From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german
Subject: Re: Violence update 13.10.92
Date: 13 Oct 1992 17:20:47 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: dimebox.cs.utexas.edu

 nitsche@carson.u.washington.edu (Gregor Nitsche) writes:

||||parties concerned - SPD, FDP, PDS and Green - have protested that this
||||denunciation is uncalled for.
||> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
||>I thought denunciation only applied to crimes.
||>Is it a crime to be against a change in the constitution? 
||
||Denunciation or the verb "to denounce" can be used a number of ways, not 
||just with serious crimes.  But really, I think that this could be an 
||unnecessary linguistic point.

>Oops, you're right. I should have known that ...  You are also right with
>your guess that I am not a native English speaker.  When I read denuncia-
>tion, I thought immediately of the German word "Denunziation" which is
>usually used in connection with crimes (or rather with what is considered
>a crime by the respective authorities); the word itself has a negative
>connotation and is mostly used in connection with non-democratic regimes.
>However, I suppose that in this case, "denunciation" was merely the trans-
>lation of the German word, anyway.

	sorry, Greg, but I don't buy it.  I see too many people playing
	games with words, "not understanding" or using the argument of
	the "definition by the book" to not recognize what is being meant
	and what the intent and line of thinking is behind both words
	and actions:


	in this case, the word "denunciation" expresses the disgust
	of someone who feels that "the bloodhounds" are being let
	loose at them....  any argument there?

	to refocus from that fact to questioning the definition and
	correct use of "to demounce" is "Fensterwischerei" (a smoke
	screen)....  by someone who thinks differently than the ones
	who complain....   still on track ?


	to state that "Denunzieren" is usually used in connection with
	crimes in German, is outright incorrect; it is used to describe
	the (objectionable?) act of being a snitch, not so much to get
	the laws obeyed, but rather "to incite some action be taken
	against the parties being denounced"; in this case, clearly,
	it is a likely fear of the "denounced parties" of right-wing
	violence directed against them, that has them object to what
	the advertising said.  And I would not easily be dissuaded from
	my believe, that those who phrased the political ad and paid
	for it, were livid in anticipation of both fear in the target
	group, as well as some possible actions which might be under-
	taken against them by the hoods...

	when Scott writes:

>Denunciation or the verb "to denounce" can be used a number of ways, not 
>just with serious crimes.  But really, I think that this could be an 
>unnecessary linguistic point.  I assume that the two posters are not native 
>English speakers, though I may be wrong on the second since he writes from u.
>washington.  For a German trying to find the right word, the nuances of the 
>language might cause it to have a different connotation than it usually has 
>in English.  Also, English words are more loosely defined, for the most 
>part.  That was clear to me when I gave a paper in Germany and found that in 
>German words have a more precise definition.  Therefore, I think denounce 
>probably simply means to sharply criticize -- something consistent with 
>democracy.  The word condemn can also be used, even though it is often used 
>in association with violent crimes.

	he addresses some aspects of the issue at hand correctly;
	however, the main point I'd like to make here is, that if
	people have their mind set to disagree with something that is
	being said, they are inclined to start technical arguements
	over definitions, syntax, semantics, what-have-you (the weather)
	...which is completely different from a conversation where both
	parties FIRST-and-FOREMOST MAKE AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND the IMPORTANT
	ASPECTS and points begin made (and to take the the different need
	and points of view of others into consideration, in the right context)
	and to contribute to and enrich each other's thinking and knowledge,
	versus the "I am right", "NO, I AM RIGHT!"... exchange (or, the
	alternative, using the lawyers' adversarial style of reaching
	truth and justice, where you just argue and work for "one truth",
	which, however, hardly ever reaches the balance of "the truth"
	(and much UNTRUTH and INJUSTICE has been cast in stone that way!)
	because the opposing lawyer isn't "good enough" (and the judge
	is either biased or senile and asleep)

	the question you raised:

||>Is it a crime to be against a change in the constitution? 

	is really a rhetorical attempt trying to induce one point of
	view (what?  a YES or a NO?  you are the judge)

	instead the question you might have stated: Though it is not
	illegal to either support or oppose changing the constitution,
	emotional abuse of the issue is rampant (kind of like the
	patriotism issue "over here";  hell, the only aspect of
	Quayle I somewhat respect is that he acted on an apparent
	belief that going to Vietnam is "not right"; that it was
	more likely a "not right FOR ME" than Clinton's "not right
	FOR US" is another question...


	When it comes to changing a constitution, be that here, there
	and just about everywhere, a wise (wo)man gets VERY NERVOUS
	and SUSPICIOUS...
-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german