On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:32:07 +0300
Piyavkin <piyav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Explaining that since using «bad words»
> is being a nazi
Just to clarify this again, I never claimed that you or anyone else here
is a nazi.
> For your information:
>
> /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition/
> parasite —
> a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others
> without making any useful return.
> b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.etc.
(etc.)
Not sure though how these definitions are supposed to match drug lords
like Mr. Escobar or socially disadvantaged and/or outcast people
("lumpenproletariat").
> You may write to the language authorities and explain them your theory
> about Nazi-speech
Unfortunately this is not a mere theory.
In case you want to learn about nazi-speech, there are sources available
where you can read about people being classified as "parasites" and the
like, e.g.
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holo.html
Of course there's also tons of contemporary material, but I
won't provide any links pointing there. In case you really want to read
that kind of stuff, it is certainly easy to discover.
> and how to use English properly.
I am aware that there may be subtle differences between the english and
german tone of a word like "parasite" and acknowledged that in my first
post.
Since (as several people have already ponited out) this discussion has
gone far off the rail, I consider this thread, as far as I am concerned,
as "closed".
Best regards
Michael
.-.. .. ...- . .-.. --- -. --. .- -. -.. .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.
Even historians fail to learn from history -- they repeat the same
mistakes.
-- John Gill, "Patterns of Force", stardate 2534.7
