As far as I learned you need can quote word by word, showing changes like this:

Albert Einstein: "The Internet is a great invention."

Albert Einstein mentioned, that "[t]he Internet[sic] is a great invention." (Source)

OR you quote indirectly, like:

Albert Einstein is of the oppinion the internet is a great invention, as stated in the source.

But what if Albert Einstein, like the German that he was, spoke it in German? Would I be allowed to quote the translation word by word or would I have to paraphrase and do it the second way?

I was just curious becaus, especially in history in school, I saw a lot of English quotes translated into German, but still quoted as if they were spoken in German, which I was just curious if this is really allowed since school books should live up to those rules, shouldn't they?

closed as off-topic by Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jason Bassford, Chappo, JJJ, Chenmunka May 24 at 13:19

  • This question does not appear to be about English language and usage within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Einstein is often quoted as having said "spooky action at a distance." What he actually said is "spukhafte Fernwirkung." So people do it all the time. But you maybe should give the originals as well (maybe in footnotes) in academic journal articles. I don't see any point in paraphrasing if you give the original, too. – Peter Shor May 13 at 15:29
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it’s not about English as a language, but rather about the ethics of translating quotes (it may perhaps be a better fit for Philosophy, though it may be considered off-topic there as well). It also hinges on what ‘allowed’ means – allowed by whom? In academic writing, it is common to quote verbatim, regardless of language, but quoting Mao and Stalin in Mandarin and Russian, respectively, in a school book for children won’t be of much use. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 13 at 15:29
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Maybe it's a style selection by different English publications. Let the question last a bit. – Mitch May 13 at 15:35
  • 2
    They are at least three or four standard ways of handling translated quotes in papers. And no one allows or disallows it. It depends on which way one chooses to do it. I'm really sorry to disagree with others here but I most definitely think this is an ELU question as it concerns how to quote in English when there is a translation. A good answer here would list at least four possible solutions to this issue. There is not only a single one. How can this not be an English Language & Usage issue? It is very specialized, that yes. – Lambie May 13 at 16:35
  • 1
    The use of [sic] in the example is wrong. There is nothing that has been left uncorrected that's wrong. – Jason Bassford May 13 at 18:51

The exact treatment depends on the context. In general, it's acceptable, especially if it's obvious that the words are translated. However, there are cases where treating translated statements as if they were written in English is misleading. For instance, there are people who say that the Bible refers to bats as birds and whales as fish, even though the Bible was obviously was not written in English.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.