23 Comments
Is this "frei" as in "free" or "for free?" As a German sentence this makes little sense, but in regard to the English phrase the translation seems wrong. "Freiheit ist nicht umsonst" makes more sense to me.
Totally agree! But I hope this sentence is something like Freedom should be free (kostenlos).... ;)
105
It's more like "freedom has to be paid for" or " "freedom cannot be bestowed — it must be achieved", which is really how things are in this world.
Yes, I hear you. But really, people should not pay for freedom. We should be free. That is what I meant, even the reality is not...unfortunately.
The german sentence is also strange. Its grammatical, but its seems like nonsense for me, but when its a Person that is called "Freiheit" and this one is not "free" (like hes in prison). Then it wouldnt make sense to translate the name, because hes either called Freiheit or Freedom in both languages.
"frei" bedeutet nicht "kostenlos" oder "umsonst", wogegen das Englische "free" kann das bedeuten
- 595
Aber hier würde man definitiv "umsonst" verwenden. "kostenlos" bezieht sich nur auf Geld, "frei" hat nur selten diese Bedeutung (MortiBiRD schreibt oben, wie man diesen Satz im Deutschen verstünde) und "umsonst" heißt allgemein "für nichts", "ohne Gegenleistung". Das kann sich auf Geld beziehen, muss es aber nicht und passt daher in diesem Satz am besten.
- 687
For a minute there I thought Duo was channeling Laibach:
"Die Wahrheit ist für die Lügner Und Freiheit die Sklaverei Das Geld ist für die Armen Und es ist Lüge reich zu sein" Laibach: Achtung, WAT (2003)
I thought this was meant in a philosophical way. One man's freedom ends where another one's freedom begins. Freedom is an illusion. You know, that kinda talk.
- 375
A mistake such as this hasn't been corrected in a year? Wow. Credibility ebbing away. . .
- 595
"kostenlos" means that you do not have to pay money for something. But this sentence is not about this. It even has an article on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_isn%27t_free
