Perhaps more context-specific than what you're looking for?

@hw: Dein Beispiel klingt so, als würde sich der Sprecher unaufgefordert etwas nehmen (z.B. ein Stück Kuchen), von dem er denkt, dass man es ihm zubilligt. Tatsächlich aber handelt es sich um eine (nach heutigem Geschmack geradezu albern konventionelle) Floskel, die man benutzt, wenn man sich etwas ausdrücklich Angebotenes nimmt.

"Ach bitte nehmen Sie sich doch noch ein Stückchen Torte!"
"Ja, danke, ich bin so frei."
[Könnte von Loriot sein.]

Dieses "frei" gibt es im Englischen übrigens auch in der Floskel: "Please feel free to call me anytime." Ich frage mich aber, ob man in Englisch wirklich sagen kann:

"Oh yes, thank you, I am so free" oder gar "... I feel so free." :-)

>>wenn man sich etwas ausdrücklich Angebotenes nimmt.

>>"Ach bitte nehmen Sie sich doch noch ein Stückchen Torte!"
>>"Ja, danke, ich bin so frei."

I think in this context, as an answer, we might also say, 'Thanks, don't mind if I do.' Meaning, 'I don't mind' in the sense of it doesn't bother me, though that's probably more BE than AE.

If it's supposed to be a joke to say it after you've already been offered something anyway, then I suppose 'Thanks, I'll just help myself' would still work, even though it's not all that typical in English.

Neither of the guesses with 'free' really works in this context, though, sorry.

@rbartlog: I don't normally correct spelling errors unasked, but if I may, since yours is in your proposed translation in boldface, it should really be

All right, I don't mind.

'Alright' is a very common misspelling, now apparently semi-acceptable in BE but still simply incorrect by most standards in AE.

if i may, i'll just help myself to some

have a piece of pie!
yes, thanks, if i may...

i think those are good. do they sound strange to anyone?

@hm us: I would say 'alright' is as incorrect in BE as AE. The way I was taught was that you would not write 'alwrong' either!

Dieses "Ich bin so frei" ist etwas sehr Altmodisches in meinen Ohren. Man hört es in kleineren Geschäften, wenn der Verkäufer nach Nennung des zu bezahlenden Betrages das Geld entgegennimmt. Es ist eine Floskel, die, so glaube ich, früher den Lehrlingen für diese Transaktion beigebracht wurde. Von älteren Leuten hört man es auch häufig, wenn ihnen etwas angeboten wird. Das gehörte früher zum Ritual des Nötigens. Der Gastgeber bietet an (Darf ich Ihnen xyz anbieten?), der Gast lehnt ab (Aber, nein, danke, das ist wirklcih nicht nötig. Vielen Dank!), der Gastgeber nötigt (Aber doch, bitte, machen sie mir die Freude) und schließlich nimmt der Gast mit einer solchen Formel an (Vielen Dank, ich bin so frei etc.). In Ostpreußen wurden Gastgeber nach der Intensität des Nötigens bewertet.

I don't mind - klingt für mich irgendwie viel zu wurschtig und nicht altmodisch-formelhaft genug. Was meinen die engl. Muttersprachler.

@hm -

google gives 14.6 million hits on "alright" - i'd say that's fairly well accepted. personally it would never have occurred to me that alright wasn't... alright.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Di... for websters' opinion on it...

but anyways, the suggestion of "alright, i don't mind" in this context is all wrong.

@hm and csm

Alright is not incorrect.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/alright

OALD considers it just "informal".

Alright?

Jeff's "yes, if I may" klingt für mich am besten. Genau das meint "ich bin so frei".

Alright (it hurts to write it this way!!), just call me old-fashioned ... :<

If it's either in a stiff, formal environment, or slightly ironic(al), I think that "I'm taking the liberty" would just do. Unfortunately alright is all right, and me being a purist.

Vielen Dank für die zahlreichen Vorschläge. Im Deutschen kann man den Satz "Ich bin so frei" auf zwei Weisen verstehen:
1. als Höflichkeits-Floskel (if I may)
2. als affirmative Freiheitsbekundung
Diese Doppeldeutigkeit schwingt bei "if I may" nicht mit.

Gibt es vielleicht eine englische Redewendung, die diese Doppeldeutigkeit einfängt?

Ich weiß, ich habe nur nach der ersten Bedeutung gefragt, aber ich wollte erst einmal die konventionelle Bedeutung wissen.

There is also a "lower" level of permission-asking, in which the person asking permission doesn't really think permission is required. It comes out in phrases like:

If you don't mind, I'll just...
If it's all the same to you, I'll just...
How about if I just...

I'm not sure if this would also be comparable to "ich bin so frei".

I wouldn't have come close to understanding this without Andreas's contribution.

If I have managed to, I think hm's "I don't mind if I do" is in fact a good possibility. It is actually quite enthusiastic, in a politely restrained way.
Some other possible similar, and even more genteel, replies to the offer: "Gladly", or "May I?"

@Alberto: Thanks for your support. Part of my job is to proofread technical manuals, and I was beginning to feel mortified ...

Ich glaube, daß mein Vorschlag auch die affirmative Freiheitsbehauptung mit einschließt. Wie im Dt.: ich nehme mir die Freiheit, zu ...

@Alberto & rbartlog: No, sorry, I have to disagree with M-W in this case (as in several others on which they're unduly liberal, that is, too descriptivist for my taste). Their aim as a dictionary is to explain to you the meaning of a word you may encounter, not to tell you whether or under what circumstances you ought to use it. For guidance on usage, ask any experienced editor or proofreader, or consult a good general guide such as Garner (p. 32) or Fowler/Burchfield (p. 43).

@Jeff: Google is useful for certain things, but spelling is emphatically not one of them -- just google up 'seperate' or 'definate' for more bad examples.

But I agree that 'I don't mind' isn't really a good translation here anyway, so in this case it's really a moot point. GeorgeA's suggestions are, as usual, all perfectly idiomatic and would also work as far as I can tell.

@Selima: Hmm. 'I don't mind' alone isn't quite right, but the second half of your description (the exchange between host and guest) does indeed sound exactly like 'I don't mind if I do,' which is a different phrase, rather dated, with a whiff of consciously polite bourgeois usage about it, perhaps not unlike crooking one's little finger when drinking a cup of tea.

But that wouldn't work for a shopkeeper accepting payment; that would simply be 'Thank you very much,' or if you wanted something a little more old-fashioned, maybe 'Thank you (very) kindly.'

@ Ferenczi
"I am taking the liberty..."
hört sich auch für mich am besten an. Ja ich denke auch, dass damit beide Bedeutungen am ehesten eingeschlossen sind.

@ hm -- us

I agree with you, that ALL RIGHT might be preferable in a formal context.
Maybe it's *nicer*.

Nevertheless, the fact that there are entries in M-W, OXFORD, CAMBRIDGE (and most likely in many other dictionaries as well) which do not question it's correctness, should be evidence enough, that ALRIGHT is not *wrong*...

@ferenczi - can you give the example using "i'm taking the liberty"? because the statement "i'm taking the liberty of having a piece of this pie"... that sounds a bit rude to me. "if i may take the liberty of having a piece..." however, retains the politeness.

"i am taking / i took the liberty" as a statement seems to me to be used for politeness in a situation of "i would have asked your permission, but you weren't there, so i just did it". "i took the liberty of sending your coat to the cleaners, since i spilled some ink on it". also in writing, since the reader isn't there to ask permission: "dear reader, i'm taking the liberty of writing you" for an unsolicited letter. but basically saying "i'm doing this without your permission" in the presence of someone, would perhaps be a bit rude i think.

also, although one might possibly say "i'm taking the liberty of helping myself to some pie", one would never say, "yes, thanks, i'll take the liberty", or any variation of that i can think of.

@Alberto: I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. Perhaps we just have incompatible premises. I could certainly understand that anyone who writes 'it's correctness' might simply have a different definition of 'wrong.' (-;

@hm -

alright then - i googled "seperate".

first thing google says is "don't you mean separate?" followed by the first result, "commonly misspelled words"... followed by 8 million hits. "separate" gives nearly 400 millions hits. pretty obvious which is correct. i would say google is quite useful for checking spelling, i use it all the time.

like it or not, the evolving english language in all its world-wide variations, is defined by common use, not by someone who writes a guidebook. i happen to believe that "alright" is a perfectly good word, and i have no problem using it in formal essays or published works. i don't know who Garner, Fowler, or Burchfield think they are, but i'll take James Joyce's word for it over theirs any day.

i believe your disagreement with Websters and the other major dictionaries puts your statement about what is correct firmly in the realm of "in your opinion".

anyways, i'm already altogether tired of alright...

@Jeff: You're certainly entitled to your opinion too. However, I'm equally happy to side with Garner and Burchfield against someone who writes 'anyways.' And while I admire Joyce's creative use of language, I wouldn't choose his style as a model for everyday English. Or e. e. cummings for that matter. (-;

FWIW
USAGE NOTE: The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling alright is first recorded toward the end of the 19th century (unlike other similar merged spellings such as altogether and already, which date from much earlier).
There is no logical reason for insisting that all right be two words when other single-word forms such as altogether have long been accepted.
Nevertheless, although found widely, "alright remains nonstandard".
The New Oxford American Dictionary

alright (adv.) Nonstandard
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2002


All right. See Usage Note at all right.

Usage Note: Despite the appearance of the form alright in works of such well-known writers as Langston Hughes and James Joyce, the single word spelling has never been accepted as standard. This is peculiar, since similar fusions such as already and altogether have never raised any objections. The difference may lie in the fact that already and altogether became single words back in the Middle Ages, whereas alright has only been around for a little more than a century and was called out by language critics as a misspelling. Consequently, one who uses alright, especially in formal writing, runs the risk that readers may view it as an error or as the willful breaking of convention.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2002

@hm -

for a canadian - including our former prime minister - "anyways" is a perfectly acceptable colloquial form of speech. i'm not writing a letter to the queen here. this forum is an informal, conversational venue, and for me, the use of "anyways" conveys an appropriately relaxed and friendly feeling.

however at this point i'm starting to lose that feeling.

on the one hand i would thank you for pointing out the possible problem with using "alright" in formal writing, even though i thought it was overstated. however, please do not continue to throw spelling flames at minor mistakes or uses of slang. your "someone who would write..." to both alberto and i implies that you think we're less educated and sophisticated than you. the smiley face doesn't quite make up for it.

@Jeff: I beg your pardon and am sorry if I hurt your feelings. However, I think you're the one who's overstating if you call anything I said a flame. Again, I don't normally like to call attention to minor errors made in the course of discussion, but I do think it's fair to warn non-natives when someone posts something dubious in boldface as a suggested translation. And in a language forum, I also think it's reasonable to use people's own writing as a basis for judging their language skills, especially if they choose to defend usage that's generally considered substandard.