Nichts Weniger Als
Detlef (February 23rd, 2004):
Hello dear A-T members,
I have just read Peter Staudenmaier's introductory mail
and want to comment on one thing (which is why I just
joined the list today). It concerns an ERROR OF TRANSLATION
in the infamous Steiner quote of 1888. The error is also
on the PLANS website: A negation is missing in the first
sentence! Here it is in German (the "_nichts_"
in red was omitted in the PLANS translation):
„Es ist gewiss nicht zu leugnen, dass heute das
Judentum noch
immer als geschlossenes Ganzes auftritt und als solches
in die
Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen Zustände
vielfach eingegriffen
hat, und das in einer Weise, die den abendländischen
Kulturideen
_nichts_ weniger als günstig war. Das Judentum als
solches hat
sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung
innerhalb des
modernen Völkerlebens, und dass es sich dennoch erhalten
hat, ist
ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben
konnten.“
In English, this is correctly translated as follows:
“It cannot be denied that Jewry still today
presents itself as a self-contained entity and as such
has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was _nothing_ less than favorable
to Western cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has outlived
itself and has no justification within the modern life
of nations. The fact that it nevertheless has been preserved
is a mistake of world history which could not fail to
have consequences.”
(You can find the correct translation on page 53 of the
pdf file at http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf.)
Some more general comments:
The second sentence remains open to misinterpretation
and problematic. But the juxtaposition is important! Steiner's
thinking is not linear, but dialectic. He also makes the
following unequivocal statement in the same essay: “But
the Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews”,
which doesn't exactly put him in the ball park of the
third Reich.
These passages were written by the 27 year old Steiner
in a literary magazine in a review of Hamerling's "Homunculus".
Steiner is supporting Hamerling against other critics.
It is not always clear where Steiner is defending ideas
of Hamerling and where they are his own. But it is quite
clear that Steiner favored assimilation and did not think
much of the Zionist movement, which he saw as coming about
as a reaction to anti-Semitism.
It must, of course, always be remembered that this was
all before the advent of the Holocaust. No one can say
how Steiner would have viewed the situation had he lived
until 1945 or 1948.
Still: Steiner's second sentence remains problematic.
But it must be seen in light of the first, i.e. that Jewry
"has often intervened in the development
of our present conditions in a way that was _nothing_
less than favorable to Western cultural ideas." And
it still does! If you look at cultural development in
West and East alike: much of it is inspired and comes
to life through the Jewish element!
As much as I am personally in favour of assimilation:
let's not overdo it. Cultural diversity is an asset that
will and should not get totally leveled out through assimilation.
The importance of individual impulses will certainly increase
in future. But other impulses (including the Jewish) will
remain. It has already survived for thousands of years,
it is here to stay for some time to come. That's great,
because I love it!
Detlef Hardorp |
Peter Staudenmaier (February
23rd, 2004):
Hi Detlef,
by my reading, the phrase "nichts weniger als günstig"
means "anything but favorable". You seem to
be saying that "nichts weniger" means more or
less the same thing as "nicht weniger", but
in fact the two phrases have opposite meanings, as I'm
sure you'll realize once you think about it for a moment.
If I say to you "Ich möchte nichts weniger,
als Sie provozieren", I am saying that the last thing
I want to do (not the first thing I want to do) is to
provoke you. Hence it seems to me that your translation,
"nothing less than favorable", gets Steiner's
meaning exactly backwards. What he actually says is that
the last thing the Jewish influence has been is favorable.
I would be grateful if you could clarify how you reached
the contrary conclusion. Thanks,
Peter Staudenmaier |
Peter Staudenmaier (February23rd,
2004):
Assuming you have a German-English dictionary on hand,
please look up the word "weniger", and it
should list the phrase "nichts weniger", which
means exactly what I said it means. Taking a phrase
word for word is an unwise approach to translation,
particularly when the phrase in question has an established
meaning. As it happens, you provided a very apt comparison:
"nichts weniger" means the same thing as "alles
andere". It does not mean "nicht weniger". |
Detlef (February 23rd, 2004):
Hello everybody,
returning to my computer tonight, I find that my message
has already elicited several responses. Quite an active
list you've got here!
Now to the point of contention: What does "nichts
weniger" mean? I did a Google search on the phrase
"nichts weniger" and came up with the following
examples:
1. http://morgenpost.berlin1.de/archiv2003/031130/feuilleton/story644738.html
"Berliner Studenten gehen für nichts weniger
als Deutschlands Zukunft auf die Straße." Also:
sie gehen für Deutschlands Zukunft auf die Straße,
oder?
I would translate this as "Students in Berlin take
to the streets for nothing less than the future of Germany."
meaning that they take to the streets for the future of
Germany!
Do you propose a better translation, PS? One with the
exact opposite meaning?
The newspaper article, of which this is the title, ends
thus: "In den Köpfen entsteht die Zukunft
unseres Landes. Deutschlands Zukunft liegt nicht in einem
noch so perfektionierten Umverteilungsstaat, sondern in
einem Gemeinwesen, dessen Leitbild jene Menschen sind,
die aus eigener Kraft die Zukunft meistern." The
opposite meaning was not intended!
2.
http://paxhumana.info/article.php3?id_article=154
"Präsident Bush hat behauptet, es sei eine Gefahr
für die ganze Welt, dass Saddam Hussein Massenvernichtungswaffen
besitzt, d.h. dieser würde die USA (und nebenbei
die ganze Welt) mit seinen nuklearen, bakteriologischen,
chemischen Waffen und… seiner terroristischen Gewalt
bedrohen.
In Wirklichkeit bedeutet Bush damit nichts weniger als
das Recht der USA, jedes Land anzugreifen, dass sie möglicherweise
in den nächsten fünf oder gar fünfzig Jahren
bedrohen könnte.
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, diese Gefahr
zu ermessen und darauf zu reagieren, wie es ihnen beliebt.
Nichts weniger, als das Recht der USA, diese Entscheidung
alleine und eigenmächtig zu treffen.
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, Krieg zu führen,
gegen irgendwen, irgendwann und aus jedem beliebigen
(trügerischen) Grund.
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, das Recht des
Stärkeren auf der Welt durchzusetzen, d.h. IHR
Recht !
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, alle jene als
vogelfrei zu erklären, die nicht ganz einig sind
mit Bush dem Propheten und dessen Göttlichem Gesetz
! "
Translation: "President Bush has claimed that
it is a danger for the whole world that Saddam H. possesses
weapons of mass destruction ... .
In reality Bush means with this nothing less than the
right of the USA to attack every country that might
possibly threaten them in the next five or even fifty
years.
Nothing less than than the right of the USA to take
these decisions alone etc. etc."
Do you propose a better translation, PS? One with the
exact opposite meaning?
As it so happens, this bit can be clicked on in English
as well as French. Unfortunately, when you click the
Union Jack, this bit appears in French. So here is the
French version:
"Le président Bush a affirmé que
l'Irak était un danger pour le monde entier,
que Saddam Hussein possédait des armes de destruction
massive, c'est-à-dire qu'il menaçait les
USA (et accessoirement le monde) par son armement nucléaire,
bactériologique, chimique et... sa puissance
de frappe terroriste.
En réalité, ce que Bush affirme n'est
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à attaquer
n'importe quel pays susceptible de les menacer dans
cinq ans, voire cinquante ans...
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à évaluer
ce risque et à y répondre comme bon leur
semble,
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à prendre
seul cette décision, en leur nom propre.
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à partir
en guerre contre quiconque à n'importe quel moment
et pour n'importe quel motif (fallacieux)
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à imposer
à la planète la loi du plus fort, c'est-à-dire,
LEUR Loi !
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à déclarer
Hors La Loi, tous ceux qui ne sont pas absolument d'accord
avec Bush le prophète et Sa Divine Loi ! "
rien moins que also means nothing less than!
3. http://www.dieterwunderlich.de/Bernhard_holzfallen.htm
From "Thomas Bernhard: Holzfällen. Eine Erregung":
"... aber ich hielt mir doch jetzt vor, der Auersberger
einen Kuss auf die Stirn gegeben zu haben, nach zwanzig
Jahren, vielleicht sogar nach zwei- oder dreiundzwanzig
Jahren, in welchen ich sie nichts weniger als gehasst
habe, mit dem gleichen Hass, mit dem ich in diesen Jahren
auch ihren Mann gehasst habe ..."
I'll skip the beginning and get right to the core: "......
in which I nothing less than hated her, with the same
hate, with which I also hated her husband in all these
years ..."
"with the same hate": thus he or she hates
both! It is clear from the context that he or she does
hate her. If you purge "nichts weniger als",
it does not take on the opposite meaning! "in welchen
ich sie gehasst habe" is made stronger by adding
"in welchen ich sie nichts weniger als gehasst
habe".
Do you propose a better translation, PS? One with the
exact opposite meaning?
Now back to Steiner: "... in einer Weise, die den
abendländischen Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig war".
Translation: "in a way that was nothing less than
favorable to Western cultural ideas."
Again, if you purge "nichts weniger als",
you retain the meaning, but weaken the statement a bit:
"... in einer Weise, die den abendländischen
Kulturideen günstig war".
A further indication for this is the word "but"
in the sentence which follows: "But Jewry as such
has outlived itself ..." This is a juxtaposition!
If you read the first sentence with the opposite meaning
of what is meant, the "but" makes no sense!
In other words: Although Jewry has had a very favourable
influence on Western culture, it has outlived itself
as a self-contained entity.
That is clearly the meaning of these two sentences,
as I'm sure you'll realize once you think about it with
an open mind.
Best regards, Detlef Hardorp
|
Peter Staudenmaier (February23rd,
2004):
Good evening Detlef,
I think you are avoiding a very simple question. Why don't
you tell all the English speakers on this list what the
sentence "Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie
provozieren" means? If you truly disagree that the
phrase "nichts weniger" means the same thing
as "alles andere" in this context, I urge you
to come right out and say so.
"Do you propose a better translation, PS?"
Yes, I certainly do. I propose the following translation:
"It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today
still behaves as a closed totality, and that it has
frequently intervened in the development of our current
state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable
to European ideas of culture."
May I suggest you consult another German anthroposophist
about this matter? I recommend you contact Ralf Sonnenberg
and ask his opinion. If he concurs with you that the
phrase actually means "favorable" rather than
"unfavorable" in this instance, then I will
amend my translation in the future. I very much look
forward to hearing from you on this.
Peter Staudenmaier
|
Kim Munch Michelsen (February
24th, 2004):
Hello Peter
In Danish we would say that you have been taken with
your hands in the cookie box, because your explanation
is without hold in reality. It's pure manipulation.
We have the same saying as 'nichts weniger' in Dänish,
and it's an underlining of the following statement.
And it is the same origin as the German form. So 'nichts
weniger als günstig' means 'günstig!'. A simple
one 'nichts weniger als fünfzig dollar' means 'fifty
dollar!'.
You are running from your responsibility, when you are
hiding behind 'that others should prove your translation
to be wrong'. It's your responsibility to secure that
your translation is right, and when enough people are
telling you that it is wrong, you should change it or
prove by authority that your translation is right. But
of course, it would undermine your case, if you had
to change your translation so it reflected the truth.
Kim |
Dag Horntvedt (February 24th,
2004):
Good morning Mr. Staudenmaier
My German friend says that the sentence means "nothing
less than" , so RS says that Jewry has been favourable
to western cultural ideas. This is emphasized in the next
sentence where he uses the word "aber" which
means "but" as opposed to the sentence before.
So one cant help thinking that in repeating this error
over and over again you are trying to make it become true.
But it will not.
I am looking forward to see you correct your translations.
Greetings
Dag |
Detlef (February 23rd, 2004):
Hello everybody,
the meaning of "nichts weniger als" is not something
restricted to anthroposophy. Therefore I posted some common
usages, taken form a Google search, in the wee hours of
the morning and proposed translations, challenging PS
for better translations.
This challenge was ignored by PS, who instead proposed
a "better translation" of the Steiner quote
in question, which was, in fact, nothing but reiterating
the existing (incorrect) translation form the PLANS website,
which - he now reveals - stems from him.
It contains other, more minor inaccuracies as well: "abendländisch"
means "occidental" or "western", to
use a more common word, and not simply "European",
as PS has it.
Morgenland - Abendland
Orient - Okzident
Ost -West
are essentially synonymous pairs.
But back to the main point of contention. After avoiding
my simple questions concerning the common usages I posted,
he claims that I am avoiding a simple question, which
is to say what another sentence he proposes means:
"Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren."
I will gladly translate this sentence for this list. In
return, I would like PS to translate the three things
I posted and translated in my previous mail. OK, PS?
The sentence means: "There is nothing I want less
than to provoke you." PS is quite right in saying
that this sentence means that I do not want to provoke
you.
But consider the following sentence:
"Er war nichts weniger als provokativ.". This
means: Er war nichts geringeres als provokativ. Er war
provokativ
In English: He was nothing less than provocative. Which
means: He was provocative!
Please note that the words "nothing", "less"
and "than" occur in both English sentences,
as do the German words "nicht", "weniger"
and "als" in the corresponding German sentences.
But they are grouped differently, making for two different
meanings:
1. "(Ich möchte nichts weniger), (als Sie
provozieren)." "(There is nothing I want less)
(than to provoke you)."
2. "(Er war) (nichts weniger als provokativ)."
"(He was) (nothing less than provocative)."
In the second sentence, he clearly was provocative!
Back to the Steiner text.
"Es ist gewiss nicht zu leugnen, dass heute das
Judentum noch
immer als geschlossenes Ganzes auftritt und als solches
in die
Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen Zustände
vielfach eingegriffen
hat, und das in einer Weise, die den abendländischen
Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig war."
This translates as:
“It cannot be denied that Jewry still today presents
itself as a self-contained entity and as such has often
intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was nothing less than favourable to Western
cultural ideas.”
We are concerned about this part:
"die den abendländischen Kulturideen nichts
weniger als günstig war." In English: "that
was nothing less than favourable to Western cultural
ideas."
The underlying idea in this part of the sentence is
unquestionably:
"Sie war den abendländischen Kulturideen nichts
weniger als günstig." In English: "It
was nothing less than favourable to Western cultural
ideas."
This is how this sentence breaks down:
"(Sie war) (den abendländischen Kulturideen)
(nichts weniger als günstig)." In English:
"(It was) (nothing less than favourable) (to Western
cultural ideas)."
Please compare this to the two types above! This is
clearly not type one, but type two:
2. "(Er war) (nichts weniger als provokativ)."
"(He was) (nothing less than provocative)."
Du bist nichts weniger als zum Verstehen eingeladen,
PS!
You are nothing less than invited to understand this,
PS! I.e. you are invited!
Aber nicht: Ich möchte nichts weniger, als dass
Du verstehst, PS!
But not: There is nothing I want less than for you to
understand this, PS!
So I have told all the readers on this list what the
sentence "Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie
provozieren" means.
Now it's your turn to tell the readers on this list
what the sentences "Berliner Studenten gehen für
nichts weniger als Deutschlands Zukunft auf die Straße",
"In Wirklichkeit bedeutet Bush damit nichts weniger
als das Recht der USA, jedes Land anzugreifen"
and "... in welchen ich sie nichts weniger als
gehasst habe, mit dem gleichen Hass, mit dem ich in
diesen Jahren auch ihren Mann gehasst habe ..."
mean.
If you do, you cannot fail to notice that there is a
usage of "nichts weniger als" which means
nothing less than "nothing less than"!
Of course you could undoubtedly also find other expressions
on the web in line with the other meaning ("Ich
möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren").
Don't bother: I have already agreed that these three
words can also be found in sentences with this kind
of meaning.
Once we've agreed that there are two types of meaning,
we could still dispute which meaning applies to Steiner's
sentence. I have tried to make it clear which one applies.
I have nothing against contacting other experts on this,
be they experts on German grammar or experts on anthroposophy
and Judaism. But this may not be necessary. It is interesting
to note that you would prefer to take this on authority.
I think this can be resolved, however, by the simple
use of straight thinking for those who have a good command
of German, which I believe you have.
Best regards,
Detlef Hardorp
|
Peter Staudenmaier (February
24th, 2004):
Hello Kim and Dag,
thanks for your posts. I think that my translation is
correct, and that you are both mistaken. I think you will
recognize your mistake if you do two simple things: 1.
Check a dictionary. 2. Consult an anthroposophist with
the necessary fluency who is familiar with the text in
question. To move this discussion forward, here are a
couple observations on each of those two points:
1. The 2000 Collins German-English dictionary says on
p. 928 that the phrase "nichts weniger" means
"the last thing". They offer essentially the
same example that I did, namely the sentence "Ich
möchte nichts weniger, als ihn beleidigen",
which they translate as "the last thing I'd want
to do is insult him". I suspect you will find similar
examples in other dictionaries.
2. There are a number of anthroposophists out there who
know this text well and who have translated the very same
passage themselves. Tarjei just gave us one example, where
the sentence in question is rendered thus: "It
cannot be denied that Jewry still today presents itself
as a selfcontained entity and as such has often intervened
in the development of our present conditions in a way
that was anything but favourable to Western cultural ideas."
I take it you both somehow missed that entirely? Be
that as it may, I still think the most sensible thing
to do would be to simply contact the most knowledgeable
anthroposophist historian on this topic, Ralf Sonnenberg,
who has published extensively on Steiner's attitudes
toward Jews and who has discussed this very passage
at length in several articles. Sonnenberg's reading
agrees with mine, not with yours. (More on that in a
moment, when I reply to Detlef, who seems to have lost
Sonnenberg's phone number...)
I respectfully request that your reconsider your stance
on this question.
Peter Staudenmaier
|
Peter Staudenmaier (February
24th, 2004):
Good morning Detlef, you now write:
"The sentence means: "There is nothing I
want less than to provoke you." PS is quite right
in saying that this sentence means that I do not want
to provoke you.
So you recognize that the phrase "nichts weniger"
does indeed have the meaning that I said it has. But
you still seem to be confused about what is at stake
here:
"If you do, you cannot fail to notice that there
is a usage of "nichts weniger als" which means
nothing less than "nothing less than"!"
That wasn't in dispute. The two words "nichts"
and "weniger" when placed next to one another
can indeed mean "nothing less than". As a
phrase, however, they can also mean "anything but",
as you have finally acknowledged. I don't quite understand
why this wasn't clear to you earlier.
"Once we've agreed that there are two types of
meaning, we could still dispute which meaning applies
to Steiner's sentence."
Yes, that is what is under dispute. May I draw your
attention to the document that Tarjei posted recently?
It is the official translation of the Leist/Ravagli/Bader
text, published by the Bund der freien Waldorfschulen.
Since this seems to have escaped your notice, here,
once again, is how the passage is rendered in this translation:
"It cannot be denied that Jewry still today presents
itself as a selfcontained entity and as such has often
intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was anything but favourable to Western
cultural ideas."
"Anything but favorable" is, as it happens,
exactly how I translated the phrase in question. Amazing,
huh?
I also note that you seem reluctant to consult other
anthroposophists about this matter. I recommend you
take a look at the most recent issue of the Jahrbuch
für Antisemitismusforschung (no. 12, 2003), which
contains an article by Ralf Sonnenberg which I think
you will find very interesting. Sonnenberg and I don't
agree on very much, as you can imagine, but we happen
to agree on this particular Steiner passage. On p. 190
of his article, Sonnenberg reproduces the full quotation
from Steiner in 1888, and immediately summarizes the
passage by stating that in Steiner's view, Jewish influence
has "nachteilig auf die abendländische Kultur
und Gesellschaft ausgewirkt" ("had a detrimental
effect on European culture and society").
Hence if you are still convinced that my translation
is incorrect, I suggest you address your concern to
the anthroposophist translators and anthroposophist
historians who somehow agree with my reading of the
phrase and disagree with yours, and then maybe you can
get back to the rest of us to report your findings.
Greetings,
Peter Staudenmaier
|
Kim Munch Michelsen (February
24th, 2004):
Hello Peter
You continue? I thought you where more intelligent than
this.
It's not a sociological thesis where everything is possible,
it's a simple sentence, where simple rules apply.
By defending your erroneous translation, against better
knowledge, you are destroying your credibility.
I have, of course, checked some german libraries, and
they confirmed my view. Furthermore I have checked Steiners
texts, and he is using the frase consistently.
I see no reason to see what other non german amateur translaters,
or translaters with a ideological twist, has translated
it to, because it is a simple and clear sentence.
Kim
NB! Just to remember what it concerns:
nicht weniger als = mindestens = not less than
and there is no comma between 'weniger' and 'als'. |
Detlef (February 24th, 2004):
Dear Mr Staudenmaier,
you are now skirting all the arguments I presented in
my detailed mail! Nor have you attempted the translations
I suggested you try in return for the translation I did
after you asked me. I will soon stop responding to mails
if they continue to skirt the issue and if you continue
to act like somone that dishes out homework but completely
ignores requests in the other direction.
You wrote: >That wasn't in dispute. The two words "nichts"
and "weniger" when placed next to one another
can indeed mean "nothing less than". As a phrase,
however, they can also mean "anything but",
as you have finally acknowledged. I don't quite understand
why this wasn't clear to you earlier.
Dear Mr.Staudenmaier, this is nothing but trying to fog
things up! You have incorrectly translated a sentence.
The point is not whether others might also have incorrectly
translated the sentence but what is the correct translation.
The fact that three words, used in different ways, can
have different meanings, is something that has always
been clear to me. But this is not particularly relevant
when these three words are used by Steiner in the same
way as the quotes that Google picked out for me. Are you
afraid to translate these? It might lead you to admitting
that you made a mistake. But then that may be too much
to imagine from someone like you.
You wrote: >Yes, that is what is under dispute. May
I draw your attention to the document that Tarjei posted
recently? It is the official translation of the Leist/Ravagli/Bader
text, published by the Bund der freien Waldorfschulen.
Since this seems to have escaped your notice, here, once
again, is how the passage is rendered in this translation:
"It cannot be denied that Jewry still today
presents itself as a selfcontained entity and as such
has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was anything but favourable to
Western cultural ideas."
I have just gone to the link again myself (I suppose you
mean http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf,
do you not?). I find there, on page 53, the following
sentence: "“It cannot be denied that Jewry
still today presents itself as a self-contained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development of
our present conditions in a way that was nothing less
than favourable to Western cultural ideas."
>I also note that you seem reluctant to consult other
anthroposophists about this matter.
Hey, I posted my original mail less than 24 hours ago!
And how do you know which people I consult or fail to
consult? Are you tapping my phone and computer line?!
Respond to the issue or remain silent, Peter Staudenmaier!
This is what you have failed to respond to: >The
underlying idea in this part of the sentence is unquestionably:
>"Sie war den abendländischen Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig." In English: "It
was nothing less than favourable to Western cultural ideas."
>This is how this sentence breaks down: >"(Sie
war) (den abendländischen Kulturideen) (nichts weniger
als günstig)." In English: "(It was) (nothing
less than favourable) (to Western cultural ideas)."
>Please compare this to the two types above! This is
clearly not type one, but type two: >2. "(Er
war) (nichts weniger als provokativ)." "(He
was) (nothing less than provocative)." >Du
bist nichts weniger als zum Verstehen eingeladen, PS!
>You are nothing less than invited to understand
this, PS! I.e. you are invited! >So I have
told all the readers on this list what the sentence "Ich
möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren"
means. >Now it's your turn to tell the readers
on this list what the sentences "Berliner Studenten
gehen für nichts weniger als Deutschlands Zukunft
auf die Straße", >"In Wirklichkeit
bedeutet Bush damit nichts weniger als das Recht der USA,
jedes Land anzugreifen" and "... in welchen
ich sie nichts weniger als gehasst habe, mit dem gleichen
Hass, mit dem ich in diesen Jahren auch ihren Mann gehasst
habe ..." mean.
But for those on the list who do not know Peter Staudenmaier:
he is not in the least bit interested in understanding
anything that does not serve his goal, which is to make
a mockery of Anthroposphy and hide this behind a scholarly
looking facade. We've met before.
Detlef Hardorp |
Dag Horntvedt (February 24th,
2004):
Hello Mr. Staudenmaier
I think we are right and you are mistaken.
Perhaps this will help you:
It has been said before, but it seems that you only want
to relate to your own examples: Make a google sears for:
"nichts weniger als" and tell me what you find.
Perhaps you should put on your glasses and look at the
little"," - comma. All your examples have a
comma before the "als"
The original text does not. This mean anything to you?
And - please - what about the "aber" in the
next sentence?
I hope this have moved the discussion a bit forward.
Greetings
Dag |
Daniel Hindes (February 25th,
2004):
My Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch,
Berlin 1996, page 1432, lists for then entry "wenig"
the phrase "nicht weniger als" as meaning "no
less than, pl. no fewer than". If you are in Germany
now, you can easily check this in any larger bookstore.
Most sell all four versions the Langenscheidts German-English
dictionaries, the single volume, the one volume for each
language, the smaller version with two volumes of each
language, and the larger version with two volumes of each
language. The edition I have in front of me is the "one
volume for each language" version. I'm not sure the
smaller dictionaries list every phrase built around "wenig",
but the larger ones certainly will.
Daniel Hindes |
Peter Staudenmaier (February
24th, 2004):
Hi Detlef, you wrote:
"you are now skirting all the arguments I presented
in my detailed mail!"
Yep, that I am. I think those arguments are irrelevant,
and I haven't the faintest idea why you think otherwise.
Many of your arguments bring up inadvertent memories
of Bill Clinton intoning "it depends on what the
meaning of the word 'is' is." At one point in your
belabored grammatical musings, you seemed to grasp that
the phrase "nichts weniger" functions as a
*phrase* in certain circumstances, not merely as two
words sitting side by side. Then a couple lines later,
this insight appears to have left your mind entirely,
and you were back to prattling about sentences that
bear no relation to the sentence under dispute. That
is called missing the point. If you disagree, then perhaps
you could explain what you think the point was in the
first place?
>>
"You wrote: >That wasn't in dispute. The two
words "nichts" and "weniger" when
placed next to one another can indeed mean "nothing
less than". As a phrase, however, they can also
mean "anything but", as you have finally acknowledged.
I don't quite understand why this wasn't clear to you
earlier.
Dear Mr.Staudenmaier, this is nothing but trying to
fog things up!"
>>
It is? Then what exactly have you and I been arguing
about for the past day and a half?
"The point is not whether others might also have
incorrectly translated the sentence but what is the
correct translation."
Yes, that is indeed the question here. Since these "others"
know much, much more about both the text and its context
than you do, I think your confidence in your own interpretation
is sadly misplaced.
"But this is not particularly relevant when these
three words are used by Steiner in the same way as the
quotes that Google picked out for me."
But they aren't. You are trapped in a tautology here.
You have somehow managed to convince yourself that your
own reading of the Steiner passage is correct, and you
have then carried that reading over to a group of unrelated
sentences, which then magically strike you as evidence
for your original thesis. That's ass-backwards reasoning,
in my view.
Now here's where it gets really interesting:
"I have just gone to the link again myself (I suppose
you mean http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf,
do you not?). I find there, on page 53, the following
sentence: "“It cannot be denied that Jewry
still today presents itself as a self-contained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development
of our present conditions in a way that was nothing
less than favourable to Western cultural ideas."
Fascinating! They altered their translation! Tarjei,
when did you download the version you forwarded? I am
eager to learn just when the translator or translators
of this pamphlet realized their "mistake".
"And how do you know which people I consult or
fail to consult?"
In other words, you are unwilling to ask Ralf Sonnenberg
his opinion on this. Care to explain why?
"But for those on the list who do not know Peter
Staudenmaier: he is not in the least bit interested
in understanding anything that does not serve his goal,
which is to make a mockery of Anthroposphy and hide
this behind a scholarly looking facade. We've met before."
Yes, we certainly have, and each time you seem to make
a fool of yourself in new and innovative ways. It's
silly to pretend that my goal is to make a mockery of
anthroposophy, but this deflection cannot possibly apply
to anthroposophists like Sonnenberg. If it were my nefarious
anti-anthroposophical disposition that lead to my "mistake",
then how did he happen to make the very same "mistake"?
Or do you perhaps suspect a vast conspiracy, Detlef?
Greetings,
Peter
|
Peter Staudenmaier (February
24th, 2004):
Hello Kim, you wrote:
"it's a simple sentence, where simple rules apply."
I disagree completely. I do not think that making sense
of texts written over a hundred years ago is a simple
matter.
"By defending your erroneous translation, against
better knowledge, you are destroying your credibility."
I'd say that's the wrong way to think about credibility,
on several levels. Since I do not, in fact, believe
that my translation is erroneous, it is hard to see
how it might shore up my credibility for me to pretend
that I agree with Detlef's translation in order to placate
you and several others. It would be dishonest for me
to do so, for starters. There's also the matter of:
credibility for whom? Credibility among a handful of
random anthroposophists on an email list is one thing,
credibility among other historians (say, Sonnenberg,
for instance) is another.
"I have, of course, checked some german libraries,
and they confirmed my view."
They confirmed which view?
"Furthermore I have checked Steiners texts, and
he is using the frase consistently."
Could you give an example?
"I see no reason to see what other non german amateur
translaters, or translaters with a ideological twist,
has translated it to, because it is a simple and clear
sentence."
But you've just seen with your own eyes that even *anthroposophist*
translators have gone back and forth on the meaning
of this sentence. Do you think they did so because of
ideological twisting? (That's a real question, by the
way, not a rhetorical one. I am most intrigued by the
fact that Detlef's version and Tarjei's version of the
same translation directly contradict one another on
this point.)
"NB! Just to remember what it concerns: nicht weniger
= not less than"
That is not the phrase under dispute. The phrase in
question is "nichts weniger". I think maybe
you should re-read the exchange from the beginning.
Thanks,
Peter |
Peter Staudenmaier (February
24th, 2004):
Hi Dag, you wrote:
"I think we are right and you are mistaken."
Yes, that's why we disagree.
"It has been said before, but it seems that you
only want to relate to your own examples: Make a google
sears for: "nichts weniger als" and tell me
what you find."
Why? What would this have to do with our disagreement?
"Perhaps you should put on your glasses and look
at the little"," - comma. All your examples
have a comma before the "als". The original
text does not. This mean anything to you?"
No, it sure doesn't. I think you have genuinely misunderstood
what is at issue and why we disagree. Alternatively,
you and I have been talking past each other all along.
"And - please - what about the "aber"
in the next sentence?"
I think that is obvious, and I am greatly amused by
the various highly creative interpretations that have
been offered so far. Steiner says "aber" because
he has just finished reciting several specific criticisms
of "Jewry today", and he is now ready to move
on to the assertion that the very existence of the object
of criticism is an anomaly and a mistake. The explanation
advanced by Detlef makes no sense at all, because even
if the second clause of the first sentence meant what
you all seem to think it means, the first clause is
absolutely not a compliment to the Jews, to say the
least. Hence the notion that the "but" signals
a transition from praise to criticism is entirely goofy.
In light of the recent revelation that the translators
of the Leist/Ravagli/Bader text have altered their rendering
of the disputed phrase, I am willing to grant that people
who pay close attention to this passage and are familiar
with the context disagree on how to read it. But since
the individuals who know Steiner's work on Jews and
Judaism best do not share your reading, I still recommend
that you do the wise thing and consult their readings
of the passage, starting with Sonnenberg's.
Respectfully,
Peter Staudenmaier |
Daniel Hindes (February
25th, 2004):
Wow. I never thought I'd be in an argument
about how to read a dictionary. The description of abbreviations
used in this dictionary is on page 776, and indicates
that pl. means plural. The plural of "nicht weniger
als" is "nichts weniger als" (you can't
pluralize "weniger" or "als"). The
dictionary gives the definition of "nichts weniger
als" as "no fewer than". That simple.
To take this back to the original argument, the German
reads:
"Es ist gewiss nicht zu leugnen, dass heute das
Judentum noch immer als geschlossenes Ganzes auftritt
und als solches in die Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen
Zustände vielfach eingegriffen hat, und das in
einer Weise, die den abendländischen Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig war. Das Judentum als
solches hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine
Berechtigung innerhalb des modernen Völkerlebens,
und dass es sich dennoch erhalten hat, ist ein Fehler
der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben konnten.“
The possible translations are:
“It cannot be denied that Jewry still today presents
itself as a self-contained entity and as such has often
intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was nothing less than favorable to Western
cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has outlived itself
and has no justification within the modern life of nations.
The fact that it nevertheless has been preserved is
a mistake of world history which could not fail to have
consequences.”
or
"It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today
still behaves as a closed totality, and that it has
frequently intervened in the
development of our current state of affairs in a way
that is anything but favorable to European ideas of
culture. But Jewry as such has long since outlived its
time; it has no more justification within the modern
life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist
is a mistake of world history whose consequences are
unavoidable."
These two versions offer a completely different argument
on the part of the original author, and it cannot be
that somehow both versions are present in the original.
One must be correct, and the other incorrect. And the
best judge of which version is correct would be translators,
and not idealogues of any bent.
The first translation follows the original very closely.
The second translation, after the first comma, departs
from the German for no obvious reason, abandoning the
"and as such" that is in the original and
offering "and that it has" instead.
The "...nichts weniger als günstig war"
I read to mean "nothing less than favorable".
That is, the "als" belongs to the phrase "nichts
weniger"; it is not separate. To argue the meaning
of "nichts weniger" is to misread the phrasing
of the original, either deliberately or as a result
of unfamiliarity with the language.
I've scanned the dictionary in question.
How to read it is explained in these two pages:
http://aelzina.com/misc/l-a.gif
http://aelzina.com/misc/l-b.gif
The meaning of the abbreviations are on this page:
http://aelzina.com/misc/l-776.gif
You can read the entire entry for "wenig"
on these two pages:
http://aelzina.com/misc/l-1432.gif
http://aelzina.com/misc/l-1433.gif
|
Frank Thomas Smith (February
27th, 2004):
I promised a couple of days ago to consult an "expert"
in order to resolve the "nichts weniger als"
controversy (or confusion). The expert is my daughter,
a translator (German-Spanish-English-Portuguese) and language
teacher. She has a masters in Iberian culture and teaches
at university level in Munich. She grew up in the U.S.,
Argentina, Switzerland and Germany. Her mother tongue
is German (German mother). Obviously I have a lot of confidence
in her. When asking her to translate the passage in question,
I did not tell her who its author was nor anything else
about it in order to avoid possible unconscious prejudice.
(She is an ex-Waldi, what they call Waldorf students in
Germany). She isn't an anthroposphist though, and has
no reason to have guessed who the author was. I only told
her that there might be a problem with "nichts weniger
als". I asked her to translate into English or Spanish,
but anticipated that she would do so in Spanish, because
the passage isn't exactly simple and I know that she is
more comfortable in Spanish than English. She replies
as follows: In einer eMail vom 25.02.2004 20:30:05
Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt franksmith@vdolores.com.ar:
„Es ist gewiss nicht zu leugnen, dass heute
das Judentum noch immer als geschlossenes Ganzes auftritt
und als solches in die Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen
Zustände vielfach eingegriffen hat, und das in
einer Weise, die den abendländischen Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig war. Das Judentum als
solches hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine
Berechtigung innerhalb des modernen Völkerlebens,
und dass es sich dennoch erhalten hat, ist
ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben
konnten.“
No se puede negar que hoy en día el judaísmo
sigue presentándose como una entidad cerrada,
y como tal ha intervenido numerosas veces en el desarrollo
que ha llevado a nuestro estado actual, de una forma
que para las ideas culturales del occidente no eran
sino favorables. Sin embargo, el judaísmo como
tal ya ha perdido su legitimidad y su razón de
ser dentro de la comunidad de pueblos moderna, y el
hecho que a pesar de ello se ha mantenido es un error
de la historia universal, cuyas consecuencias no podían
dejar de presentarse.
This translation into Spanish is essentially what
we have in English. She translates the phrase in question
as: "...and in a way that for western cultural
ideas has been no less than favorable.
She then goes on to say:
(Qué frasesitas! Yo tuve más problemas
con "hat sich längst ausgelebt" y modernes
Völkerleben", pero enfín. El "nichts
weniger als ..." es una "doppelte Verneinung",
subrayando positivamente la palabra "günstig",
o sea quiere decir algo como "sehr günstig".)
"(What simple little phrases! I had more problems
with "hat sich längt ausgelebt" and "modernes
Völkerleben", but anyway. "nichts weniger
als..." is a "double negation", positively
underlining the word "favorable", that is,
it means something like "most favorable".)"
This, for me at least, settles the question. Therefore
auf wiedersehen "nichts weniger als".
Beatrice Smith
MA, Staatlich geprüfte Übersetzerin
für Deutsch und Spanisch
Sprachtrainerin |
Peter Staudenmaier (February
24th, 2004):
Hi Frank,
thanks for your refreshingly level-headed posts on the
translation question. You conclude: "This, for
me at least, settles the question."
Not for me. The first several times I read the Steiner
passage, I thought it said what your daughter thinks
it says; in fact in my first draft translation I rendered
it the same way. But I eventually realized my mistake,
as Detlef has yet to do. I think your daugher might
do the same, with just a little reflection. She says
that "nichts weniger" is a double negation.
This is half true, but when it functions as a phrase,
"nichts weniger" is not a double negation,
as you can easily see from the several variants of "Ich
möchte nichts weniger" that we discussed earlier.
In those situations, the phrase means exactly what I
said it means, and the opposite of what your daughter
apparently thinks it always means.
[The key question is how
it functions as a part of the larger phrase "nichts
weniger als". Peter Staudenmaier stubbornly and
continually attempts to break the larger phrase into
a smaller one so that it will fit his definition.]
One possibly important methodological point: I agree
that it was a good idea for you to withhold from your
daughter the context of this quote, for purposes of
your experiment. But as a general rule, ignorance of
context is a hindrance, not a boon, to correct translation.
And in this case I think the context is indeed significant.
I'd like to make the same recommendation to you that
I made to other listmates a few days ago: read Ralf
Sonnenberg's article. Not just for an illuminating perspective
on this translation issue, but for a broader discussion
of the themes I came here to discuss. It is by far the
best treatment of Steiner's views on Jews that I have
seen from an anthroposophist (which is, admittedly,
not saying much), and it makes mincemeat out of that
silly piece by Ravagli, Leist, and Bader that you put
so much stock in. Here's the info again: Ralf Sonnenberg,
" 'Keine Berechtigung innerhalb des modernen Völkerlebens':
Judentum, Zionismus und Antisemitismus aus der Sicht
Rudolf Steiners", Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung
12 (2003), pp. 185-209. |
Dag Horntvedt (February
24th, 2004):
If you read the following quotations from Staudenmaier
you will see that he... use[es]
an example with a comma between the "weniger"
and the "als". ...
It is although interesting to notice that he starts
this discussion with using other sentences as examples
too prove his view, but ends up saying:
"What we are arguing about is what they mean in
one specific context".
Because that is virtually impossible to find out if
you did not live in that time and space.
I find it reassuring that so many Germans I have asked,
and then Franks daughter, have the opposite view than
that of Staudenmaier and Sonnenberg.
|
Frank Thomas Smith (February
28th, 2004):
For best reading on your return Monday morning. You wrote:
Hi Frank,
thanks for your refreshingly level-headed posts on the
translation question. You conclude: "This, for
me at least, settles the question."
Not for me.
*I didn't expect that you'd be convinced. However, see
below. I sent my daughter your objection.
The first several times I read the Steiner passage,
I thought it said what your daughter thinks it says;
in fact in my first draft translation I rendered it
the same way. But I eventually realized my mistake,
as Detlef has yet to do. I think your daugher might
do the same, with just a little reflection. She says
that "nichts weniger" is a double negation.
This is half true, but when it functions as a phrase,
"nichts weniger" is not a double negation,
as you can easily see from the several variants of "Ich
möchte nichts weniger" that we discussed earlier.
In those situations, the phrase means exactly what I
said it means, and the opposite of what your daughter
apparently thinks it always means.
Querido Daddy, en ese caso el "aber" no haría
sentido:
Das Judentum als solches hat sich aber längst ausgelebt
"Dear Daddy, in that case the "aber"
(but) would make no sense."
This has been pointed out to you several times, Peter,
but I guess you don't want to listen. Everyone wants
to win an argument, but when it becomes senseless to
insist, even on small points, one's whole attitude becomes
questionable.
Frank
Beatrice Smith
MA, Staatlich geprüfte Übersetzerin
für Deutsch und Spanisch
Sprachtrainerin
My daughter, 15 minutes later:
Hi Daddy,
dein Freund hat natürlich recht, dass es das auch
heissen kann, was man vielleicht aus dem größeren
Kontext erkennen könnte. Aber so, wie du es mir
präsentiert hast, mit dem "aber..."-Satz
danach, würde ich doch auf die doppelte Verneinung
tippen. Hat schon mal jemand versucht, eine Séance
zu machen und den Doktor selbst zu fragen?
Besitos de tu hijita Bibi
Your friend (!) is of course right in that it could
also mean that, which one could perhaps recognize from
the larger context. But from the way you presented it
to me, with the "but..." sentence following,
I would still bet on the double negation. Has anybody
tried to make a séance and ask der Doktor himself?
Little kisses from your little daughter Bibi
And, 5 minutes after that:
In einer eMail vom 27.02.2004 15:44:23 Westeuropäische
Normalzeit schreibt
franksmith@vdolores.com.ar:
She isn't an anthroposphist though, and has no reason
to have guessed who the author was
Lieber Daddy, das ist natürlich Bullshit, ich
habe den Stil selbstverständlich gleich erkannt.
Wenn nicht Rudi, dann Thomas Mann, und vom Thema her
wars doch eher Rudi.
Die restlich Beschreibung deiner "Expertin"
hat mir gut gefallen! Besitos de Bibilein
Dear Daddy, that is of course bullshit. Obviously I
recognized the style immediately. If not Rudi, then
Thomas Mann, and according to the subject, it was rather
Rudi. The rest of the description of your "expert"
pleased me!
Beatrice Smith
MA, Staatlich geprüfte Übersetzerin
für Deutsch und Spanisch
Sprachtrainerin |
Peter Staudenmaier (March
1st, 2004):
Hi Frank,
thanks for forwarding the correspondence with your daughter.
Her reasoning about the "but" clause makes no
sense to me. Steiner begins the previous sentence with
a criticism of the Jews (namely, that they constitute
a closed totality), not with a compliment. Thus according
to your daughter's reading, the first sentence is internally
contradictory, which hardly supports the notion that "but"
signalled a transition from compliments to criticisms.
By my reading, "but" signals a transition from
particular to general, from specific criticisms of the
Jews to denial of their very right to existence, as I
explained last week. This is the only explanation offered
so far that is consistent with the passage as a whole.
I remain very interested in alternative explanations.
|
Frank Thomas Smith (March
2nd, 2004): >"This, for me at least,
settles the question." >Not for me.
* I didn't expect it to. >She says that "nichts
weniger" is a double negation. This is half true,
but when it functions as a >phrase, "nichts weniger"
is not a double negation, as you can easily see from the
several >variants of "Ich möchte nichts weniger"
that we discussed earlier.
* The example you used several times was: Ich möchte
nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren.
In those situations, the phrase means exactly what I said
it means, and the opposite of what your daughter apparently
thinks it always means.
*I asked another friend, A German woman who lives here
in Argentina. She is a language teacher. She replied:
"Hola, Frank, a mi me parece que es así
como dice Bibi, que la doble negación en este caso
seguido por un adjetivo significa una afirmación,
sehr günstig, y el ejemplo que pone este señor
no es valido, porque sigue una frase subordinada con una
intención "ich möchte nichts weniger,
als sie zu provozieren" para mi es otra intención."
Hi, Frank, it seems to me that it is as Bibi says, that
the double negation in this case followed by an adjective
signifies an affirmation, very favorable, and the example
given by this señor (PS) is not valid, because
a subordinate phrase follows with an intention "ich
möchte nichts weniger, als Sie zu provozieren"
which is a different intention."
* You will note, btw, that it should be "zu"
provozieren, unless your example is from gutter German.
In any case, I didn't quite follow what she wrote, so
I asked here to elaborate. She replied, in German this
time:
Hola, Frank, ich versuche, es so klar wie möglich
auszudrücken. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob ich sage
"Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie zu provozieren",
weil ich damit einen Wunsch, eine Haltung ausdrücke,
anders gesagt, "Ich möchte Sie überhaupt
nicht provozieren", wenn ich aber vor ein Adjektiv
direkt setze "nichts weniger als", so wird aus
dieser doppelten Verneinung das Gegenteil, also "sehr",
also wird aus "nichts weniger als günstig"
"sehr günstig". Ein anderes Beispiel "Er
war nichts weniger als genial." "Er war sehr
genial".
Ich hoffe, dass es so verständlich ist.
Grüsse, Claudia
Hi, Frank, I'll try to express it as clearly as possible.
It is different if I say "Ich möchte nichts
weniger, als Sie zu provozieren", because I am therewith
expressing a desire, an attitude, in other words, "Ich
möchte Sie überhaupt nicht provozieren"
(I don't want to provoke you at all); but when I place
"nichts weniger als" directly before an adjective
(favorable), this double negation indicates the opposite,
that is, "nichts weniger als günstig" "sehr
günstig" (very favorable). Another example "Er
war nichts weniger als genial." "Er war sehr
genial." (He was very brilliant.)
Greetings, Claudia
*I hope that you are no less than (very) satisfied now,
but I doubt it. |
Frank Thomas Smith (March
2nd, 2004):
You're a hard nut to crack, even when common sense is
the nutcracker. Let's analyze the paragraph again: „Es
ist gewiss nicht zu leugnen, dass heute das Judentum
noch
immer als geschlossenes Ganzes auftritt und als solches
in die
Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen Zustände
vielfach eingegriffen
hat, und das in einer Weise, die den abendländischen
Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig war. Das Judentum als
solches hat
sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung
innerhalb des
modernen Völkerlebens, und dass es sich dennoch
erhalten hat, ist
ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben
konnten.“
If we assume for a moment that the AT translation is
correct, it reads:
“It cannot be denied that Jewry still today presents
itself as a self-contained entity and as such has often
intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was *nothing less than* favorable to Western
cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has outlived itself
and has no justification within the modern life of nations.
The fact that it nevertheless has been preserved is
a mistake of world history which could not fail to have
consequences.”
If we assume that your version is correct, it would
read:
“It cannot be denied that Jewry still today presents
itself as a self-contained entity and as such has often
intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was *anything but* favorable to Western
cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has outlived itself
and has no justification within the modern life of nations.
The fact that it nevertheless has been preserved is
a mistake of world history which could not fail to have
consequences.”
The first sentence is not, as you maintain, self-contradictory.
It is stating that this Jewish self-contained entity
has often most favorable intervened in the development
(or evolution) of our present conditions. BUT (however,
notwithstanding this) Jewry, as such, has oultlived
itself......
Your interpretation would mean that this Jewish self-containing
entity's intervention was anything but favorable...BUT
(however, notwithstanding this) Jewry, as such, has
oultlived itself... "but" here makes no sense
at all. He would have to have said. "Moreover..."
|
Peter Staudenmaier (March
2nd, 2004):
Hi Frank, you forwarded further commentary on the disputed
phrase:
"it seems to me that it is as Bibi says, that the
double negation in this case followed by an adjective
signifies an affirmation, very favorable, and the example
given by this señor (PS) is not valid, because
a subordinate phrase follows with an intention "ich
möchte nichts weniger, als Sie zu provozieren"
which is a different intention."
This is precisely what we disagree about. I think your
friend has quite simply misconstrued the "intention"
of the passage in question.
[Classic Staudenmaier. If
the words won't support your reading, argue the "intention".
When the intention doesn't support your reading (as in
most other cases) argue the words.]
"It is different if I say"
Well, sure, if you've already decided what you think the
phrase means in this instance, then any other reading
will indeed be different.
[A frivolous objection.]
"but when I place "nichts weniger als"
directly before an adjective (favorable), this double
negation indicates the opposite"
That is only sometimes true. What we are arguing over
is whether it is true in this case.
You continue:
"You're a hard nut to crack, even when common sense
is the nutcracker."
If you think you are employing common sense here, then
I am compelled to question your grasp of basic grammatical
categories. This is not a dispute over common sense, it
is a dispute over interpretation.
"The first sentence is not, as you maintain, self-contradictory."
It is according to your preferred reading. There is no
such thing as a "Jewish self-contained entity",
as you termed it, and Steiner's positing of such an entity
is a criticism of Jewry, not praise. If you think I otherwise,
I once again recommend familiarizing yourself with the
history of antisemitic thinking, within which this foolish
notion of Jews as a "closed totality" played
a major role.
[Irrelevant to to how the
sentence is to be interpreted. Peter Staudenmaier is essentially
arguing that because of how he would like to read the
sentence, it does not make sense any other way. That is,
because there is no such thing as a "self-contained
Jewish entity" it does not make sense to read Steiner
as meaning there to be one. This is quite ignorant. The
sentence is fairly clear.]
"Your interpretation would mean that this Jewish
self-containing entity's intervention was anything but
favorable...BUT (however, notwithstanding this)"
No, that is not my reading. My reading is that Steiner
is saying here 'but not only that, its very existence
is blah blah blah'. Hence the wording "Jewry as such".
I think your reading is incompatible with the text; it
does not provide an adequate account of either the first
or the second sentences, much less the relationship between
them. |
Frank Thomas Smith (March
2nd, 2004):
And I think you've cut my post into so many bits to suit
your purpose that it no longer makes sense. If you want
to be serious, then show it. |
Peter Staudenmaier (March
2nd, 2004):
I am indeed serious. How would you like me to show this
to you? As far as I can tell, we agree that the disputed
phrase has several possible meanings, and we disagree
about which of those meanings applies in this specific
context.
[On the contrary, the disagreement
is about three words, "nichts weniger als"
consititue a single phrase denoting double negation,
or whether two of those words - "nichts weniger"
can be read independently. The only way the second could
word is with a comma after weniger, which is not the
case in this instance. Peter Staudemnaier appears unable
to be clear on this.]
I think that the reading you offer is untenable, and
parts of it are flatly contradicted by the text itself.
[This is only true if,
like Peter Staudenmaier, you have decided in advance
what the text means. Then the proper reading becomes
problematic because it contradicts the point he would
like to make.]
You haven't taken the whole of the first sentence into
consideration, and you haven't given a sensible explanation
of the relationship between the first and second sentences.
[Three people have done
just that. It is not sensible to Peter Staudenmaier
only because it does not support his preferred reading.]
According to your interpretation, Steiner begins by
castigating the Jews for their supposed closedness,
switches mid-sentence to praising them for their contributions
to western culture, and then -- and only then -- marks
yet another transition, from praise back to criticism,
by using the word "but" halfway through the
second sentence. This makes no sense. If that were how
he meant "but", why didn't he write "but"
between the two main clauses of the first sentence?
And so forth.
[And so forth. Steiner
indeed starts by commenting on the tendency of Jews
in his day to present a closed totality (this is not
castigation, it is a desription), then praises them
for their contributions to western culture, and then
continues with a statement that this type of contribution
is now out of place in time. This is exactly what Steiner
wrote. A pity it does not say what Peter Staudenmaier
would like it to say.]
In contrast, I think that I have offered a reading that
accounts for the passage as a whole and meaningfully
relates the first sentence to the second.
[Pure Orwellian doublespeak.
What Staudenmaier claims for himself is exactly what
Detlef, Dag, Frank, Beatrice, Claudia and Daniel have
done, and what Peter Staudenmaier has not done.]
According to my reading, Steiner's argument flows logically,
rather than flip-flopping back and forth, and culminates
in characterizing the very existence of Jewry as a mistake.
[Peter Staudenmaier cannot
even properly characterize the opposing rendition.]
This is a considerably more plausible understanding
of the passage as it appears within the full article.
[If your entire thesis
is and starting point is that Steiner is an anti-Semite.
Otherwise, no.]
My reading does indeed depend on parsing "nichts
weniger" as a phrase meaning "alles andere",
which is one of the two possible meanings. That, it
seems to me, is the heart of our disagreement.
[This does not work because
such a parsing requires a comma that is not there!]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|