Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-068"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030311.5.2-068"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-11-Speech-2-0692
lpv:speaker	lp:Willi Piecyk2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the committee agreed overwhelmingly on the need to restrict self-handling to ships' crew. Now, though, we have the problem that these expressions are used very differently in the various translations, not only the German, but also the English and French versions. As I see it, knowing that the basis must be the German text, the most correct and tidy translation is the English one, which refers to ‘regular seafaring crew’, enabling Parliament to make it abundantly clear that we are not talking about what is done on land, but only about what can be done by the ship's crew, using their own equipment, and nothing more. That is why I would like this made clear by the language used in the translations. ‘Seafaring crew’ and ‘ ’ would have the additional advantage over the expression used in the German version, in that ‘seemännische’ in German still has a very masculine ring to it, whilst ‘ ’ and ‘seafaring crew’ could be said to be gender-neutral, which would have an advantage in terms of gender mainstreaming."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Loud applause)"1 "Schiffsbesatzung"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph