10:22 Oct 25, 2011 

Hi all! Thanks for all of your helpful comments. I am quite familiar with land-use change as a result of my work in the climate change sector, but I was unwilling to simply use that as the translation as the source did not actually say that. The agency has been flagged, so hopefully theyll bring it up with the author.

10:04 Oct 25, 2011 

You do have a point there, Lynda. I have it visually and was also a bit distracted by that view...... Very strictly taken you cannot do more than just translate it literally than, so without 'scape'.
It may be less satisfactory for you, but than again; we all together did what we could, to get you on the right track. Nothing or nobody was saved there... ;-)
I wish you success with your translation and a fine day!

09:56 Oct 25, 2011 

I wanted to point out that the ST does not say landscape or land use: it only says "land". However, the context is not angled primarily towards landscape - which is an aesthetic entity or geographical attribute - but primarily towards land use (which does, in turn, affect landscape)... because this is what changes when you stop growing food crops and start planting biomass crops.

09:44 Oct 25, 2011 

I read it like this: the context makes it clear, so it does not have to be specifically part of the term used here, but we're looking for a term that fits as close as possible to the subject within the total context.
It probably was not the intention of the writer to put it all in that term. The second part of the sentence explains it a bit more, and we have not read the rest of the story. He will undoubtedly have a lot more to say about this issue.
A good story has a structure and builds up piece by piece.

09:35 Oct 25, 2011 

The integrity of the translator obliges him to point out possible mistakes to the client (which might arise from poor writing skills or just carelessness). "Change of landscape" may be formally correct but is missing the point in this particular context, as Lynda has pointed out once again (please re-read the last sentence of her discussion entry). And any translation is a new story "re-created" (i.e. re-written, not necessarily rewritten) by the translator, no matter how close it stays to the original.

@ Lisa: I'd ask the client about the "Landänderungen". I maintain that the German term is incorrect - there is related evidence of "Landnutzungsänderungen" all over the place on the Internet.

09:28 Oct 25, 2011 

Exactly Lynda, that is what I mean.
A correct translation really is "change of landscape": it says what it is, no more, no less.....

09:20 Oct 25, 2011 

What you are saying here literally, is that you think that the writer did a bad job, and that we should be the ones to improve his story.
Well, it does not matter to me what other information you find: it's just not appropriate. We could also search for the definition of 'Translator' to see what our task really is, but I feel we could have an endless debate on that, which is not my intention.

The integrity of the translator obliges him to stick as close as possible to the original instead of creating his own version of the story.

09:18 Oct 25, 2011 

I am not in a position to comment on the choice of SL term, but I see a need to find a TL term for what translates literally as "land changes" or "changes to the land". "Changes to the land" in itself does not tell the reader anything - these changes could cover a multitude of options (e.g. climate-related processes, geological processes etc. etc.). However, in the context of food production and energy from biomass, it is clear that the text is referring to land use changes.

09:10 Oct 25, 2011 

... when searching for the incorrect "Landänderungen" combined with "Lebensmittelanbau", the only hit is this KudoZ question. Telling, isn't it?

09:09 Oct 25, 2011 

The text speaks of "Landänderungen" simply because the author used an incorrect word, and we do not need additional context to be sure: just search the Internet for "Landnutzungsänderungen" in combination with "Lebensmittelanbau", and you will see that these two terms are closely interrelated. See, for example, http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/klima/nachrichten/artikel/pf... ("Das Problem sind die indirekten Landnutzungsänderungen: Pflanzen für Agrosprit verdrängen den Lebensmittelanbau in unberührte Gebiete wie den indonesischen Regenwald. In den Nachhaltigkeitsstandards der EU spielen sie keine Rolle."). "Land-use changes" is thus no "free interpretation" but exactly the term needed here. On a related note, translation is all about interpretation, and slavishly replicating mistakes made by the author of the source is an absolute no-go.

09:02 Oct 25, 2011 

I agree that the change of landscape has everything to do with the change of use. However, that aspect is referred to in the following part of the sentence "auf Kosten von Lebensmittelanbau".
We do not have the total context, nor are we the writers of the original: our task is to translate. Following that logic I would not approve the free interpretation given here.
The text speaks literally of "Landänderung", meaning "Änderung in der Landschaft", and that is what should be translated. The imagination may take us far beyond that, but any translator's additional information or interpretation does not belong in the translation to my opinon.

08:24 Oct 25, 2011 

In this context, the correct term is "Landnutzungsänderungen". See, for example, http://bit.ly/sl7i6V ("Freigesetzte Emissionen aus indirekter Landnutzungsänderung (indirect land use change - iLUC) sollen laut Verordnung dabei berücksichtigt werden.") and http://www.nabu.de/themen/landwirtschaft/biomasse/13027.html