Skip to main content

The meaning of words

Much of the global debate about the Pope's speech misses the point. The linked article from The Guardian is, however, much better than most reports. It still confuses states and religions in its strapline.

The point The Guardian makes is that the Vatican is unhappy about persecution of Christians in Muslim states. This obviously links to the popes denunciation of the use of force for proselytising.

What I would like to know is how the speech came to global attention. This may rest upon the meaning of the word "erstaunlich". The main meaning is "astonishing" which can be taken as implying an apology for the meaning of the quotation. An alternative nuance, however, involves positive connotations such as admirable. My German is not good enough to judge which applies. However, it is on that point that the meaning of the speech can switch. If the speech was brought to people's attention from a fluent german speaker then it does make a material difference.

Comments

ecofx said…
The German original repeats the word 'schroff', for which I would say that 'brusque' is the best translation. Close words such as 'blunt' and 'frank' would not fit:

...wendet er sich in erstaunlich schroffer, uns ├╝berraschend schroffer Form...

repeating this in English too would either give a repeat of something surprising: ..astonishingly brusque, for us surprisingly brusque...,
or ... strikingly brusque, for us surprisingly brusque...
or ... admirably brusque, etc

For various reasons I would choose the 'strikingly' version as the one which makes most sense. Why we should be surprised by this may lie in further knowledge about the Kaiser's character, should this happen to be mild-mannered, moderate etc, but I don't know whether this was the case or not.

This quote was ill-considered, or at the very least not properly explained in my opinion, but should not cause uproar.

I remember Jenny Tonge's problems with being badly quoted, not badly translated, which led to her being sacked. Ah, the meaning of words, and the misunderstanding of sentences they form...

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: