I was reading LanguageHat to find something that had been cited in the news, and I found this interersting discussion of the word "sublate." Have any of you heard it before? What do you think of it? Obviously, LanguageHat doesn't approve.

It looks like another inkhorn word to ignore.

If the passage that LanguageHat quotes is typical it looks like a good book to ignore. I read quite enough b******s in the text books on my course, thank you.

Hegel, Schmegel, it sounds as if the undersea boat didn't show up on time.

Quote "...I do acknowledge the importance of the nativist critique that calls for a fuller grasp of historicity, but one also needs to understand its weakness, because its sense of historicity is compromised by its search for authenticity. The point is not to just to sidestep the nativist critique but to sublate it, in the manner in which Engels understood sublating Hegel in his critique of Ludwig Feuerbach; to take into consideration that which is relevant, effective and forceful in the critique but at the same time to break away from its preoccupation with origins and authenticity...."

I suspect this actually means:

I accept that critique from those who seek perpetuate their native cultures is important, but it can have disadvantages. I suggest it's best not simply to ignore it but deny it by pointing out those things that are relevent and those historical things which are not.

But, of course, that doesn't sound anywhere near so learned and, what's more, carries the grave risk that people might understand what you're talking about and maybe argue with you.

Yes, that quote was just deadly! If you recall, I recently posted the gibberish (click human becoming) of Parse's Human Becoming Theory. Is it insecurity that causes people to write like that? I just can't understand why people wouldn't want to be clearly understood.

Richard, good job of translating! Too bad it had to be done.

quote:

Richard, good job of translating! Too bad it had to be done.

Maybe I could make a living out of it.

Richard English - translator from Gobbleydegook to English and vice versa!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Quote "...I do acknowledge the importance of the nativist critique that calls for a fuller grasp of historicity, but one also needs to understand its weakness, because its sense of historicity is compromised by its search for authenticity. The point is not to just to sidestep the nativist critique but to sublate it, in the manner in which Engels understood sublating Hegel in his critique of Ludwig Feuerbach; to take into consideration that which is relevant, effective and forceful in the critique but at the same time to break away from its preoccupation with origins and authenticity...."

I suspect this actually means:

I accept that critique from those who seek perpetuate their native cultures is important, but it can have disadvantages. I suggest it's best not simply to ignore it but deny it by pointing out those things that are relevent and those historical things which are not.

But, of course, that doesn't sound anywhere near so learned and, what's more, carries the grave risk that people might understand what you're talking about and maybe argue with you.

I've had to read lots of stuff like that . It does your head in after a while .

I trained as a Technical Author back in 1988, couldn't get a job in that line and went back to doing Temp Agency work. I had a "bull***t" chart left over from my course which came in very handy in one office where I worked. I and some colleagues played a practical joke on a boss who wrote memos that were very similar in tone to the extract in your quote.

This boss was sent for three weeks to a convention in Canada. Before he went, he left strict instructions that he should be kept up to date on the progress of a new project in which he was very much involved.

We decided to give him a taste of his own methods so I brought my chart to work one day and we set to. The principle of this chart was very simple. It was a collection of stock phrases collected from memos and was laid out in three columns. The idea was that you could pick any phrase from each column, string them together and make a fine-sounding (but completely meaningless) sentence. We drafted a memo, adding a few terms which were specific to the business to make it sound more authentic. One of my colleagues found an excuse to take it around the building to test it on some other managers before we sent it to "our" manager and he reported some very interesting reactions.

Of the five managers who read it, two saw through it immediately. The third was a bit slower off the mark than the first two, but realised eventually that it was a hoax. The fourth was even slower. He read it through several times, tried to understand it, got thoroughly confused, then irritated and had to have the concept of the joke explained to him. It was the fifth that shocked us though. He fell for it completely! Careful questioning revealed that he really had taken the bait and wasn't just stringing us along as an elaborate joke on his own part .

Encouraged by these reactions, we faxed it to "our" manager and, to his credit, he saw the joke too and took it very well .