The Ausrottung of Keren's Krema
ASMarques
>
> ASMarques wrote:
>
> > > > 1) Old English "rot"
> > > > 2) Old Norse "rot"
> > > > 3) Danish "rod"
> > > > 4) Gothic "waurts"
> > > > 5) Modern English "root"
> > > > 6) Modern German "Ausrotten" (meaning according to the dictionaries
> > > > "root out, exterminate").
> > >
> > > Since Marques is such a great philologist, would he care to explain how the
> > > stem rot- in *Ausrotten* escaped the Second Soundshift? Unless he can do
> > > this, one may easily assume that the word has nothing to do with English
> > > "root".
> >
> > So what is the alternative etymology acording to your knowledgeable self
> > ?
>
> Thank you for the compliment. It is, of course, entirely undeserved.
Not at all, not at all...
After all, hadn't you posted a message implying just the sort of
profound and complete knowledge you now so modestly deny?
> First of all, I ought to emphasise, as I have done on previous occasions, that
> etymology is no guide to present-day meaning.
Thanks for entirely agreeing with me. I think the etymological
discussion was brought in by Hansjoerg Walther to hide the panicked
debacle of the "Ausrottung never never never means eradication" people.
It so happens that the etymological issue also backfired on them as did
the remaining somersaults they attempted. It's a rotten life, isn't it ?
> My Langenscheidt dictionary gives
> for *ausrotten*:
>
> 1 j-n/etw. (Kollekt od. Pl) a. alle Lebewesen e-r art voellig vernichten:
> *ausgerottete Tierarten, Schaedlinge* 2 etw. a. (oft mit grossem Engagement)
> etw. voellig beseitigen (e-e Unsitte, den Aberglauben a.) || hierzu Ausrottung
> *die; mst Sg*
>
> Translation:
> 1 somebody/something (collective or plural) *ausrotten*: completely destroy all
> living beings of a kind: *ausgerottete* animal species, pests 2 something
> *ausrotten* (often with great commitment) eliminate completely (*ausrotten* a
> bad habit, superstition) || pertaining to this: *Austrottung, die*, mostly
> singular
Interestingly enough -- if that's the entire entry for "ausrotten" in
your dictionary -- it completely forgets the meaning clearly indicated
by the two dictionaries I have within my immediate grasp (they are
enough, though, since they clearly give the meanings I want to call your
attention upon):
*** 1st dictionary:
Langenscheists Taschen-woerterbuch Englisch (Deutsch-Englisch)
(Vollstaendige Neuerarbeitung 1990). It's "AUSROTTEN = root out,
exterminate".
*** 2nd dictionary:
Langenscheidts Taschenwoerterbuch der Portugiesischen und Deutschen
Sprache, 7.Auflage 1961. Here is how it translates the portuguese (my
native language) "cortar pela raiz" (that's literally "uproot, cut by
the root"). It's -- pay attention please -- "BEI DER WURZEL FASSEN;
AUSROTTEN".
> There can be absolutely no doubt according to Wahrig (which I quoted in an
> earlier posting) or Langenscheidt here that *ausrotten* applied to anything
> living implies complete destruction; only with abstract nouns (habits,
> superstition) is the translation "get rid of" more appropriate.
Why "habits, superstition", and not collective abstractions such as
"Judaism, the Jewish people" ? Where did you see that peculiar strange
unwritten law about the tolerable abstract usage for "ausrotten" being
restricted to "habits" and "superstition" ?
"Judaism" and "the Jewish people" are not two living singular concrete
individuals, are they ? Why does the "Ausrottung" of the Jewish nation
that was being clearly used in the context of taking away (rooting out,
eradicating) that collective national/cultural entity from the larger
national community in which it was inbeded, necessarily have to mean
killing every and all individual members ("extermination") of the same
?
> This was all obvious from the start
Hmmm. Always distrust that sort of *initial* certain knowledge in any
investigation. Always be ready to "revise" (re + vision = looking
twice).
> and only A.S. Marques and some others with
> little or no knowledge of German have contradicted it.
Whereas only people with names like Gord McFee and Alwin Thomas have
confirmed it, if we leave aside the usual "natives" with German sounding
names from alt.revisionism, who came here directly from there...
> Now, back to the side-issue of etymology. It's a side-issue because it's
> interesting but irrelevant for our present purposes. As we all know, words
> change their meanings, often quite radically, over time.
Quite so. This, of course, would explain why some modern dictionaries do
clarify the possible meaning of "exterminate" for the word "ausrotten"
by saying it applies to vermin and *Peoples*, certainly an odd kind of
clarification when you think about it, IYSWIM...
This is interesting enough and seems to point out to post-WW2 times.
Many new words like "genocide" (this one was coined by Raphael Lemkin in
the usual Jewish context) were born as a result of the War. Do you think
precautions were taken to avoid the ideological pseudo-historical
pervasive propaganda from influencing the usage of already existing
words such as "ausrotten", mainly if it would help confirming a
fantomatic "Holocaust" that left no hard evidence of physical nature at
all ?
Can you or anyone else show me a pre-War dictionary mentioning that
"ausrotten" specifically applies to *Peoples*, as some modern ones do ?
> There is an Indo-European root which gives Latin *radix*, Greek *rhiza*, Welsh
> *gwraidd* and Gothic *waurts* (the latter with 1st Germanic soundshift d > t
> also seen in English *root*, Dutch *wortel* and Swedish *rot*). In High German,
> Germanic t becoms ss or tz by the 2nd soundshift: water ~ Wasser, wit ~ Witze,
> so you have German *Wurzel* corresponding to Dutch *wortel* and English *root*.
> As a result of this, the rot- in *ausrotten* can hardly be related to this
> Indo-European family of words meaning "root".
This is getting funny because only two lines below you apparently
demolish your own thesis...
> Where does the stem of *ausrotten* come from then? It happens to be related to
> another word, *roden*, which means to clear land of trees for human use;
Of course, according to you, *clearing of trees* ("roden") has nothing
to do with the concept of rooting out the *roots*, in the sense of those
long underground growths trees usually present...
An interesting linguistic line of speculation indeed... Could it be
that *roden* is a Semitic, Ugric, Algonquian or Chinese word then,
according to you, rather than an Indo-European one ?
Seems like you're replying to your own question. The word *ausrotten*
escaped the second soundshift because it derived -- according to your
own opinion -- from *roden* meaning "root out trees". Are you by any
chance playing jokes on us ?
> in Upper German, *reuten* (with characteristic d > t) is also used with this
> meaning. In Old English there is a similar *ryddan*, from which the "rid" in
> "get rid of" comes. There are similar forms in other Germanic languages, e.g.
> Danish *rydde*, Swedish *ro"ja*, Dutch *rooien*.
>
> It is interesting that several Germanic languages have verbs similar in form to
> German *ausrotten* and identical in meaning: Dutch *uitroeien*, Danish *udrydde*
> and Swedish *utrota*. The Scandinavian forms are partly borrowed from German but
> the Dutch is ancestral.
Yup. We may ask them what the precise meanings are if you don't mind
extending this discussion to soc.culture.netherlands and
soc.culture.nordic.
> > And how do you explain the 1936 book titled DER GELBE FLECK: DIE
> > AUSROTTUNG VON 500,000 DEUTSCHEN JUDEN, without resorting to the idea
> > that someone was already claiming that 500,000 Jews had been holocausted
> > just 3 years after the nazis rose to power ?
>
> I've never encountered this book before and wouldn't dream of commenting on
> something I haven't read. Given your lack of German, I don't suppose you've read
> it either. Was it perhaps advocating the extermination of German Jews?
No. It was an anti-German book (by Leon Feuchtwanger et al). My point is
the "Ausrottung" in the title is clearly understandable if it means
simply a presumable attempt at eradicating the Jews from Germany through
persecution, forced emigration, violence, an so on, but not if it really
meant exclusively "extermination" in the sense of not leaving a single
Jew alive, as people are assuming.
ASMarques
ASMarques
>
> ASMarques wrote:
>
> > > My Langenscheidt dictionary gives
> > > for *ausrotten*:
> > >
> > > 1 j-n/etw. (Kollekt od. Pl) a. alle Lebewesen e-r art voellig vernichten:
> > > *ausgerottete Tierarten, Schaedlinge* 2 etw. a. (oft mit grossem Engagement)
> > > etw. voellig beseitigen (e-e Unsitte, den Aberglauben a.) || hierzu Ausrottung
> > > *die; mst Sg*
> > >
> > > Translation:
> > > 1 somebody/something (collective or plural) *ausrotten*: completely destroy all
> > > living beings of a kind: *ausgerottete* animal species, pests 2 something
> > > *ausrotten* (often with great commitment) eliminate completely (*ausrotten* a
> > > bad habit, superstition) || pertaining to this: *Austrottung, die*, mostly
> > > singular
> >
> > Interestingly enough -- if that's the entire entry for "ausrotten" in
> > your dictionary -- it completely forgets the meaning clearly indicated
> > by the two dictionaries I have within my immediate grasp (they are
> > enough, though, since they clearly give the meanings I want to call your
> > attention upon):
>
> Langenscheidt defining dictionaries. (Bilingual dictionaries are less reliable.)
So, if we now have to weight the "reliability" of our respective
dictionaries before we reach a conclusion, we might as well agree it's
not a straightforward topic at all, and try doing some thinking on the
subject too, don't you agree ?
BTW (on the side etymnological isse), could you at least explain why do
you think *clearing of trees* ("roden") has nothing to do with the
concept of rooting out the *roots*, in the sense of those long
underground growths trees usually present ?...
> It
> is quite clear that it is definition 1 that obtains for living beings, collective or
> plural. What else is there to be said?
Try the following: critical evaluation of contemporary history requires
more than partially understood definitions of a word to prove the not
only improbable but abismally idiotic holocaust tales for which no
physical evidence exists.
The Jews were being eradicated out of the German influence zone into
labor camps in the East for the duration of the War, just as everybody
was publicly proclaiming and not being sent into any gas chambers for
any extermination. This is what the modern holo-exegesis wants to read
in the suposedly "codified" proclamations where "EVAKUIERUNG" always
means "AUSROTTUNG", and "AUSROTTUNG" never means simply "EVAKUIERING",
that is "rooting out, eradicating", but something better than that is
needed to prove the gas chamber "Holocaust".
And this is exactly what Himmler was saying: "ICH MEINE DIE
JUDENEVAKUIERUNG, DIE AUSROTTUNG DES JUDISCHEN VOLKES".
And Hitler too was using the word, back in *1933*. "Ausrottung" is used
by Hitler in his famous Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den
Marxismus und seine Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland AUSZUROTTEN" -
"to eradicate Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany".
Note "aus Deutschland auszurotten". How do you explain "from Germany",
"out of Germany" if the "auszurotten" didn't carry the meaning of
expulsion/eradication ?
You say only with abstract nouns (habits, superstition) is the
translation "get rid of" more appropriate. But why "habits,
superstition", and not collective abstractions such as "Judaism, the
Jewish people" ? As I already asked before, where did you see that
peculiar strange unwritten law about the tolerable abstract usage for
"ausrotten" being restricted to "habits" and "superstition" ? "Judaism"
and "the Jewish people" are not two living singular concrete
individuals, are they ?
Why does the "Ausrottung" of the Jewish nation that was being clearly
used in the context of taking away (rooting out, eradicating) that
collective national/cultural entity from the larger national community
in which it was inbeded, necessarily have to mean killing every and all
individual members ("extermination") of the same ?
I certainly would appreciate an answer to the questions above.
Thanks for your messages.
ASMarques
Alwyn Thomas
> So, if we now have to weight the "reliability" of our respective
> dictionaries before we reach a conclusion, we might as well agree it's
> not a straightforward topic at all, and try doing some thinking on the
> subject too, don't you agree ?
There is no question that defining dictionaries are more accurate than bilingual ones.
For a start, binlingual dictionaries require editors who are equally at conversant with
the usage in both languages of allwords included, which is a very tall order; this
frequently leads to mistakes. Second, the most common words in one language rarely have
an exact translation in another, so there must be compromises.
> BTW (on the side etymnological isse), could you at least explain why do
> you think *clearing of trees* ("roden") has nothing to do with the
> concept of rooting out the *roots*, in the sense of those long
> underground growths trees usually present ?...
As i understand it, *roden/reuten/ausrotten* is related to Indo-European *reudh-, meaning
"pluck out". I don't know the posited Indo-European form for "root" but believe it
consisted of wr-d. If you're interested, perhaps you'd like to check with the people in
sci.lang for further information/
> > It
> > is quite clear that it is definition 1 that obtains for living beings, collective or
> > plural. What else is there to be said?
>
> Try the following: critical evaluation of contemporary history requires
> more than partially understood definitions of a word to prove the not
> only improbable but abismally idiotic holocaust tales for which no
> physical evidence exists.
You are mistaken, Mr Marques. I am not Jewish and I am not German. For me the Holocaust
is an appalling fact of history, nothing more. In alt.usage.german we are solely
concerned with the use of the German language.
Alwyn
ASMarques
>
> ASMarques wrote:
>
> > dictionaries before we reach a conclusion, we might as well agree it's
> > not a straightforward topic at all, and try doing some thinking on the
> > subject too, don't you agree ?
>
> There is no question that defining dictionaries are more accurate than bilingual ones.
> For a start, binlingual dictionaries require editors who are equally at conversant with
> the usage in both languages of allwords included, which is a very tall order; this
> frequently leads to mistakes. Second, the most common words in one language rarely have
> an exact translation in another, so there must be compromises.
Absolutely right. The word "Ausrottung", then, must be one of such
compromises. Everything that I have seen on the subject points to words
such as "eradicate" or "extirpate" as perfectly good translations, and
"exterminate" as only one of the possible meanings. When you say
something like "evacuating the Jews, eradicating the Jewish people" you
are definitely not saying you're going to murder every one concerned.
> > BTW (on the side etymnological isse), could you at least explain why do
> > you think *clearing of trees* ("roden") has nothing to do with the
> > concept of rooting out the *roots*, in the sense of those long
> > underground growths trees usually present ?...
>
> As i understand it, *roden/reuten/ausrotten* is related to Indo-European *reudh-, meaning
> "pluck out". I don't know the posited Indo-European form for "root" but believe it
> consisted of wr-d. If you're interested, perhaps you'd like to check with the people in
> sci.lang for further information/
Let me see if I'm getting you right. You're saying that:
1) you agree "ausrotten" means "root out" as one of the possible
meanings (the other one when applied to vermin and "Volk" should be
exclusively "extermination", never "extirpation" or "eradication")
2) the etymology of the "rotten" part of the word has absolutely
nothing to do with very similar words meaning "root" in other Germanic
languages or the modern English "root"
3) instead it comes from the old word "roden" meaning "clearing out of
trees"
4) "roden", however, has nothing to do with rooting out the *roots* of
the trees
5) instead it comes from the Indo-European "reudh-" meaning "pluck out",
whereas you believe the Indo-European form for "root" would be more
along the lines of "wr-d".
My next question would be whether -- since the "pluck out" of your
choice is in modern English such a very, very close thing to "root out"
-- the sound "reudh-" and the sound "wr-d" in the old Indo-European,
meaning such close things as "rooting out" and "root" are not themselves
very close.
In short: Where does the word ausrotten come from ? Your answer: the
"rotten" part comes from a distant Indo-European origin meaning
"plucking out", through a word meaning "clearing of trees" but none of
those having absolutely nothing to do with those *roots* that got
plucked out by the old Indo-Europeans when they "reudh-"-ed out the
"wr-d"s to build their homes or cultivate their fields.
Even though one of the modern meanings is "root out", which may
naturally confuse these crystal-clear origins.
Since the "aus" part also has this "out", "off" connotation present in
"plucking out" we may assume the modern incredibly sophisticated nuances
of "ausrotten" do indeed translate very well into English as
"eradicate", which as you may notice also keeps the dual possible
meaning: you may, for instance, *eradicate* cockroaches from your house
by stamping them dead one by one (extermination) or by withholding food
remains or sweeping them aside and off the porch with a broom and making
them leave (evacuating, rooting out).
Well, okay. Thanks for your help. This was a marginal question anyway,
and I'm not going to sci.lang for further information. The only reason
I engaged in this interesting dialogue with you was you offered yourself
as knowledgeable on these matters, and those odd alt.rev characters were
throwing around the words "Rottenfuehrer" and "Zuzamenrottung" (in fact
an old etymos for "root" seems to be present in both the military
fundamental "squad" unit and the original riotous horde !) as smoke
curtains for the fact that there is no physical evidence for any
"Holocaust" gas chambers. All that remains as proof of the Jewish
"extermination" is linguistic hair-splitting, but that shouldn't strike
us as odd, since the exterminated ones seem to be alive and kicking as
never before.
> > > It
> > > is quite clear that it is definition 1 that obtains for living beings, collective or
> > > plural. What else is there to be said?
> >
> > Try the following: critical evaluation of contemporary history requires
> > more than partially understood definitions of a word to prove the not
> > only improbable but abismally idiotic holocaust tales for which no
> > physical evidence exists.
>
> You are mistaken, Mr Marques. I am not Jewish and I am not German.
Well, neither am I one or the other. But I'm sorry, you're the mistaken
one. Why would I care whether you were Jewish or German ? What would the
relevance be to our factual discussion ?
> For me the Holocaust
> is an appalling fact of history, nothing more.
I'll agree it's the biggest hoax ever perpetrated for revenge, power and
money as we still observe daily in 1998. Tens of millions were killed
during the War, some of them by having their entire cities incinerated
and razed to the ground. But only the Jews were "exterminated" and,
since they survived their own extermination, their organisations are
entitled to respect, compensation and impunity for blackmail. This is
why the word is so important, if you ask me.
Try:
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/leaflets.html (excellent intro.)
http://www.codoh.com/
http://www.ihr.org/index.html
http://members.aol.com/ihrgreg/index.html
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/index.html
http://www.vho.org/Home.html
http://abbc.com/aaargh/
http://www.air-photo.com/
> In alt.usage.german we are solely
> concerned with the use of the German language.
Okay then. I'll leave you now. Thanks for your help and please note I
simply replied to messages from the alt.rev troupe already going to your
newsgroup (perfectly on topic, for once).
ASMarques
Trygve Sandven Håland
>> It is interesting that several Germanic languages have verbs similar in
form to
>> German *ausrotten* and identical in meaning: Dutch *uitroeien*, Danish
*udrydde*
>> and Swedish *utrota*. The Scandinavian forms are partly borrowed from
German but
>> the Dutch is ancestral.
>
>Yup. We may ask them what the precise meanings are if you don't mind
>extending this discussion to soc.culture.netherlands and
>soc.culture.nordic.
In Norwegian (from Bokmålsordboken
(http://www.dokpro.uio.no/ordboeker.html ):
utrydde: få vekk, fjerne fullstendig, tilintetgjøre. En sykdom som kopper er
nå så å si u-t / de forsøkte å u- indianerstammen / jeg håper å få u-t
enhver misforståelse
Translation:
utrydde: get rid of, remove completely, eradicate. A disease like smallpox
is now practically "utryddet"/ they tried to "utrydde" the indian tribe/I
hope to "utrydde" all misunderstandings
A Norwegian-English dictionary gives this translation:
utrydde (vb.) eliminate, wipe out, eradicate, exterminate, extirpate;
[utrydde en sykdom] eradicate a disease;
[utrydde rotter] exterminate rats.
Trygve S. Håland
Chuck Ferree
Alwyn Thomas wrote:
> ASMarques wrote:
>
> > When you say
> > something like "evacuating the Jews, eradicating the Jewish people" you
> > are definitely not saying you're going to murder every one concerned.
>
> I almost guarantee you that you will not find a dictionary in which *ausrotten* is transalted
> by "evacuate". You are distoring the facts.
>
> > Let me see if I'm getting you right. You're saying that:
> >
> > 1) you agree "ausrotten" means "root out" as one of the possible
> > meanings (the other one when applied to vermin and "Volk" should be
> > exclusively "extermination", never "extirpation" or "eradication")
>
> When you speak in English of "rooting out" anything living, you are effectively talking about
> extermaination. Don't you remember my quotation from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
> English, a most reliable guide to present-day usage, based on corpora?
>
> > 2) the etymology of the "rotten" part of the word has absolutely
> > nothing to do with very similar words meaning "root" in other Germanic
> > languages or the modern English "root"
>
> That is my belief. An Indo-Europeanist could give you a more authoritative answer.
>
> > 3) instead it comes from the old word "roden" meaning "clearing out of
> > trees"
>
> Yes. *Roden*, remember, is cognate with English "rid".
>
> > 4) "roden", however, has nothing to do with rooting out the *roots* of
> > the trees
>
> We are talking about derivation, not about sematics.
>
> > 5) instead it comes from the Indo-European "reudh-" meaning "pluck out",
> > whereas you believe the Indo-European form for "root" would be more
> > along the lines of "wr-d".
>
> True.
>
> > My next question would be whether -- since the "pluck out" of your
> > choice is in modern English such a very, very close thing to "root out"
> > -- the sound "reudh-" and the sound "wr-d" in the old Indo-European,
> > meaning such close things as "rooting out" and "root" are not themselves
> > very close.
>
> From my limited knowledge of Indo-European linguistics, these look like completely different
> roots (no pun intended!). If you are really interested, you should consult a specialist.
>
> > In short: Where does the word ausrotten come from ? Your answer: the
> > "rotten" part comes from a distant Indo-European origin meaning
> > "plucking out", through a word meaning "clearing of trees" but none of
> > those having absolutely nothing to do with those *roots* that got
> > plucked out by the old Indo-Europeans when they "reudh-"-ed out the
> > "wr-d"s to build their homes or cultivate their fields.
>
> That is my understanding.
>
> > Even though one of the modern meanings is "root out", which may
> > naturally confuse these crystal-clear origins.
>
> This kind of thing happens all the time. Speakers of English do not appreciate that "flour"
> and "flower" are etymologically related, although they erroneously believe that ears of corn
> and ears to hear with are etymolgically the same word.
>
> > Since the "aus" part also has this "out", "off" connotation present in
> > "plucking out" we may assume the modern incredibly sophisticated nuances
> > of "ausrotten" do indeed translate very well into English as
> > "eradicate", which as you may notice also keeps the dual possible
> > meaning: you may, for instance, *eradicate* cockroaches from your house
> > by stamping them dead one by one (extermination) or by withholding food
> > remains or sweeping them aside and off the porch with a broom and making
> > them leave (evacuating, rooting out).
>
> This is getting silly. I have never heard of anyone eradicating cockroaches by starving them;
> sweeping them aside is highly unlikely to be effective. In any case, starving them will result
> in their death.
>
> > Well, okay. Thanks for your help. This was a marginal question anyway,
> > and I'm not going to sci.lang for further information.
>
> Be my guest, Mr Marques.
>
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > > In alt.usage.german we are solely
> > > concerned with the use of the German language.
> >
> > Okay then. I'll leave you now. Thanks for your help and please note I
> > simply replied to messages from the alt.rev troupe already going to your
> > newsgroup (perfectly on topic, for once).
>
> In that case I expect you to actively remove alt.usage.german from the followups of these
> threads, which surely are only on-topic in alt.revisionism.
>
> You know, I still haven't the faintest idea why you chaps are so interested in this Holocaust
> business. Forget the past, let's concentrate on the emerging European Union, which will, I
> hope, go some way to ensuring that nothing like that will ever happen again!
>
> Alwyn
CF:>>>You say you haven't the faintest idea why these chaps are so interested in this Holocaust
business., etc.
The revisionists and deniers are interested because they are anti-Jewish bigots. That's easy to
figure out. And it's also easy to prove.
I'm interested in the Holocaust, because I was in WW-II, and I saw many of the Nazi camps, and
what had been done to the Jews, and others who had their lives taken completely away by the
Nazis, and who suffered untold misery and at least 14-15 million deaths, all because of the Nazi
policy to rid Europe of Jews and others whom they considered unfit to have a life.
The survivors, and I have met and spoken with many of them, have in many cases lost their entire
families to the Holocaust, and have been traumatized for ever. Their children also suffer from
that experience. My committment is; to not permit the Holocaust deniers, to win in their struggle
to persuade others that the Holocaust didn't happen at all, or it wasn't so bad. These people
blame the Jews for their own fate, I don't like that.
Right here we see one person splitting hairs over a single word, in an futile effort to prove
there was no intent to kill Europe's Jews, and others, but, the intent was there as far back as
the 1920s, and Hitler *said it would be done, and it became Nazi policy.
Chuck Ferree
ASMarques
>
> In Norwegian (from Bokmålsordboken
> (http://www.dokpro.uio.no/ordboeker.html ):
> utrydde: få vekk, fjerne fullstendig, tilintetgjøre. En sykdom som kopper er
> nå så å si u-t / de forsøkte å u- indianerstammen / jeg håper å få u-t
> enhver misforståelse
> Translation:
> utrydde: get rid of, remove completely, eradicate.
Thank you very much for your kind help.
To Alwyn Thomas:
It seems that in Norwegian the "get rid off", "eradicate" meaning does
exist,and it doesn't mean exclusively "exterminate".
> A disease like smallpox
> is now practically "utryddet"/ they tried to "utrydde" the indian tribe/I
> hope to "utrydde" all misunderstandings
>
> A Norwegian-English dictionary gives this translation:
> utrydde (vb.) eliminate, wipe out, eradicate, exterminate, extirpate;
> [utrydde en sykdom] eradicate a disease;
> [utrydde rotter] exterminate rats.
I guess one could use the same Norwegian word if one was completely
freeing one's house from, say, an invasion of cokroaches, either by
crushing them out one by one (English extermination) or by witholding
food remains and sweeping them off the porch with a broom (English
eradication, extirpation).
ASMarques