Translators - Translator Resources
ProZ.com global directory of translation services
 The translation workplace

German: eng gesetzt

English translation: restricted / restrictive / confined / narrow







KudoZ
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators... More



GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
German term or phrase:eng gesetzt
English translation:restricted / restrictive / confined / narrow
Entered by:Deborah Shannon
Options:
- Contribute to this entry

2:02pm Jan 28, 2004Login or register (free) for more options.
German to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - International Org/Dev/Coop / South Africa, politics
German term or phrase: eng gesetzt
Der verfassungsmäßige Rahmen für den Landreformprozeß in Südafrika ist * eng gesetzt.* Gleichwohl hat sich die Regierung zu weitreichenden Reformen verpflichtet: (and then a series of reforms).

I'm not quite sure what point is being made about the constitutional framework here (especially as elsewhere in the text the new constitution is applauded).
Deborah Shannon
United Kingdom
Limited/restricted in scope
Explanation:
Rural Development Programme (RDP)

It is important to note that the RDP was completed after the *interim constitution was written* and put its plans for land reform *within the confines* of the provisions on land contained within the constitution. Not surprisingly, the RDP did not go far beyond listing a lot of good intentions and wishes. It did not address difficult issues of how to avoid or deal with the consequences of disrupting existing commercial agriculture or the resistance to fundamental change that was bound to come from landowners and from international business interests. The intentions set out in the RDP would, had they been decisively acted on, have gone someway to bringing about a fundamental transformation of property relations.

The few intimations in the RDP of anything outside a narrow free-market ideology, such as statements like “increasing the public sector in strategic areas through, for example, nationalisation,” were soon vanquished from future economic policies and statements. The clause already revealed an uncertainty as it *fell short* of saying that there would be widespread nationalisation as part of building a strong state capable of driving economic transformation. Nationalisation, became a “for example” and is quickly followed by talk of purchasing shares in companies and joint ventures with the private sector. Talk of democratising the economy and involving workers in decisions about the economy have in practice *never gone beyond rhetoric.*

The constitution of South Africa[14] was a result of and a key part of the negotiated settlement that ended Apartheid. Section 25 that deals with land rights was hotly debated. The resulting compromise set the political direction for the handling of land reform and set the legal parameters within which land reform has to be dealt with. The sentiment, expressed in the preamble, “that South Africa belongs to all who live in it,” finds no place in the property clause. The constitution recognises existing property rights in sections 25(1) and in section 25(2) allows for expropriation only “for a public purpose or in the public interest” and with compensation being paid.

These sections oblige the state to deal with aspects of land reform while also recognising current property rights. Thus *the constitution is a constraint* to the changing property relations in as far as it protects existing property rights, requires compensation to be paid for land to be used for land reform and does not establish clear rights to property for all South Africans or even for those who work the land. On the other hand the constitution does create an obligation on the state to have land reform and leaves space for far reaching reforms if the state is willing and able to make available sufficient finances and to implement a programme that can make the most of the land reform possibilities within the constraints.
Selected response from:

Kim Metzger
Mexico
Note from asker to answerer
Very grateful for everybody's input
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +5is narrow
SwissTell
4 +3...is narrowly defined
gangels
4 +1narrow / restrictive
ntext
4 +1restricted
Andrew Read
4Limited/restricted in scope
Kim Metzger
4detailed
R. A. Stegemann


  

Answers

3 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +5
is narrow

Explanation:
the constitutional framework ... is rather confined

SwissTell
United States
Native speaker of: Native in GermanGerman
PRO pts in category: 4

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree ingo_h
5 mins

agree Mag. Sabine Senn
9 mins

agree Andrew Read: "rather narrow" sounds good; not "narrowly defined" in this context, IMO.
50 mins

agree Brandis: could be also set narrow or narrowly set.
2 hrs

agree kalimeh
3 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)


4 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
narrow / restrictive

Explanation:
meaning: does not allow for much leeway, does not leave much room for interpretation — something like that

ntext
United States
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in GermanGerman
PRO pts in category: 12

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree ingo_h
4 mins
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)


16 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
detailed

Explanation:
In the sense that there is little room for argument.

R. A. Stegemann
United States
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)


32 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +3
...is narrowly defined

Explanation:
xxx

gangels
United States
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in GermanGerman

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree Robert Schlarb: yes, or " the constitutional limits are narrowly defined"
32 mins

agree Trudy Peters
2 hrs

agree Robert Kleemaier
6 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)


55 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
restricted

Explanation:
Another option:

The constitutional measures available are somewhat restricted:...

Andrew Read
United Kingdom
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 4

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree Ingo Dierkschnieder: or limited
43 mins
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)


3 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
Limited/restricted in scope

Explanation:
Rural Development Programme (RDP)

It is important to note that the RDP was completed after the *interim constitution was written* and put its plans for land reform *within the confines* of the provisions on land contained within the constitution. Not surprisingly, the RDP did not go far beyond listing a lot of good intentions and wishes. It did not address difficult issues of how to avoid or deal with the consequences of disrupting existing commercial agriculture or the resistance to fundamental change that was bound to come from landowners and from international business interests. The intentions set out in the RDP would, had they been decisively acted on, have gone someway to bringing about a fundamental transformation of property relations.

The few intimations in the RDP of anything outside a narrow free-market ideology, such as statements like “increasing the public sector in strategic areas through, for example, nationalisation,” were soon vanquished from future economic policies and statements. The clause already revealed an uncertainty as it *fell short* of saying that there would be widespread nationalisation as part of building a strong state capable of driving economic transformation. Nationalisation, became a “for example” and is quickly followed by talk of purchasing shares in companies and joint ventures with the private sector. Talk of democratising the economy and involving workers in decisions about the economy have in practice *never gone beyond rhetoric.*

The constitution of South Africa[14] was a result of and a key part of the negotiated settlement that ended Apartheid. Section 25 that deals with land rights was hotly debated. The resulting compromise set the political direction for the handling of land reform and set the legal parameters within which land reform has to be dealt with. The sentiment, expressed in the preamble, “that South Africa belongs to all who live in it,” finds no place in the property clause. The constitution recognises existing property rights in sections 25(1) and in section 25(2) allows for expropriation only “for a public purpose or in the public interest” and with compensation being paid.

These sections oblige the state to deal with aspects of land reform while also recognising current property rights. Thus *the constitution is a constraint* to the changing property relations in as far as it protects existing property rights, requires compensation to be paid for land to be used for land reform and does not establish clear rights to property for all South Africans or even for those who work the land. On the other hand the constitution does create an obligation on the state to have land reform and leaves space for far reaching reforms if the state is willing and able to make available sufficient finances and to implement a programme that can make the most of the land reform possibilities within the constraints.



    Reference: http://www.nkuzi.org.za/land_reform.htm
Kim Metzger
Mexico
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 8
Note from asker to answerer
Very grateful for everybody's input
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)





Return to KudoZ list