-05, 20:20  like dislike  Spam?  
I think we agree that there is fundamentally no difference in meaning between the def. of 'formlos'.

But 4; "without any requirements as to the specific form = formfrei" my answer is "yes and no". I guess not by chance you choose "specific form" (instead of "in particular" in your translation) in the context (with "requirements as to"). To be precise, requirements can only be made as to the choice when 'legal transactions need not be concluded in any particular form'. (I have to apologize, I half intentionally used a kind of misconstruction and the German version only hides it a little better). The principle of Formfreiheit applies to legal transactions where there is a kind of "freedom of choice" witch kind of form you agree upon with your partner to choose for to be concluded. e.g. in writing or in front of a notary or a handshake. So the adjective "formfrei" in "'formfrei" verbal conclusion" seems to refer to both, that you´ve decided freely for e.g. a verbal conclusion and the inner structure of this legal act (Rechtsakt), although it seems to have at least some kind of structure (form).

When it says (def. of "formlos") that "no requirements are made for the form of a legal act" (an "Akt" seems to be in this context a "Rechtsakt") it seems to be clear to me that it is assumed that we are talking of some sort of legal act, eg. a formlos application, and indeed the definition uses an example for the task of defining. It can be an objection, an application and so on. Having said that, I have to add that here lies the crux of the matter. In Germany , we have the so-called "Vertragsfreiheit" which implies the principle of "Formfreiheitt". Formfreiheit ist applied to legal transactions; and (in the non-public sphere) we have to do witch legal acts under private law that aim at legal transactions. So in the relevant cases here, this principle is part of the private law. It describes an aspect of "Vertragsfreiheit".

On the other hand, the definition of "formlos" is talking of "Form eines Aktes", i.e. of legal acts in general. Now we don´t only have legal acts under private law but also "behördliche Rechtsakte" = official (regulatory, governmental, administrative) acts and, of course, it perfectly makes sense that requirements can be made to the form of a legal act 'under regulatory law' and therefore the negation "without any requirements". And typical cases are of that kind: applications, objection, etc.

What is puzzling here is that "formlos" applies to both: to what I would call the "outside form" or let me call it "kind" of form, for the legal act (the application) does not need to be in writing, and to the "inner" form, for "no specific information needs to be included" (your translation).

So, the uses of these three words, Akt (legal act), Rechtsgeschäft (legal transaction) and Anforderung (requirement) imply or reflect two different logical structures that have to do with different kinds of legal acts.

Although "formlos" seems to apply to legal acts in general and therefore include those under private law and because cases, where legal transactions take place outside private law, are supposedly cases for professionals anyway, I think we can say: in general, "fromfrei" applies to plublic law and "formlos applies to official law.

One last remark: it may be a question of principle which approach we choose for legal translation in dict: a more systematic or more pragmatic approach where the reader in the first case needs to understand what he or she has to do in the real world. In this case, I would find it preferable to indicate that that's what the translation/explanation is aiming at.
without any requirements as to (its) form  #907145
von Windfall (GB), Last modified: 2019-04-06, 11:28  like dislike  Spam?  
4;hausamsee, I chose "specific" because it seemed to be what you were trying to express with "in particular". However, having now read your latest comment, I think that what you're saying is that formfrei and formlos should be used in different contexts in German, but this difference need not be expressed in English as it relates to points of German law and therefore we have no words for it. Therefore, partly because the difference can't be expressed without an essay, there is no real need for either translation to differ from the other.
In a translation where we are trying to inform people what they need to do in the real world (and that is the certainly the case for privacy policies, as they are intended to be read and understood by normal people, not by lawyers, and in fact, even in contracts, you could argue that what people need to understand from the translation is the real-world impact, as it is unlikely that most non-German speaking lawyers will be aware of the finer points of German law), then without any requirements as to (its) form is a good translation for both formlos and formfrei. "As to" here simply means regarding/hinsichtlich.
For instance, I could translate "Der Widerspruch ist kostenlos und kann formfrei erfolgen" as "The objection can be made free of charge and there are no requirements as to its form".
ah There we are!  #907155
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-06, 18:08  like dislike  Spam?  
4; Windfall Thanks!
Great, a lengthy essay in clumsy English of a non-native speaker results in "as to (it´s) form"!  ;-)

(some remarks) For legal translation, one has to keep in mind that the source language (German legal text) has a very sophisticated logical structure. So, it´s no surprise that some words have no English equivalents. To explain or to understand the meaning of the two expressions one has to do it related to or within the special (logical) structure of the given language of law. Especially the language of German law is a kind of artificial language. In some sense, one can say that their functioning in such a context is their meaning. So, for a translation one has to find ways to describe structures in the target language with the same function as in the source language because to understand the meaning of an expression is at least to some extent to understand the function of a given logical structure.

I didn´t attempt to show that they should be used in different contexts; what I tried to show is that the German law has these two expressions merely for systematic reasons. I think one has to be cautious because sometimes this can be crucial. Here, "in contact" with the real world, one and the same translation can serve for both because in ordinary contexts they are funcioning more or less the same way.

this I found quite interesting:
Wikipedia(EN): Legal_translation
niggling again ...     hausamsee (DE), Last modified: yesterday, 20:20    #907167
von rkcba (DE), 2019-04-06, 22:26  like dislike  Spam?  
--- witch kind of form you agree upon  >      ... WHICH ...
Es ist wie verhext: Die Frage ist oft: "Which of the two is the witch?"
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-07, 02:02  like dislike  Spam?  
4; rkcba,  ja, mach dich nur lustig über mich ... aber klar, danke dafür! – Manchmal ist es eine wahre Hexenjagd. Was immer nicht gesehen wird: die Sprache des deutschen Rechts ist, was so wenige verstehen, in Wahrheit eine kristallklare Kathedrale logisch ziemlich eindeutiger Beziehungen, die allerdings - zugegeben - nur innerhalb derselben dergestalt unzweideutig funktionieren. Hier mit einem natürlich-sprachlichen Approach vorzugehen, um Nicht-Muttersprachlern - oder selbst der großen Mehrheit der Muttersprachler - das deutsche Recht zu erklären, kann nur nach hinten losgehen. Das ist ein nicht geringes Problem. Aber natürlich bleibe ich auf immer dem Ethos von dict verpflichtet, dass ich mich immer und zu jeder Zeit korrigieren und belehren lasse.
Ich wollte mich keineswegs lustig machen über Dich!  #907210
von rkcba (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-07, 23:31  like dislike  Spam?  
Ich habe mich schon oft in diesem Forum als den king of typos bezeichnet.
Das kann doch jedem passieren.
Aber auf ein kleines Wortspielchen konnte ich einfach nicht verzichten.
Und das, obwohl ich weiß:
                                               A  p u n   i s   t h e   l o w e s t   f o r m   o f   w i t.
von hausamsee (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-09, 00:04  like dislike  Spam?  
klar, schon verstanden. Ich mache es mir allerdings bei meiner Lektüre englischer Texte so einfach wie möglich: Es geht mir immer nur um die prinzipielle Übersetzbarkeit von Texten. Will sagen, ich lese fast ausschließlich englische philosophische Texte; was das Englisch angeht, genügt meist das Verständnis einiger weniger Fachtermini, um deren Abhängigkeit voneinander oder die logischen Beziehungen zueinander und damit die logische Struktur philosophischer Texte zu verstehen. Wenn die Formulierung eines philosophischen Problems sich als unübersetzbar erweist, stellt sich die Frage, ob wirklich existiert. Aus diesem Grunde lese ich fast ausschließlich Texte zu Heidegger oder Hegel auf englisch. Einzelne Ausdrücke mögen sich zwar als unübersetzbar erweisen, wenn aber sich das deutsche Rechtssystem als unübersetzbar erweisen sollte, würde das den Verdacht nahelegen, dass es bedeutungslos=meaningless sei, was ich nicht hoffe. Um also einzelne Ausdrücke des deutschen Rechtssystem zu verstehen, ist es erforderlich, sie innerhalb der Logik dieses Systems zu verstehen. Weil ich glaube, dass das deutsche Recht nicht bedeutungslos ist (=meaningless), glaube ich auch, dass es sich auf Englisch erklären lässt. Auf diesem Gebiet sind aber meine Fähigkeiten ziemlich limitiert. Um eben diese logischen Strukturen ging es mir hier.  Ich mag aber die englische Sprache. Im vollen Bewusstsein ihrer sprachlichen Unebolfenheit lange Kommentare auf Englisch zu schreiben, ist also nicht nur der reine Spaß. Wenn es  nun bloß ein kleiner typo  wäre, was ich nicht glaube, wäre ich ziemlich zufrieden. (es was übrigens kein typo, sondern ich habe das in vollem Bewusstsein und tatsächlich so intendiert so hingeschrieben, mit einem komischen Gefühl zwar, aber in voller Absicht! Ich bedanke mich also für diese Korrektur hiermit in aller Form.)
Philosophie       Englischkenntnisse      Recht.  #907292
von rkcba (DE), Last modified: 2019-04-09, 23:07  like dislike  Spam?  
Liebe(r) hausamsee,
Ich hab' mir gerade Dein Profil angesehen.
You are  w a y   t o o   m o d e s t ! Bei Englisch verdienst du auf jeden Fall drei, wenn nicht vier Sterne.
Ich habe neun Jahre lang Englisch in der Schule gelernt, dann Englisch studiert und schließlich über dreißig Jahre Englisch unterrichtet.
Du ahnst gar nicht, wie oft ich nach Worten suche und wie oft ich bei Formulierungen meiner Sache unsicher bin. Ich habe mich mit dieser Tatsaache (zähneknirschend) abgefunden - es kommt einfach davon, dass ich in meinem ganzen Leben nur knapp über drei Monate in GB verbracht habe und
leider nicht zweisprachig aufgewachsen bin.
Deine Interessen sind ja sehr weit gestreut. Ich finde es großartig, dass Du philosophische Texte auf Englisch liest. Das erinnert mich daran, dass ich bei meiner Vorbereitung auf das Philosophikum
manche Kapitel aus Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft auf Englisch gelesen habe, weil ich die Übersetzung besser verstand als das Original.

Ich kann Dir nur sagen, stell Dein Licht nicht unter den Scheffel.
                                                 M O R E   P O W E R   T O   Y O U R   E L B O W !

Optional: Login | Registrieren 
  Frage beantworten oder Kommentar hinzufügen
Please log in to post an answer to this thread - or post a new question.
nach oben | home© 2002 - 2020 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum / Datenschutz
Dieses Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr dazu
Enthält Übersetzungen von der TU Chemnitz sowie aus Mr Honey's Business Dictionary (Englisch/Deutsch). Vielen Dank dafür!
Links auf dieses Wörterbuch oder einzelne Übersetzungen sind herzlich willkommen! Fragen und Antworten