Francis mentioned that anyone devising reflexive theory needs to reflect on their own position. I think this frame is missed almost entirely, yet it is easy enough to spot that a lot of very wordy people make comfortable livings inside the Establishment zoo. It's rare to find students who understand there are many arguments and that most of the time we just follow what was done the day before.
On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:25:15 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > Trying to figure out how to create changes very difficult.. Most people > never get beyond finger pointing and condemning those ah strive to make a > better world.. > > تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين > Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others > > -----Original Message----- > From: archytas <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 1:10 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung > > I never found the order I searched for but always a sinister and > well-planned disorder that increases in the hands of those who hold power > while the others who clamor for a more kindly world a world with less > hunger and more hopefulness die of torture in the prisons. Don’t come any > closer there’s a stench of carrion surrounding me. Claribel Alegría, “From > the Bridge” > > Events of massive, public suffering defy quantitative analysis. How can > one really understand statistics citing the death of six million Jews or > graphs of thirdworld starvation? Do numbers really reveal the agony, the > interruption, the questions that these victims put to the meaning and > nature of our individual lives and life as a whole? Rebecca Chopp, The > Praxis of Suffering > > If only I had a graduate student bright enough to tell me he'd rather wash > windows than read Habermas. At least I could say in return that reading > Habermas probably equips one only as a window cleaner, Rawls would > probably be the equivalent in English. The terms do not translate easily > Francis, yet one finds people saying the same things. Indeed, the > importation of the 'great names' looks a lot like the way we import > loony-tune experts to 'help' with such as 'satanic abuse'. > > > http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/133648/86154a0de3b41902f6fd8200c20f6207.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y > > - takes an anthropological run at social issues and has the virtue of being > free. There are, of course, so many approaches, so much to read, that one > ends up doing nothing else. > > Winkler is published in English, though not the book at the end of Gabby's > link. If one compares what he says with standard BBC history fodder, still > stuck in Kings and Queens, then German history looks a lot more honest. In > fact, there is plenty of work like Winkler's in English and we just get the > dross on television. It is tempting to ask undergraduates (any students) > to read some of the more realistic material - pretty much a total > re-education. Yet, if you do manage to get into Gabby-listening mode, a > lot of them already know they have been fed crap. And one has to ask what > erudition has done for oneself and how you end up teaching people who are > becoming debt-serfs, and why we have to keep threatening them that this is > the only way to avoid poverty through life. Go postmodern and one should > ask why you still get to mark the work. Generally, all text has a core > academic narrative leading you by the nose. > > This form of the academy strikes me as a diversion from the consideration > of practical change. For a start, most people are excluded from it because > they are not literate enough, much as we have made innumeracy a bar to > science. Much as we need real history and need it across general > literature (so 'Good Queen Bess' might actually be seen inspiring troops > after the battles were won and not paying the sailors), and we need to see > what we are really doing in the world, this involves realising we have been > had and live under a control fraud that includes much academic learning we > have sunk costs in. Habermas cannot 'work' unless we change money > structures and find a way to get work done without poverty as a motivator. > Yet one can learn to teach his stuff in the current system. One can be > very content, 5,000 words into an elaboration of his work as > phenomenological structuralism for a conference in Vigo, knowing it has sod > all to do with anything other than a free personal trip to Vigo. I did a > joke sketch there instead. > > Somewhere in all this we are scared to death of looking at how the world > is run. > > > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 9:44:45 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: >> >> Actually I have been thinking of this book here: >> http://www.amazon.de/Geschichte-Westens-Die-Zeit-Gegenwart/dp/3406669867/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425546635&sr=1-14&keywords=deutsche+geschichte. >> >> >> But then you can tell by the mere look at the cover that I'm >> "historically" a West-Berliner and therefore bound to be biased in that >> direction. >> My son is writing his Leistungskurs Politische Weltkunde Klausur on the >> German Grundgesetz at this very moment and he has been very much educated >> in the above mentioned spirit. I tried not to mess up his preparation this >> time by bringing up some very different truths. I see them less based in >> language though, which helps me to learn to keep my mouth shut when it's >> time to listen. >> >> Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 schrieb frantheman : >> >>> Habermas is fine with "herrschaftsfreier Diskurs" as long as he has the >>> "Herrschaft"! :-) >>> >>> I came at Habermas sideways this semester; I was doing pretty intensive >>> work on the historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Wehler>, in particular his >>> monumental five-volume *Deutsche Sozialgeschichte 1770-1989*, and you >>> can't work on Wehler without having to look at Habermas. The two of them >>> met as kids in the Hitler-Jugend in Gummersbach, where Habermas was >>> Wehler's *Gruppenführer*, and remained friends and close associates all >>> their lives - coming to each other's defence in many of those vicious >>> intellectual fights German academics are so fond of (e.g. the Sonderweg >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderweg> discussion, or the >>> Historikerstreit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit>). >>> >>> Both Habermas and Wehler are proponents of what is called in German the >>> *bürgerliche >>> Gesellschaft*. To come back to a major theme of this thread, this is a >>> term which it is very difficult to accurately translate into English >>> without losing much of its meaning in German and adding things in English >>> which are not there in German. There is, in fact, no real English word for >>> *bürgerlich*; conventionally the French term *bourgeois *is used. But >>> *bourgeois >>> *has many negative connotations in English (particularly since the 60s, >>> when it was almost exclusively used in a pejorative Marxist sense) - >>> *bürgerlich >>> *is used in German in a much more varied, and often matter-of-fact >>> fashion. "Middle class" could also be used, but that's a term that can also >>> be problematic. "Civil society" also captures some of its meaning in a more >>> neutral sense. When I use the term "liberal democracy," or "western >>> liberalism" in English, I think the German translation for what I am trying >>> to describe is *bürgerliche Gesellschaft*. And when I speak of "New >>> Deal, social-democratic, open, liberal (in the true sense) democracy," it's >>> basically an attempt to describe what German much more concisely calls >>> *soziale >>> Marktwirtschaft*. >>> >>> Translation is difficult, because languages both define and are defined >>> by culture. What's the German for leadership? *Führung. *So what's the >>> German for leader? *Führer. *But because of German history, there are >>> major difficulties with using that word, particularly in a German context. >>> In English there's no problem with calling Angela Merkel the "German >>> leader." But *deutsche Führer *or *Führerin? *Good luck with that >>> one! Or, taking a feminist turn - the most common German translation for >>> authority (in the sense of *power/control*) is *Herrschaft. *How about >>> *Frau-schaft? >>> *Or even *Frau schafft*! >>> >>> Language is tricky - translation even more so. >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2015 23:16:47 UTC+1 schrieb Gabby: >>>> >>>> Much as I would like to see it, I find myself despairing more and more >>>>> over the possibility of the kind of decent rational discourse Chris is >>>>> pleading for. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hm? Chris was pleading for you and Habermas is pleading for >>>> "herrschaftsfreier Diskurs", so not all hope is lost. ;) >>>> >>>> *Western liberalism *is the concept that I find needs further >>>> problematization. This is what I would see you working on. I am often >>>> astounded how differently the idea of "liberal" is taken in English >>>> speaking countries. >>>> >>>> 2015-03-04 17:55 GMT+01:00 frantheman <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> One of my professors has suggested that I do a research paper next >>>>> semester on the reception of Habermas' thinking about society in the >>>>> English-speaking (academic) world, Neil. I'm internally resisting because >>>>> I >>>>> find him so long-winded, obtuse, boring, and self-important (a typical >>>>> German academic in other words). I can think of about a hundred things >>>>> I'd >>>>> rather do than immerse myself in his writings - like cleaning the windows >>>>> in my flat for instance. >>>>> >>>>> Fundamentally, Habermas is also a typical German philosopher (like >>>>> Leibnitz and Hegel) in that he believes he lives in the best possible >>>>> world >>>>> - that of centre-left North European liberal democracy (though, should he >>>>> in his dotage find the way to this group, he would probably deny this and >>>>> condemn us all from his self-appointed position as the doyen of German >>>>> ivory-tower intellectuals). I would argue that there may have been a >>>>> moment >>>>> when he was perhaps partially right, but this moment has gone. >>>>> >>>>> In a longer historical context of the past 250 years, there was a >>>>> moment when the rationalist liberal bourgeois spirit seemed to be >>>>> reaching >>>>> some kind of fruition in the West - between the end of WWII and the >>>>> beginning of the 80s. Then came Reagan, Thatcher, and the religious >>>>> orthodoxy of neo-liberal economics and the moment was lost. What I >>>>> believe >>>>> happened was that the old (and some new) elites had finally recovered >>>>> enough power over the basic decency of New Deal, social-democratic, open, >>>>> liberal (in the true sense) democracy to once more rearrange things to >>>>> their own maximised benefit. This is the central point made by Piketty in >>>>> *Capital >>>>> in the Twenty-First Century. *No wonder he has been so viciously >>>>> attacked by various acolytes of neo-liberal economic orthodoxy. Since >>>>> then, >>>>> Habermas' "unfinished project" of western liberalism has been >>>>> continuously >>>>> - and purposely - unravelled, often leaving the forms intact while >>>>> killing >>>>> the living substance. >>>>> >>>>> Much as I would like to see it, I find myself despairing more and more >>>>> over the possibility of the kind of decent rational discourse Chris is >>>>> pleading for. It's possible - sometimes - in microcosmic areas like this >>>>> forum (though even here it can be easily sabotaged). There's one way of >>>>> telling the narrative of the history of ideas in the past 250 years which >>>>> goes like this: Once upon a time there was a dream of rational and >>>>> reasoned >>>>> discourse. It was called the Enlightenment. It soon became tainted by the >>>>> virus of Romanticism and it turned into Modernity, which came with lots >>>>> of >>>>> unpleasant features like nationalism and fascism. It has now almost >>>>> completely disappeared, constantly castigated by braying apologists of >>>>> nationalist, ideological, or religious certainty before ultimately >>>>> drowning >>>>> in a sea of triviality. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, that's only one way of telling the story. I don't think I'd >>>>> like to live in a platonic republic ruled by philosopher-kings and >>>>> Robespierre, Saint-Just, and the Committee of Public Safety justified the >>>>> Terror with an appeal to Reason. As humans we are more than just our >>>>> rationality. This is what makes real communication so difficult - but >>>>> also >>>>> so rich and fascinating. What we need, perhaps, is less certainty and >>>>> self-righteousness, more decency, respect, and listening. >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 10:10:37 AM UTC+1, archytas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting dictionaries Gabby. You actually sound a bit like >>>>>> Luhmann in this tense and grammar version. We could send all our >>>>>> messages >>>>>> to you in order to get the genuine and objective version of whatever we >>>>>> meant to say, though I'm sure you might resist the censorship >>>>>> implications >>>>>> of the new Gabbledegook. Understanding transitions from sensual to >>>>>> intellectual and various aspects of nuance has long been part of racist >>>>>> and >>>>>> classist presupposition in intelligence. >>>>>> >>>>>> The verstehen problematic includes the idea that we should not expect >>>>>> to treat language in our theoretical expectations, as 'naive' >>>>>> participants >>>>>> have their own assumptions and hypotheses of which researchers >>>>>> themselves >>>>>> may be ignorant. One thus goes for more 'ethno' approaches such as >>>>>> ethnomethodology. The literature is generally boring, not unlike >>>>>> dictionaries. I suppose we enter the learning hoping to stand on the >>>>>> shoulders of giants, but few enter these educational processes on a >>>>>> voluntary basis. Science, with its objective outcomes, should be easy >>>>>> to >>>>>> teach, yet is not. In Chris' 'strip the language for easy >>>>>> interpretation' >>>>>> terms, what could be easier than teaching people simple standardisation >>>>>> like "measuring a meniscus"? You can demonstrate the doing to explain >>>>>> the >>>>>> word and necessary actions. Now send the little dears off to do some >>>>>> titration. Simples! Yet much gets in the way even of this kind of >>>>>> simple >>>>>> instruction. Many kids aren't even considered fit to enter the >>>>>> laboratory >>>>>> and, indeed, even fit to have such simple pointed instruments as a >>>>>> compass >>>>>> to learn a bit of geometry (owing to stabbings, self-harm and so on). >>>>>> >>>>>> Gabby's spin is a delight, even if I get a vision of her standing >>>>>> with two feet in a rabbit hole, and was waiting for the barb at the end, >>>>>> which came here with a smile. AI can catch these patterns. Most of us >>>>>> in >>>>>> this game have noticed we are after machine intelligence because we >>>>>> despair >>>>>> of the glib internet world Francis describes.and that defeasible logic >>>>>> loses all beauty contests with Chris holding up a craft beer. The >>>>>> despair >>>>>> on human rationality and the libidinal biologically bound trivial is a >>>>>> motivator, perhaps once found in science cutting out the Idols Gabby has >>>>>> an >>>>>> undeclared better version of she has forgotten, in trying to get >>>>>> machines >>>>>> to do what humans have always failed at - argument properly informed by >>>>>> Reason and 'big data' approaches not constrained to selling us another >>>>>> planet-burning widget. One thing I think we have been very bad at is >>>>>> grasping frames of ideology, including why people generally act in them. >>>>>> >>>>>> This was the big theme in both Luhmann and Habermas, who did nothing on >>>>>> how >>>>>> we might live without the violence of poverty and needing to make >>>>>> livings. >>>>>> There is no grasp of Gabby as the existential cash girl she described >>>>>> herself as. One can model all of us in fuzzy sets on such lines, not >>>>>> unlike her idea of the trace of people's histories to the 'moment'. >>>>>> Socrates was described by his wife as a good-looking waster, not much >>>>>> good >>>>>> at putting food on the family table and helping with childcare. We >>>>>> neglect >>>>>> what argument is and why anyone else would want to listen to it. The >>>>>> dogs >>>>>> watch me, concerned only that I finish and enter their rationality of >>>>>> being >>>>>> off the lead along the riverbank. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is an old joke about standing in something on both feet. This >>>>>> is a punishment in hell, standing in excrement up to one's neck. This, >>>>>> of >>>>>> course, is for the tea break. One spends the rest of the day standing >>>>>> on >>>>>> one's hands. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 12:54:25 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a question, Francis! Here is basically everything you can get >>>>>>> about "verstehen" in ist linguistic context: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=verstehen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess you are interested in the tipping point when the sensuous >>>>>>> meaning "I am standing in this with both my feet" transgressed to the >>>>>>> field >>>>>>> where it became an expression for the process of intellectual >>>>>>> comprehension: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in-stân besagt 'in einem gegenstande stehen, fuszen, zuhause sein', >>>>>>>> under-standen, under-stân 'dazwischen d. h. mitten darin stehen'. wenn >>>>>>>> nun >>>>>>>> noch, ob auch ganz vereinzelt, ein nhd. bestehen (th. 1, 1672) in >>>>>>>> demselben >>>>>>>> sinne gebraucht wird, so würde es die anschauung vertreten 'einen >>>>>>>> gegenstand umstehen, bestehen, in seiner gewalt haben' (ahd. >>>>>>>> bi-standan >>>>>>>> vgl. umbi-: griech. ἀμφι-). von diesem ausgangspunkte läszt sich der >>>>>>>> übergang von dem sinnlichen auf das geistige gebiet verstehen, wie uns >>>>>>>> die >>>>>>>> ähnlich entwickelten bildungen be-greifen und ver-nehmen noch heute >>>>>>>> semasiologisch durchsichtig sind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can also see what the "ver"-prefix can do and has done to the >>>>>>> root words and vice versa: http://www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=ver >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And to do something "aus Versehen" would be an example of how an >>>>>>> educated Minds Eyer would justify their mistake. ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015-03-03 18:56 GMT+01:00 frantheman <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I and I sometimes overstand. Sometimes don't! And does *ver-stehen >>>>>>>> *have the same relationship to standing as *sich vertun *has to >>>>>>>> doing? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:36:22 PM UTC+1, Gabby wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers Francis! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Schonhaltung or schon Haltung. The break makes the difference. And >>>>>>>>> your medical knowledge bridges the gap. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually "overs", short form of "overstand", was my initial key >>>>>>>>> word that got me looking deeper/higher into language construction >>>>>>>>> long time >>>>>>>>> ago. I was deeply impressed by what I had learned about Jamaican >>>>>>>>> itations >>>>>>>>> and Rastafari poltitical poetry. In your case the ability to do >>>>>>>>> religious >>>>>>>>> contextualization of language items certainly helps when studying >>>>>>>>> Kulturwissenschaften. Viel Erfolg! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2015-03-03 17:15 GMT+01:00 frantheman <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm still here - in some sense anyway. More passive, thoughtful, >>>>>>>>>> watching, listening and thinking. As they say on Facebook; it's >>>>>>>>>> complicated. There's such a volume of *stuff *out on the web now >>>>>>>>>> that I find my reluctance to contribute to it growing ever stronger >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> past years. Do I have anything to say that thousands are others >>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>> saying? Is any attempt we make to say something not drowned out in a >>>>>>>>>> cacophony of of puppies, selfies, mindless chatter and incivility? >>>>>>>>>> In a >>>>>>>>>> world where significance seems to have become dependent on reduction >>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>> viral hash-tagged tweet, or a five-second video on Vine, what >>>>>>>>>> happens to >>>>>>>>>> depth, complexity, the possibility of real interaction? Has >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> finally reduced itself to atomic brevity and superficiality? >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise - >>>>>>>>>> tl;dr. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, >>>>>>>>>> plausible, and wrong." What Menken actually said was a little >>>>>>>>>> different; >>>>>>>>>> "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and >>>>>>>>>> wrong" (*The >>>>>>>>>> Divine Afflatus*, 1917). Even within the same language >>>>>>>>>> quotational drift occurs. Interpretative drift is a constitutive >>>>>>>>>> element of >>>>>>>>>> discourse. Our communication is always a hit-and-miss thing, or >>>>>>>>>> maybe, >>>>>>>>>> better, a constantly creative process. What you say, what I >>>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>>>> Each of us culturally in our own particular place, but sharing >>>>>>>>>> enough to >>>>>>>>>> bring some kind of communication into being - a wonderful, organic, >>>>>>>>>> continually self-creating kind of thing, with all sorts of levels, >>>>>>>>>> eddies, >>>>>>>>>> side-effects. An orchestral symphonic symbolic performance of memes >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> tropes. And that's just when it's carried out between people who >>>>>>>>>> "share" a >>>>>>>>>> common language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Accurate, one-to-one translation/conveyance of meaning is >>>>>>>>>> impossible; even between two speakers of the same language. >>>>>>>>>> Communication >>>>>>>>>> becomes something else, something independent. The German theorist, >>>>>>>>>> Niklas >>>>>>>>>> Luhmann <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann>, has some >>>>>>>>>> interesting ideas in this area. It's a deeply counter-intuitive way >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> seeing things - and useful as an instrument to challenge one's own >>>>>>>>>> assumptions, even if you don't go all the way with him. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody - as far as I know - has translated Luhmann's major works >>>>>>>>>> from German into English. Understandably - it's hard enough trying >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> figure out what exactly he's saying in one language without trying >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> express it in another, and when you move to his discussions and >>>>>>>>>> arguments >>>>>>>>>> with Habermas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas> >>>>>>>>>> (another >>>>>>>>>> German master of the complicated obtuse) ... forgeddaboudit! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Though translation programmes have improved in the past decade, >>>>>>>>>> they're still a long way from being good. Because "meaning"/"sense" >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> always contextual (human subjective contextual), therefore always >>>>>>>>>> fluid and >>>>>>>>>> shifting. This is more than just "fuzzy logic." I suspect we will >>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>> genuine AI as the basis of operating systems to make them really >>>>>>>>>> work. Two >>>>>>>>>> people from different lingusitic backrounds with very limited >>>>>>>>>> vocabularies >>>>>>>>>> can communicate better - agree that they have achieved some kind of >>>>>>>>>> understanding - than a programme which has access to comprehensive >>>>>>>>>> dictionaries. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the past months I've been formally studying - in the academic >>>>>>>>>> sense - in German. *Kulturwissenschaft *at that. It's a weird >>>>>>>>>> experience - there's stuff I can understand better in English, other >>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>> works better in German. There isn't even a good translation of the >>>>>>>>>> subject >>>>>>>>>> I'm doing my Masters in. A literal English translation of >>>>>>>>>> *Kulturwissenschaft >>>>>>>>>> *would be "cultural science" but English academia generally >>>>>>>>>> calls it "cultural studies." Which, when you think about it, means >>>>>>>>>> something else. Well, it's a post-modernist phenomenon anyway, >>>>>>>>>> which, >>>>>>>>>> arguably, allows one to be multidimensional with reference to >>>>>>>>>> meaning! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And sometimes it can be enormously productive to take an >>>>>>>>>> ordinary, everyday word in a particular language and twist it, mine >>>>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>>> pummel it, *rape *it, alienate it. Poets do this all the time. >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes even academics (a pretty mediocre lot for the most part) >>>>>>>>>> manage >>>>>>>>>> it. The use of the German word *Verstehen >>>>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen> *["to understand"] is >>>>>>>>>> one example. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 1. März 2015 01:56:27 UTC+1 schrieb Chris Jenkins: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Was passiert, wenn der einzige Weg, wie wir kommunizieren >>>>>>>>>>> konnte, war durch Fremdsoftware nicht in der Lage zu verstehen, >>>>>>>>>>> unsere >>>>>>>>>>> Emotionen? Die digitale Kommunikation nicht Ton jetzt vermitteln, >>>>>>>>>>> sich >>>>>>>>>>> vorstellen, wenn sie verloren auch Nuancen in der Übersetzung? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ich denke an das, weil ich die Gespräche in dieser Gruppe häufig >>>>>>>>>>> brechen in zwei Menschen aneinander vorbei sprechen. Ich frage >>>>>>>>>>> mich, wenn >>>>>>>>>>> sie die anderen Lautsprecher verstehen überhaupt. Wenn unsere Worte >>>>>>>>>>> verloren nicht nur ihr Ton, sondern auch ihre heimatlichen Dialekt; >>>>>>>>>>> wenn >>>>>>>>>>> sie etwas wurde noch der Sprecher nicht verstehen, bevor sie von >>>>>>>>>>> einer >>>>>>>>>>> anderen Person erhalten, würden wir in der Lage, überhaupt zu >>>>>>>>>>> kommunizieren? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ich wünschte, Fran waren hier, um zu wiegen; er würde haben >>>>>>>>>>> Einblick Ich würde wertvoll wie ein englischer Muttersprachler, die >>>>>>>>>>> so viel >>>>>>>>>>> Zeit in einem Land mit einer anderen als seiner Muttersprache >>>>>>>>>>> verbracht >>>>>>>>>>> hat, zu finden. Gabby hat ähnliche Einsicht gegeben, wie viel Zeit >>>>>>>>>>> sie in >>>>>>>>>>> englischer Sprache bei uns verbringt, (und wie oft habe ich >>>>>>>>>>> gefragt, ob ich >>>>>>>>>>> einen Sinn in der Übersetzung verpasst), aber ich nehme an, sie >>>>>>>>>>> werden >>>>>>>>>>> meist nur Spaß meines schlecht übersetzt machen Deutsch. : D >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic >>>>>>>>>> in the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsu >>>>>>>>>> bscribe. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email >>>>>>>>>> to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>>>>> topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>> topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
