DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Allgemeine Diskussionen
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16799--------------------------------------------------
The F-word
By: Alharacas Date: June 13, 2019, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My newsfeed dropped this article from a Swiss newspaper into my
lap this morning:
HTML https://geschichtedergegenwart.ch/mein-anfuehrer-die-unfreiwillige-wahrheit-einer-vorsilbe/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
The title reads "Mein #Anführer. The involuntary truth of a
prefix."
The author makes quite a convincing argument for the over-use of
words like "leader" or "dirigéant" being indicative of growing
autoritarian trends within democracies all over the world - even
though I'm sure many of you will disagree with her choice of
examples. ;)
However, on the linguistic level, I strongly disagree with her.
Actually, I'd even say she contradicted herself quite obviously.
In order to make the point that the German word Anführer (Führer
having fallen in disuse for obvious historical reasons) smacks
of crime and/or rebellion, she gives the examples of
Rädelsführer, Gangchef ??? und Bandenführer (leader of the
pack, gang leader). Spot the mistake? There is no prefix "an-"
anywhere in sight in these examples, is it? That's for the very
good reason that an Anführer is - or used to be - somebody quite
different from a plain Führer or -führer, at least in the
original, literal sense of the word.
Take a group of friends or inveterate anarchists, a group
without a leader, that is. If you force those people to walk in
single file, by necessity, one of them will be the first,
regardless of his standing within the group. Now, he'd be called
the Anführer, meaning: part of the group, and the others' equal,
but simply the first in line. The very prefix an- often
indicates something incidental, tagged on.
A Führer, on the other hand, is a "leader" in the literal sense
of the word, somebody who's leading others because he's
strong-willed and/or the only one to know the way (or to think
so), somebody without whom his followers would be lost.
Maybe we should just have chosen an altogether different
replacement for the F-word, right after WWII. Leiter for
example.
Edit: Nikola, please feel free to move this thread somewhere
else if you'd rather. I mean, yes, the article is in German, and
my thread's about the German language, yet I chose to discuss
both in English, just in case somebody able to read German, but
not to write it, would like to add their observations.
#Post#: 16802--------------------------------------------------
Re: The F-word
By: NealC Date: June 13, 2019, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure of the question you are asking here, I think it is
obvious you are correct as she is not using the prefix in her
examples. What do you think of her argument as it applies to
politics?
#Post#: 16805--------------------------------------------------
Re: The F-word
By: Nikola Date: June 13, 2019, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's ok, Alharacas, I think it's quite nice to have something
new in the Allgemeine Diskussionen.
So has the word Anführer been used instead of Führer despite the
fact that it has a different meaning?
#Post#: 16825--------------------------------------------------
Re: The F-word
By: Alharacas Date: June 13, 2019, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1152.msg16805#msg16805
date=1560424839]
So has the word Anführer been used instead of Führer despite the
fact that it has a different meaning?
[/quote]
Yep. 100%. As I said (and as she said), you can have all kinds
of composite nouns with "-führer", like Reiseführer (guide
book), Marktführer (market leader), etc., but on its own, the
word is... toxic.
[quote author=NealC link=topic=1152.msg16802#msg16802
date=1560419850]
I am not sure of the question you are asking here, I think it is
obvious you are correct as she is not using the prefix in her
examples. What do you think of her argument as it applies to
politics?
[/quote]
Maybe I was asking, in a roundabout way, whether I'd
misunderstood something. It seems a bit weird that I should be
the only one to have noticed something so obvious, doesn't it?
So, perhaps there's a different way of looking at the author's
argument.
As to your question - leaving aside the US, I think it's quite
obvious she's right, there does seem to be a trend towards
authoritarianism in democratic countries, wouldn't you agree?
But I'd been aware of that before I'd read the article. And
apart from that, there's not much actual content, is there?
Basically, what she's saying is 'we're going to hell in a
hand-basket', isn't she? Which is neither constructive nor
original, is it?
#Post#: 17998--------------------------------------------------
Re: The F-word
By: SHL Date: July 14, 2019, 1:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As Alharacas describes it an Anführer is a primus inter pares,
a first among equals. I think that’s a bit soft, but ok. That’s
the way the leader of a democracy should be seen. Helmut Schmidt
saw himself as such. I’ve listened to his interviews. It’s
obvious.
The American Presidential song, ”Heil dem Anführer”, means Hail
to the Chief.” Many, including myself won't listen to or sing
this song because we find it offensive. I refuse to listen to,
let alone sing, the national anthem. Many of us do not and will
not own or fly an American flag because of what it stands for
(it’s a fairly ugly-looking thing anyway): a fascist state. I do
not celebrate Memorial Day or the 4th of July (it’s not
Independence Day - that’s fake. The US wasn’t even recognized as
an independent nation more than 7 years later when The Treaty of
Paris was signed September 3, 1783). So, the 4th of July is a
meaningless day actually.
Yeah. We need a new word to describes the Trumps of the world.
Wanna- be dictators who belie the very constitution they swore
to up hold (Idi Amin even did that) and don’t understand or
believe in it anyway (Trump).
That the US (and one of its allies in particular) is a
Schurkenstaat is obvious, a Pariah State. Trump is a Schurke, a
scoundrel, villain, and criminal if he weren’t so good at hiding
the truth with all his money, he would have been caught long
ago. He’s incompetent, has minimal education, no understanding
of government, especially workings of the US government, he
doesn’t believe in parliamentary democracy, in fact he despises
it, and wishes to rule by decree. He’s a wanna-be-dictator is
all and a fascist, who just rules be fiat, called”executive
order.”
Trump is one who has promised not to leave the Presidential
office easily (by being voted out in 2020 or a second term
expiring in 2024- that the naive Rust Belt and mid-western
voters could vote again for him is a real threat in 2020). Out
of respect for Germany, I won’t use Der Führer in reference to
Trump, but what do you call a wanna-be dictator ignorant of
democracy and disdainful of it, who is in power? Maybe a new
word is needed for someone like Trump. Tyrant maybe? Fascist, of
course. Maniacal egotist, of course. Bumbling and brainless
incompetent? Definitely.
But until English or German invents another word for a monster
like Trump, No single word comes to mind. A hater of the
Constitution is surely appropriate for Trump, one who belies the
very oath he took.
He’d have the US military swear allegiance to him personally, if
he thought he could get away with it (some in the military would
of course, high ranking officials of course because they are his
lapdog).
*****************************************************