Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:51 pm)

Well, I correct :

Let us see if there is a reader who understood Pia Kahn's explanations.
Could anybody, other than Pia Kahn, explain why this phrase is correct :
"Der Mann wurde betrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt"
and why this phrase is incorrect :
"Die Juden werden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt" ?
Thanks beforehand.



avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Pia Kahn » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:53 pm)

Reviso, did you forget, It is time for you to answer questions?
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:59 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:"I said that even if the German grammarians view "strassenbauend" as an adverb, there is no necessity to translate it in English by a word ending by -ly."

Oh but you say that it is not an adverb, and you didn't notice that I put "ly" in brackets as a suggestion. It doesn't make any sense with or without "ly". So you claim to know German grammar better than German grammarians, why?

No, I said : " I don't see any necessity to consider "strassenbauend" an adverb, and even if the German grammarians view it as an adverb, there is no reason to translate it by a word finishing by -ly." Thus, MY FEELING was that it is not an adverb, but I recognized that the competent people could view it as an adverb.

You didn't answer my objection :
In "Der Mann wird betrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt", is "betrunken" inflected ?
because you have no answer.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Pia Kahn » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:01 pm)

Why should we trust your "FEELINGS"? Why do you claim to know that it is not an adverb, but you cannot tell what it is?

"you didn't answer my objection :" I don't answer your questions about policemen. That's ridiculous.

"In "Der Mann wird betrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt", is "betrunken" inflected ?
because you have no answer."

"betrunken" is not inflected. Therefore, it is an adverb and not an adjetive! Proof:


"In Abgrenzung zu Adjektiven gehören dann zur Wortart Adverb nur Wörter, die nie flektiert in attributiver Verwendung wie a) oben vorkommen können (der Stern „ * “ bezeichnet grammatisch ausgeschlossene Formen):"

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb#Ad ... d_Adjektiv

I already gave you the answer. Why should I repeat myself?

It is time for you to respond to questions!
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:11 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:
Reviso wrote:
Pia Kahn wrote:So you see it as an adjective of Jews! Adjectives must be inflected in German. Then, why is this term no inflected?


And in "Der Mann wurde betrunken zum Polizeikumpel geführt", is "betrunken" inflected ?


You are the one who has to answer questions now. I am not answering your invented questions about police"kumpel" - police buddies - any longer.

Why is the term "street-building" not inflected in German if it is used to characterized the subject of the phrase?

This is the meaning of the term adverb:

"An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, adjective, another adverb, determiner, noun phrase, clause, or sentence. Adverbs typically express manner, place, time, frequency, degree, level of certainty, etc., answering questions such as how?, in what way?, when?, where?, and to what extent?"

"Adjektive, die als Attribut zu einem Substantiv gebraucht werden, werden im Deutschen flektiert (gebeugt), d. h., sie zeigen in dieser Konstruktion Übereinstimmung mit dem Substantiv in den Merkmalen Kasus, Numerus und Genus."

"Adjectives that are used as an attribute of the noun are inflected in German, ..."

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb#Ad ... d_Adjektiv


Why do you say that "strassenbauend" should be inflected in "Die Juden werden strassenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt", while "betrunken" is not inflected in "Der Mann wurde betrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt" ?
Last edited by Reviso on Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Pia Kahn » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:12 pm)

I am not anwering your questions. I have done that long enough. It is time for you to respond to questions.

According to your feelings "straßenbauend" is not an adverb. What is it?

Oh, and before you answer the question, you should answer this one, which you have been dodging long enough:

Handel "trade" and Landwirtschaft "Farming" are also a "private Beruf". Therefore, it doesn't make sense to not include them in the "private Berufe" above. Why are "private Berufe" listed as "alternatives" to "landwirtschaft" and "trade", when they are both "private Berufe"? The author of these lines clearly didn't know what he was talking about.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:24 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:Handel "trade" and Landwirtschaft "Farming" are also a "private Beruf". Therefore, it doesn't make sense to not include them in the "private Berufe" above. Why are "private Berufe" listed as "alternatives" to "landwirtschaft" and "trade", when they are both "private Berufe"? The author of these lines clearly didn't know what he was talking about.


Well, OK, I didn't recall that the Protocol lists "private Berufe" as alternatives to "landwirtschaft" and "trade". If "Private Berufe" can absolutely not be used in the sense of "freie Berufe", there is a linguistic mistake in the Protocol. Ney says that it is a mistake that no German would make, but since he said something false about "schwer", I'm cautious with Ney.

But I take leave to repeat my request :
Let us see if there is a reader who understood Pia Kahn's explanations.
Could anybody, other than Pia Kahn, explain why this phrase is correct :
"Der Mann wurde betrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt"
and why this phrase is incorrect :
"Die Juden werden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt" ?
Thanks beforehand.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Pia Kahn » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:27 pm)

"Well, OK, I didn't recall that the Protocol lists "private Berufe" as alternatives to "landwirtschaft" and "trade". If "Private Berufe" can absolutely not be used in the sense of "freie Berufe", there is a linguistic mistake in the Protocol. Ney says that it is a mistake that no German would make, but since he said something false about "schwer", I'm cautious with Ney."

So what is the your basis for claiming that it is not a "grave" - schwer - mistake? Do we have to trust your feelings once again?

Well, I will tell you why it is a big mistake. The term "private Berufe" is not a standardised term. It is a term that you can make up and give it a particular meaning on the fly. You wont't find "privater Beruf" in the Duden, the standard work on German terms. Whereas, "freier Beruf" is a standard term, which you can indeed find in the Duden.

Why should the author of the text create on the fly a non-standardised term for a standardised term?

I'll tell you the answer: Because he doesn't know any better.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:40 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:I am not anwering your questions. I have done that long enough. It is time for you to respond to questions.

According to your feelings "straßenbauend" is not an adverb. What is it?


In French, we say that it is a "present participle used as adjective" and that this adjective is here an "adjectif attribut du complément" (somewhat like a "predicative adjective for the complement"). It is for this reason that I don't feel it as an adverb. But I recognized that the German grammarians could see it as an adverb.
By the way, could you quote a grammatical book or site that says that in the phrase "Der Mann wurde getrunken (or schläfrig, etc.) zur Polizeiwache geführt", the word "getrunken", or schläfrig etc., is an adverb ?

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Pia Kahn » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:41 pm)

I don't care about French. We are talking about German. I have been posting links to wikipedia about grammar whereas you have not been posting anything at all. Where is your evidence?
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:46 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:"Well, OK, I didn't recall that the Protocol lists "private Berufe" as alternatives to "landwirtschaft" and "trade". If "Private Berufe" can absolutely not be used in the sense of "freie Berufe", there is a linguistic mistake in the Protocol. Ney says that it is a mistake that no German would make, but since he said something false about "schwer", I'm cautious with Ney."

So what is the your basis for claiming that it is not a "grave" - schwer - mistake? Do we have to trust your feelings once again?

Well, I will tell you why it is a big mistake. The term "private Berufe" is not a standardised term. It is a term that you can make up and give it a particular meaning on the fly. You wont't find "privater Beruf" in the Duden, the standard work on German terms. Whereas, "freier Beruf" is a standard term, which you can indeed find in the Duden.

Why should the author of the text create on the fly a non-standardised term for a standardised term?

I'll tell you the answer: Because he doesn't know any better.


I don't claim that it is not a big mistake, I say that I don't believe Ney on this question, since he made a gross mistake about "schwer". I hope that you are a better linguistic authority than Ney.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Pia Kahn » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:51 pm)

"I don't claim that it is not a big mistake, I say that I don't believe Ney on this question, since he made a gross mistake about "schwer". I hope that you are a better linguistic authority than Ney."

So what? Ney didn't make a "mistake" about "schwer". "Schwer" literally means "heavy" and in a public document you expect the term to be used in this manner. This does not mean that "schwer" cannot be used metaphorically for "difficult" in the same way "hard" can be used for "difficult" in the English language. But, it is not common in the context of the protocol of a government meeting. I hope you understand that. Or do you think that French government officials usually talk about something being "dure" instead of "difficile"? German civil servants usually don't use this kind of language.
Last edited by Pia Kahn on Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:03 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:I don't care about French. We are talking about German. I have been posting links to wikipedia about grammar whereas you have not been posting anything at all. Where is your evidence?


My evidence is that you cannot explain why "Der Mann wurde getrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt" is correct and "Die Juden werden strassenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt" is incorrect. If "getrunken" is here (according to you) an adverb, why cannot "strassenbauend" be used similarly as an adverb ?
"Der Mann wurde getrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt" can be translated as "The man was led to the guardhouse while being drunk". Thus, why couldn't "Die Juden werden strassenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt" be translated as "The Jews will be led to these territories while building roads" ?

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Pia Kahn » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:08 pm)

What evidence? You have not posted any evidence whatsoever!

The phrase "Der Mann wurde getrunken zur Polizeiwache geführt" - by the way - does not make any sense whatsoever in German. Mr. Frenchman does not know the difference between "betrunken" and "getrunken" in German.

Now, I do not doubt that most German speaking people can make sense of the sentence by tacitly correcting it. The correct phrase would be: "Der betrunkene Mann wurde zur Polizeiwache geführt."
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:15 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:"I don't claim that it is not a big mistake, I say that I don't believe Ney on this question, since he made a gross mistake about "schwer". I hope that you are a better linguistic authority than Ney."

So what? Ney didn't make a "mistake" about "schwer". "Schwer" literally means "heavy" and in a public document you expect the term to be used in this manner. This does not mean that "schwer" cannot be used metaphorically for "difficult" in the same way "hard" can be used for "difficult" in the English language. But, it is not common in the context of the protocol of a government meeting. I hope you understand that.


I'm not sure that the Protocol was a "public" document. One can expect a certain linguistic level from such a document, but also from an "expertise" as the text of Ney and Bohlinger. But Mentel noticed that Ney and Bohlinger themselves use the word "schwer" in the sense of "difficult". Thus, is "schwer" in the sense of "difficult" an impossibility in a report written by Eichmann ? Are there dictionaries that say that "schwer" in the sense of "difficult" is low level ? My dictionaries don't say it.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 12 guests