Daniel Hindes: writings
Blog Essays Book Reviews Music Reviews How-to's Miscellaneous

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!]

 
 
 

 

Copyright 1989-2007 Daniel Hindes