Archive/File: holocaust/germany/language ausrotten.001 Last-Modified: 1994/10/94 Newsgroups: alt.revisionism From: stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) Subject: Re: Aussrotten Message-ID: <1994Aug20.215113.3010@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany References:<1994Aug02.122121.20852@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 21:51:13 GMT Lines: 41 In article , ai292@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gordon McFee) writes: |> In a previous article, landpost@clark.net () says: |> >In article <1994Aug02.122121.20852@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, |> >kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) wrote: |> >> In doing this, he of |> >> >course glosses over the fact that the common German word for a purge |> >> >is "Reinigung". |> >> |> >You must be a total moron. A "Reinigung" is a laundromat, you imbecile. |> >"Ausrotten" means to root-out someone or something. |> |> I am afraid you are the total moron. Reinigung means a cleansing or |> purification. A chemische Reinigung is a laundromat. Used by the Nazis, |> Reinigung meant purification (Streicher's favorite expression), which in |> turn meant an extermination. E.g. die Reinigung der Volksgemeinschaft. [...] The revisionists should be aware that this newsgroup reaches Germany before they try to assume and interpret the german language in such strange ways. I did not respond to this thread earlier because of it's stupidity - I thought it would die quickly on it's own...*sigh* "Ausrotten" means "to exterminate" - I do not doubt that it has common roots with "root out", but this is much less obvious in German usage as in comparison with English. In german language use "ausrotten" is universally used as "destroy any trace of" or "exterminate". "Reinigen" is "to clean", "Reinigung" is "cleaning". It is also used as the name of a shop that cleans your cloths. "To purge something of something-else" ist "etwas von etwas-anderem reinigen" and has a slightly different (more specific) meaning from "reinigen" alone. Stephan -------------------------- It can be done! --------------------------------- Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Tim McCarthy: Idiot or Doofus? Date: 23 Aug 1994 18:01:44 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe Lines: 44 Message-ID: <33ddi8$sfk@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <03TRBNYS@gwdu03.gwdg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , wrote: >I am really not impressed with Uwe Roessler's argument that because he is >German, that makes him an automatic authority on the German language here >in alt. revisionism. I will put forth here that, definition 2 in both the >verb and the noun are modern, sort of politically correct terms that are >newer than definitions 1 for both the verb and noun. That is why they >appear as the second definition, not the first, I think. As far as these >other Woerterbucher are concerned, I'm only debating on Langenscheidt's, >the most widely sold (to say the least) of German dictionaries. Uwe Roessler's argument was not that he is German, therefore he is an authority. His argument was that he is German, so that makes it harder for you to lie about the meanings of German words. His particular argument about "ausrotten" has nothing to do with his being a German per se. Hexham's point, that you have to consider what the word "ausrotten" meant to Himmler, which might not be the same as what it means today, is not a priori invalid. It is nonetheless wrong. As Roessler pointed out, and our own Newel Post ignored, "ausrotten" is attested as meaning "to extirpate" as early as the 16th century. If you want to look at historical meanings, then you ought to check out historical dictionaries rather than a dictionary that happens to be a best seller. I went to the library and looked up "ausrotten" in the Grimm Brothers' dictionary (Grimm, J., and W. Girmm, _Deutsches Woerterbuch_, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1854), which predates the use we are interested in by some ninety years. They define "ausrotten" as "exstirpare, ausreuten" (volume 1, column 940), and give numerous historical citations under both "ausrotten" (e.g. Joshua 7:9, "und unsern namen ausrotten von der erden") and "ausreuden" (e.g. Zeph. 1:3 -- Luther's translation -- "ja, ich wil die menschen ausreuten aus dem lande, spricht der herr.") The Grimm brothers' dictionary also mentions (also on column 940; "ausreuden" is in column 935) under "ausroden" "doch verwendet man die niederdeutsche form nur fuer die sinnliche bedeutung, nicht fuer die abstracte des austilgens: er rodete die baeume aus." In other words, Roessler is completely right and lamppost completely wrong. I doubt this comes as a surprise to anyone, although I'd be interested in knowing if these historical citations are sufficient for Hexham. Ricahrd Schultz From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Aussrotten Date: 24 Aug 1994 01:06:38 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Message-ID: <33ekgu$cd9@access3.digex.net> References: <03TRBNYS@gwdu03.gwdg.de> In article , wrote: >Uwe, the idea that you are in Germany and a German should somehow send a >jolt of fear through revisionists posting in the USA is somewhat >"ansonderlich." It gives you no more authority than anyone else posting in >alt.revisionism. What a laugh. Tim McCarthy is trying to convince us he knows more about the German language than someone who has spoken it from birth. Tim's proven he doesn't even understand English verb tenses, let alone German. >I want to thank Irving Hexham for the support and his valid argument. Here >is what Langenscheidt's Grossworterbuch has to say about >ausrotten: > >>aus rotten v/t 1. (Unkraut etc) uproot, root s.th. out >>(od. up). >>2. (Volk, Rasse etc) exterminate, wipe out, kill off 3. fig. (Uebel etc.) >>eradicate, extirpate (beide a. med.) stamp-out, root out: nicht ausrotten >- >ineradicable >>Aus rottung f 1. uprooting (etc) 2. e-s Volkes etc: >extermination >(Voelkermord) genocide: von der ~ bedrohte (Tier) Art - >endangered species 3. fig., a. med. >eradication, extirpation > >I am really not impressed with Uwe Roessler's argument that because he is >German, that makes him an automatic authority on the German language here >in alt. revisionism. I will put forth here that, definition 2 in both the >verb and the noun are modern, sort of politically correct terms that are >newer than definitions 1 for both the verb and noun. That is why they >appear as the second definition, not the first, I think. You don't think very well. You also don't read very well. See that little word in the first definition? "Unkraut?" You are such an expert on the German language, you don't need me to tell you that that means "weeds." Do you know what the English word "context" means? Probably not. >By the way, here is what Langenscheidt's has to say about this new edition >to their standard reference work: "In its adherence to the time-honoured >principles embodied by the two volume Muret-Sanders German- English >Dictionary and its concern to accommodate recent developments both in >everyday language and specialized fields of knowledge, ..." > >That choking sound you here is Uwe over in Germany choking on his >Bratwurst and the "yound idealists" here in America choking on their >macoroni and cheese at the university cafeterias all across America. No, that's us laughing at you for thinking that anyone else would fall for such a stupid idea that the text about "recent developments" talking about the book as a whole somehow PROVES that the specific definition of "ausrotten" as "exterminate" is one of those "recent developments." As someone else has posted, the "exterminate" meaning of "ausrotten" can be traced back to Martin Luther. How modern a development is the Protestant Reformation, Tim? Need a hint? -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A Quick Reply to Schlomo Date: 24 Aug 1994 11:55:29 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe Message-ID: <33fcfh$mc3@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <33ddi8$sfk@agate.berkeley.edu> In article , wrote: >Schlomo, > >Are you trying to say Luther had gas chambers way back when?? I'm not >"completely wrong" here, Langenscheidt's is the dictionary in Germany, not >this fairy tale book of Brother's Grimm or whatever you're using. As far >as "ausreuden and ausreuten, what exactly are you getting into here? The >word under discussion is ausrotten. The issue under discussion was whether when Himmler used the word "ausrotten" could he have meant "exterminate"? I did not say that Luther has gas chambers. What I said was that the use of the word "ausrotten" to mean "exterminate" is cited as far back as the seventeenth century, which means that it is perfectly plausible that Himmler could have used it with this meaning. Furthermore, it demonstrates that your contention that the meaning of "ausrotten" as "exterminate" postdates the Second World War is completely bogus. It does not surprise me in the least that you have no clue about what the Grimm brothers really did for a living. They were in fact among Europe's most significant philolgists during the nineteenth century, and in fact they collected the tales they published as "Kinder und Hausmaerchen" as a byproduct of their philological research. As for why I took the trouble of including "ausreuten" and "ausroden", it was to further illustrate that Uwe Roessler's point that "ausrotten" and "ausroden" had diverged in meaning is also supported by sources that *predate* Himmler's use of "ausrotten". I have no illusions that any of this will make any difference to you. In fact, I would say you are far too tiresome to even be a reasonable contender for Internet kook of the month. Sorry Michael. Finally, I do sort of wonder what made you pick "Schlomo" rather than, say "Shmuelik" or "Shimshon". Was it intended to be a compliment to my superior wisdom? Richard Schultz From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Aussrotten Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 09:43:00 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <03TRBNYS@gwdu03.gwdg.de> <33ekgu$cd9@access3.digex.net> mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote: > landpost@clark.net wrote: > > >I want to thank Irving Hexham for the support and his valid argument. Here > >is what Langenscheidt's Grossworterbuch has to say about > >ausrotten: > > > >>aus rotten v/t 1. (Unkraut etc) uproot, root s.th. out > >>(od. up). > >>2. (Volk, Rasse etc) exterminate, wipe out, kill off 3. fig. (Uebel etc.) > >>eradicate, extirpate (beide a. med.) stamp-out, root out: nicht ausrotten > >- >ineradicable > >>Aus rottung f 1. uprooting (etc) 2. e-s Volkes etc: > >extermination >(Voelkermord) genocide: von der ~ bedrohte (Tier) Art - > >endangered species 3. fig., a. med. >eradication, extirpation > > You don't think very well. You also don't read very well. See that > little word in the first definition? "Unkraut?" You are such an expert > on the German language, you don't need me to tell you that that means > "weeds." Yep yep yep. My compact Langenscheidt's says: ausrott-en (26) _Pflanze, a. fig._: root out; _fig._ eradicate, extirpate; _Volk_: exterminate; -ung _f_ eradication, extermination. So "root out" is a fine translation...if you're talking about Unkraut or Pflanze. (Weeds or plants.) Apparently Mr. Tim McCarthy believes that Himmler et al. were talking about _plants_ that they were going to uproot. That speech at Poznan where Himmler said he was going to ausrotten a bunch of Jews...he wasn't addressing thousands of high-ups in the SS, he must have been talking to a _gardening class_. Mr. Tim McCarthy, please present your one or two best pieces of evidence that Jews are plants. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy I speak for no one but myself. From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: High-level stupidity from Hexham (Ausrotten) Date: 26 Aug 1994 17:01:02 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe Lines: 59 Message-ID: <33l74e$8d0@agate.berkeley.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Irving Hexham wrote: >. . .You cannot use a dictionary written twenty or thirty years after an >event to provide a dogmatic defintion of a word. Neither, can you >appeal to a figure living in the sixteenth century, Luther, to >support later definitions. This is just plain stupid. It seems to me that if you find a dictionary written in 1854, and it says that "ausrotten" carried the meaning of "extirpate" from at least the 1500's onwards, and then you find a dictionary written in the 1960's (or 1970's or 1980's) that says "ausrotten" means "extirpate", the reasonable assumption is that it did not change its meaning at some point in between and then changed back. I personally would consider any historian who thought that the issue merited further analysis to "prove" that the meaning stayed constant in between was somewhat less than competent. Remember: for this hypothesis of yours to be true, the word must have changed its meaning and *then changed back to the old one*. That is such a (let us say) counterintuitive thing to assert that it strikes me that the burden of proof is on you. >. . .But, ultimately contemporary usage is >the only guide. This means both dictionaries pulbished in the >Nazi era and examples of word usage in Nazi and other documents. > >Now, I have no doubt that aussrotten means exterminate. But, >having no doubt and proving it are two different things. Normally >people do rely on standard definitions. But, when usage is >challenged on historical grounds, as it has been by the >revisionists, a historical answer is the only acceptable >evidence. To provide other definitions, repeat ones point, get >mad or ridicule anyone who suggests otherwise, is simply not >acceptable. I do not have all that much time on my hands to devote to this issue, and as I said, it is really for someone who thinks the meaning has changed to prove his case. Nonetheless, I was able to dig up a copy of the 1939 edition of _Cassell's New German and English Dictionary_ (Breul, Karl; revised and enlarged by J. H. Lepper and R. Kottenhahn, New York: Funk and Wagnall's, 1939; the German-English part had been published separately in 1936). I assume that this counts as a dictionary published in the Nazi era. Under the entry "ausrotten", we find the following: *ausrotten* : extirpate, exterminate, root out. *-er* : extirpator. *-ung* : extermination. *Ausrottungskrieg* : war of extermination. My initial response is "game, set, and match", but I can foresee Hexham's response already: this is a German-English dictionary, not a German-German one; it was written in 1936, not 1944; it reflects some standard usage, not that of whichever dialect Himmler spoke; etc. -- Richard Schultz "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" Article 17263 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: dbtgthomas@aol.com (DbtgThomas) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Aussrotten Date: 8 Oct 1994 10:26:04 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 17 Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com Message-ID: <376a5s$jra@newsbf01.news.aol.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com In article , charles11@delphi.com writes: As most seem to do, you give the definition of ausrotten as to extirpate or exterminate. Many German dictionaries also include the definition "to uproot", which happens also to be a definition of extirpate, "to pull up by the roots". But all dictionary definitions do is list the possibilities, generally excluding slang useage. I still think this question should be addressed, if at all, by either a qualified German linguist or several older Germans whose knowledge of this not commonly used word would date to the period in question. I put it to one fellow who had to dredge back into his memory before suddenly exclaiming that it meant to get rid of rats and mice. The word predates modern fumigation techniques. Perhaps it means "send out the cats"? More likely it was meant as an expression of extreme contempt, equating a group of people with rats. One more opinion for this confusing heap. Article 17463 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1 From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) Subject: Re: Aussrotten Message-ID: Organization: GWDG, Goettingen References: <37aacc$n29@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <37aiq1$4j3@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 23:56:08 GMT Lines: 35 landpost@clark.net writes: ... >Also, the word "Ausrottung", I have suggested, can only be found in >context with the word "Judenevakuierung" nearby. ... >Tim McCarthy >landpost@clark.net It's time again for some easy exercises in German. Please Mr landpost show some examples (with references!) for this astonishing statement. Is there any syntactical rule in German, that 'Judenevakuierung' comes always in close connection with 'Ausrottung' ? From: "Ereignismeldung UdSSR Nr.151" 5.1.1942: "Der Hoehere SS- und Polizeifuehrer in Riga, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer "Jeckeln, hat inzwischen eine Erschiessungsaktion in Angriff genommen "und am Sonntag, dem 30.11.41, ca. 4000 des Rigaer Ghettos und eines "Evakuierungstransportes aus dem Reich beseitigt. BA,R 58/215-220 [The Higher SS and Police leader in Riga, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln, has undertaken now an action of executions by shooting and on Sunday 30.1.41 he has eliminated about 4000 Jews from the Riga ghetto and from one evacuation transport from the Reich.] May be, Mr. landpost could amend this translation at least and at last, or he might add the necessary context. u.roessler uroessl1@gwdg.de
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.