including, but not limited to … = einschließlich … [+Gen.]
including, but not limited to … = unter anderem …
including, but not limited to … = insbesondere …
including, but not limited to … = darunter fallen …
including, but not limited to … = dazu zählen unter anderem auch
including, but not limited to … = beispielsweise
including, but not limited to … = zum Beispiel <z.B.>
including, but not limited to … = einschließlich (ohne Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit)
“‘Including but not limited to’ is language typically found in contracts. It enables the contract writer to make claims later without having given all details of their description at the time the agreement was made.” phrases.org.uk
111,000,000—that’s one of the biggest, if not the biggest number of Google results for any search term I’ve seen yet. I’m getting on the soapbox today to argue that it’s not at all necessary to translate the second part of the phrase when translating into German (or, probably, most other languages). Strictly speaking, it’s redundant in English, too; but then redundant phrases traditionally abound in English legalese, which cannot be said of German legalese, whatever its other defects. On the contrary, the opacity of many German legal texts results from the tendency to avoid redundancy by all means.
Although the meaning of the phrase is straightforward enough, and simply omitting the second part is an option that should easily present itself, many translators keep struggling with it, yours truly being no exception.
On proz.com, one colleague said that although “in some cases you can simply use ‘u.a.’,” she prefers “‘einschließlich, jedoch nicht beschränkt auf,’ because it is more precise.” Well, “more precise” it may be, but redundantly so, going at the expense of natural style. You might think that colleague was not a native speaker of the target language, but it turns out she is after all.
In fact, by now literal translations of this phrase have crept into German usage and acquired an impressive number of Google results; as of this writing, there’s almost a million for “einschließlich, aber nicht”.
Many global players companies use this wording in their German terms & conditions; examples include, but are not limited to: Amazon, Canon, Continental Airlines, Deloitte, Fruit of the Loom, Google, Gucci, Nielsen, Novartis, Microsoft, Toshiba, but also the Austrian branch of Hellenic, the second-largest Coca-Cola bottler in the world.
As a result of this onslaught, the phrase “einschließlich, jedoch nicht beschränkt auf” may eventually cease to sound weird to German ears in the not too distant future, but at the moment it still does. (Unless perhaps to the small minority who actually read terms & conditions, EULAs, etc.)
That’s why translators trying to come up with a translation that doesn’t actually sound like one are well advised to go for a less literal solution, such as the ones listed above.