There are now something like 4 threads on this same topic and it's getting really confusing trying to remember where everything is. If the threads could somehow be combined it would save a lot of disorientation.
Indeed. That'd be quite an improvement, but I assume that only Matthew has the topic-rearranging power here, so we'd be asking for CathInfo to make yet another demand on his time.
It's interesting to me that you would single out the same sentence from that whole letter that I commented on in the other thread, out of all these 8 pages of rambling insults.
I'm unsure what idea you're trying to convey, especially because your claim is questionable at best: Your quoted text actually ignored the sentence I "single[d] out" (von Pfluger): "Sie können es nicht." Or so it seems reasonable to conclude from your quaint underlining of text having begun immediately afterwards.
A crucial point you missed is that I chose the sentence I "single[d] out" by visually scanning the German text, not the English text. A 4-word sentence in German, obviously dismissive of Bp. Williamson, was fruit hanging waaay too low for me to pass up.
Could you perhaps comment on the continuation into the subsequent sentence that is closely related?
Not extensively. I do agree with a previous follow-up that the change in verbal flow seems to be abrupt. The syntactic structures for continuing the 1st sentence into the 2nd are are readily available in ordinary German. Beyond such an assertion, I'm unsure what it is that you're seeking.
In the meantime, my level of participation in CathInfo is causing important Spring chores to be neglected.
What I was trying to convey is seen by following the link I provided in my
words "
the other thread."
If you click on that link, you'll be taken to my post on one of the several other
threads that address this abominable screed we're calling a "letter." It is really
quite "unlettered" so the term is an oxymoron.
I only underlined the second part because I thought that would help to isolate
the segment over which I was raising the question. The underlined sentence
does not seem to fit the context. The point is, it seems someone attempted to
insert that into the paragraph, or else built the paragraph around it without doing
a good job of making it fit better.
The product is sloppy, nonsensical and
irrelevant, but insulting nonetheless!! (Quite an achievement, actually!)
As you see below, I too singled out "You could not do that," which seems to be
the sentence that you've picked out in German, "Sie
können es nicht."
I was replying to your post that said,
My recollection is that unlike, e.g., Latin, a negative is emphsized in German by putting it at the end of a sentence. The German above after the ellipses would be translated more literally as a pointedly dismissive "You know it NOT !" Arguably more loosely translatable as "You haven't even got a clue!" A rather disrespectful tone for writing to a bishop consecrated by the founder of the SSPX.
So, I'm looking at how that doesn't really fit with what comes after it (which I
underlined), "
No more can you see through the highly complex connections of
politics, or the nαzιs’ mass-murder of Jews."
What caught my eye at first was that this underlined segment only qualifies as
a sentence if it's saying that he can see through the connections no more: "No
more can you see through the highly complex connections...," which literally
implies that he was once able to see through the connections but is no longer
capable of doing so. Thus the sloppy sentence structure serves to render his
message into nonsense.
Is the German likewise nonsense? That's my question.
Here is my post linked from the other thread. It was a reply to a 2,000 word
post by PereJoseph:
I know you had a lot more to say, PereJoseph, but there's one thing here...
In fact that is a blatantly semitic way of thinking: to pin one’s own faults on a scapegoat, which bears the guilty for everything. That is what Hitler did. The Germans’ own defeat of November 9, 1918 produced a hatred for international Jewry, which was responsible for all evil in the German nation and therefore had to be “fought openly and without mercy”.
Oh, come on. He can't honestly be making this argument. Surely he's embarrassed that others can now read it. Apparently Fr Pflüger's recommendation for the study of history is worthless if one cannot even understand it.
Maybe Ethelred could comment on this, but it seems to me that this one part you
have bolded, above, is not the writing of Fr. Pfluger. It is a different style than
most of the rest of this letter.
It is my suspicion that the letter was run by Max Krah before Fr. Pfluger sent it
off to +W, as would be expected under the circuмstances: Krah is the SSPX
lawyer and would be willing and likely to have a look over such a detailed
letter at such a critical time as a year before the expulsion proceedings went
into full swing; and, if Krah had found something that in his opinion needed
an adjustment, he would have likely jotted down some suggested language
to append.
Now, if Krah had written that sentence, "The Germans' own defeat..." into the
letter, I highly doubt that this lowbrow intellect of Fr. Pfluger could have coped
with trying to adjust it to his own style, and therefore, he would have simply
left it alone, as is, and that's why it's still there.
This is to say, that Krah neither cared to attempt to make his words sound less
educated and pointed so as to fit in with the rest of the letter, nor if he had tried
could he have made it convincing, because his first talent is not writing. He is
not a novelist or a gifted author nor an editor, even, he is a lawyer. And
Fr. Pfluger is neither capable or intelligent enough to see the difference or do
anything about it. So you have two characters who can't fix it, nor are they
likely to think it's something that needs fixing.
But this is just me shooting from the hip, and I'd appreciate it if Ethelred
could weigh in on this, bringing some insight regarding Krah's writing style,
which he has mentioned in other threads on CI already.
To which one smart reader replied, “The Bishop is showing off – “delicate mechanisms of world finance” -- as though he sees through the mechanisms of world finance and could point out their weaknesses.” You could not do that. .
I would expect that beginning with "No more can you see through..." is again
a sentence where Fr. Pfluger imported at least something that Krah had
likely "written in the margin" or else inserted to a word-docuмent on his laptop.
For one, this is missing a word, has one out of order and has a wrong word, and
it should not be a separate sentence, for it should say, "You could not do that, any
more than you could see through the highly complex..."
There is a chance that something is lost in the translation, but I suspect that
+W has been careful to render for us just what was said in the original so
we can pick up our own impressions and clues based on what was written.
I don't see why somebody has to be a genius to criticise the current ruling order. Don't we have thousands of years of Catholic history and thought and precedent with which to make comparisons and give substance to any critiques of modern problems ? Since when is it necessary to possess an intimate understanding of every theory or mechanism before being able to give criticism of its clear flaws or plainly damaging effects ?
Very true. Fr. Pfluger sounds like a whiny spoiled child here, doing his best to
attempt to insult his senior bishop into submission. And doing a poor job of it.
He wants his corner of the sand box -- no, the WHOLE sand box! He wants to
be on good terms with the world, the flesh and the devil, not necessarily in
that order, so he is picking a fight, trying to criticize a man who has spoken out
against all three. His allegiance is obvious, for he cares not the consequence.
...
If Fr Pflüger is a fair representation of the mind of Menzingen, the Society is far beyond the point of recovery unless Bishop Fellay and Co. are immediately removed from their positions and punished by a replacement Superior General.
The removal of the Menzingen-denizens might be effective, but I think a lot
would depend on HOW they are removed, for all the capitulants who voted
in this past Chapter would likely just vote in replacements who are of
like mind as these clown-faces with poor writing skills.
Hey, if +Fellay had tried to write this it would have taken 20 pages instead of 8.
Topic: Fr. Niklaus Pflugers letter to Bishop Williamson (Read 22916 times)