Irrefutable Evidence
Posted by erin at November 20, 2002 03:20 PMI was just listing to Rammstein, "Du Hast" and it reminded me of a silly high school argument. Two kids were quibbling over what the words "Du Hast" mean, exactly, in German. Do they mean "You hate," or something else? After several minutes the two kids arguing asked the German exchange student for clarification on the matter. She explained that "Du hast" does, in fact, translate as "You hate."
Here's what really gets to me - the one kid still insisted that perhaps the lyrics meant something else. (This argument was taking place outdoors, so the internet could not be used to settle it at that time.)
How is it that, in the face of such irrefutable evidence (such as a native German speaker translating), one of the arguers could possibly refuse to concede?
Likewise, at sci-fi club the other night Dan and this one kid were arguing over World War II. It had something to do with attitudes towards Russian soldiers. The debate ended with Dan yelling that he was basing his argument on stories his grandfather had told him about his experience as a soldier. The kid still would not admit that perhaps Dan was correct. "You're refuting a first-hand account?!" Dan bellowed across the room.
My best friend in junior high once argued with me whether or not Disney LAND was in California and Disney WORLD in Florida, or the other way around. She had gotten it backwards, and since I had been to Disney World just one month prior to the conversation, I insisted I was in the right. She wouldn't believe me. Finally I dug out a postcard I had purchased there. The fine print on the back said, "Printed in Disney World, FL." And yet, Jen was still wary to accept my argument, before finally conceding.
What is with people like this?! It's one thing if you can't look a fact up on the spot, however, how could anyone possibly refuse to concede in the face of irrefutable evidence?
Comments Individual Archive Index
November 20, 2002 04:17 PM, Rick said:
Actually 'du hast' translates to 'you have'. 'You hate' would be 'du hasst.' I assume the words were spoken but not spelled and that is why the german teacher made the mistake.
November 20, 2002 04:33 PM, Dave said:
It is quite possible to maintain a position that the meaning of a word is not what a German exchange student say it is.
For example, the one student (lets call him the “stubborn one”) might not believe the German exchange student. For example, the Stubborn one might simply think he is lying. He might think that any German exchange student who comes to the USA doesn’t know shit about the nuances of the German language. He might think that he is mistaken as to the meaning of a word because the question was not asked to give the proper context. (I am told that words often have different meanings depending on the context. However, every time I tell someone this they tell me “Jacques Derrida says they do not, and a friend of mine slept with him, so you are wrong.”) He might think that the question was asked in such a way (to the German) that it would illicit a certain response.
(For an example of this in a language that some more of us are familiar with, imagine, if you will a suspect in a hit and run accident is brought into a police station. He speaks Spanish and little English. Though a translator they ask “did you hit the car and run away while drunk?” He responds “Soy culpable.” The translator translates “I am guilty.” However, it turns out that “Soy culpable” doesn’t mean “I am guilty” in the way that Americans think of it. It actually means something more akin to “I feel really bad about what happened.” If I was asked to translate this, I probably would have made that mistake. However, maybe if Adan was doing the translating he might be able to pick up on this nuance.) I wasted a good week of my life explaining a similar issue to the government and later a judge. These are real issues that effect everyone.
Technically Dan’s statement is a second-hand account which is colored though not only Dan’s interpretation but Dan’s grandfather’s interpretation. There is no way to ask his grandfather the details (unless his grandfather is 1) still alive and 2) willing to drop by Sci-Fi club to answer some questions 3) credible (not a liar or senile.) In fact, if this were a court Dan’s statements would only be admissible as to Dan’s perceptions of his grandfather’s feelings toward other soldiers, and not for the truth whether or not X soldiers hated Y soldiers.
Finally, assuming that the individual declarant is credible, the methodology that they are talking about may be somewhat faulty. Turns out quite a bit of evidence is “irrefutable.” I would even go so far as to say that ALL evidence is refutable. Many things that were thought of in the past as being “irrefutable” are unreliable or just downright lies. (Two of my favorites are voice print analysis and throwing women in water to see if they are witches – both were thought to be irrefutable evidence.)
November 20, 2002 04:46 PM, Erin said:
She wasn't a teacher, she was an exchange student. And yes, it was an oral argument, not a written one, so I'm assuming the pronounciations are identicle or very similar.
The lyrics, transcribed:
Du
Du hast
Du hast mich
Du hast mich gefragt
Du hast mich gefragt
Und ich hab nichts gesagtEnglish:
You
You hate
You hate me
You hate me to say
And I did not obey(this isn't exactly Shakespeare, people.)
This site supports Rick's spelling: Matrix lyrics
This site:
Leo's Lyrics
Provides some debate from fans. One of them points out:
Actually, the translation is right for the following reasons.
1. It is impossible to tell whether Till Lindemann is saying "Du HaSt(You have)" or "Du HaSSt(You hate)" therefore, either translation is correct.
2. Rammstein's official german lyrics are "Du HaSt," however, for the english lyrics, they specified, "You hate."
3. If you have followed the band as long as I have, you will know that they use plays on words incredibly often. So, the translation is not wrong.
These site also provide similar lyric transcription:
Pure Lyrics.com (German site)
Real Lyrics.com
A Z Lyrics
Lyrics Cafe
Auuuug!!! What happened to my links?! Does MT not support html tags in comments?! oh well, you can find all those sites by a quick search on google.
November 20, 2002 05:28 PM, Dave said:
Because I am not godless fascist and have slight quibbles with the certain methods of Jew killing, I don’t speak German. However, a transcription (or is a transliteration) of the lyrics followed by a translation doesn’t mean that something is irrefutable. Just because someone holds the title “Professor” or “Doctor” doesn’t mean they are right. Likewise, just because someone is a substitute highschool German teacher does not make the analysis of German words definitive.
Anyway, as you can see there are various ways to find the “meaning” of text. This is what goes on every day in constitutional or statutory analysis. Judicial arguments parallel the arguments of Rammstein's fans. E.g. 1) in the case of ambiguity it is fruitless to determine what the writers really wanted to say, so it is better to find definitions from a) the political relationships it creates (which is sometimes analogized to the aesthetics created by a work of literature) b) a philosophy that pervades the text (a and b are very different, obviously); 2) do you best to find out what the writer meant (even if he might have changed his mind, or the writer might be dead, etc.); 3) pure textual analysis if fallible unless one view the text in the context of similar texts.
There are various arguments for and against these schools of thought, and I can’t pretend to know which ones is best. (Alright, I can, I am a contextualist). But when you re not performing the analysis yourself, but are instead relying on someone else’s perceptions of a 3rd party’s analysis, ones argument can be attacked both on the credibility of analysis and the credibility of perception.
(I realize that Hal is going to [correctly] point out that determining what constitutes “perception” is actually a philosophical question. I should have mentioned that, but my article on that is neatly sitting unpublished at the bottom of my desk in CT.)
November 20, 2002 06:24 PM, Sam said:
it supports html, you just have to turn it on. go to blog config -> preferences -> third option from the bottom is "Allow HTML in comments". Turn it on.
November 20, 2002 08:31 PM, Rick said:
Actually that translation is also wrong. 'Gefragt' would be the past tense, meaning the only verb that would be gramatically correct to use would be haben, to have. I imagine the lyrics are a play on words, with the listener not realizing the verb was hast and not hasst until the line is completed.
Actual translation:You
You have
You have me
You have asked me
And I have not said/obeyed(the only definition I know of sagen is to say, but I assume that in instances it can mean or imply to obey, because that makes much more sense than I have not said.)
November 20, 2002 08:58 PM, Erin said:
OK, so our sources on lyric translation so far include:
1. A native a German speaker who did not see the written lyrics.
2. A fan of Rammstein who notes they like plays on words.
3. Rick, self proclaimed music geek and 2nd or 3rd year German speaker.I have not yet read Dave's comments.
Thanks, Sam, for the tip!
November 20, 2002 09:07 PM, Erin said:
Having read Dave's comments... what about my third example? Surely the postcard was irrefutable evidence that Disney World lies in Florida and not California! (That, coupled with my first hand account of having visited the park.)
The whole point of this post was not really to debate German translation, or some postmodern ideas on perspective and history, but rather, to express aggravation over a particular type of jerk, or a particular way of being a jerk.
It's more of a "Don't you hate it when...?" thing.
November 20, 2002 11:45 PM, Agnieszka said:
Erin, I have actually had several discussions about the Rammstein lyrics with native german speakers and I have also taken several years of German, and have a bit of experience translating German poetry.
Your foreign exchange student is wrong, by the way. Or perhaps purposefuly obtuse. You may check any German dictionary, and you will find that hast=have, and hasst=hate. Hasst is spelled in German with a letter that looks like of like a B with a stem, and in Austrian and crossword puzzles with the double s, ie "ss".
I have spent a lot of time puzzling over Rammstein lyrics and looking them up in the dictionary and bugging native speakers. I am fairly sure they are meant as a pun, and not only a double pun but a triple pun. I was alerted to the third pun by my ex-boyfriend Evan, who grew up in Germany, and is fluent in both English and German.
The German sentence structure is such that when you use the past perfec, you put the main verb at the very end of the sentence and the helping verb directly after the subject clause.
Hence, the word for word translation:
Du hast mich gefragt
You have me askedIt is a song, meant primarily to be heard and not read on the page, so puns matter a great deal.
Du is the familiar form of you, indicating either intimacy or contempt (which, I think, is purpsoefully ambiguous at the begining of the song and develops as the song goes on)
So, first you hear:
Du [familiar you]
intepertation: intimacy or contempt
Du hast
intepretation: either "you hate" or the begining of a verb clause in the past perfect. This is something that the ear of a fluent German speaker is attuned to. Just as when in English when you hear "You have--" you expect another verb.
or it might indicate possesion, as "hast" is used similarly to English "have", both as a helping verb and a verb indicating possesionDu hast mich
interpertation: again three meanings are possible. It can be "you hate me" or "you have me" (as in "you posess me"), or it can be a past perfect verb clause waiting for completion
Du hast mich gefragt.
interpertation: with the completion of the verb clause, the other two meanings fall away, leaving the meaning "you have asked me".
Anyway, I know your point was not to debate German translation, but your translation was wrong and your example poorly chosen. I don't care about almost anything else in the world, but correct language is one of the few things I care about very much and I cannot sit by and let you perpetuate mistranslations without exploding.
November 21, 2002 09:19 AM, Dave said:
As to the postcard, it isn’t refutable evidence because.
1) The printer of the postcard might not be telling the truth.
2) Just because something says “printed in Disney World, FL” doesn’t mean that Disney World is in the state of Florida. In fact, I don’t even think that there is a town of “Disney World, FL.” Moreover, “printed in Disney World, FL” isn’t actually an assertion that the amusement park, Disney World, is in Florida. (On a side note, there is a difference between reliable hearsay such as a trade inscription, and documents that are “self-authenticating.” The postcard might be “self-authenticating” if it has a logo on it that purports to be from Disney, meaning that it is presumed to actually be a Disney World Document, but this does not, on the other hand insulate it from all forms of challenge.
3) You might have forged the card to prove your point. In fact, since you “dug up” the card you don’t even know who had access to it.“Your foreign exchange student is wrong, by the way. Or perhaps purposefuly obtuse. You may check any German dictionary, and you will find that hast=have, and hasst=hate. Hasst is spelled in German with a letter that looks like of like a B with a stem, and in Austrian and crossword puzzles with the double s, ie "ss".”
---This is probably true. If a bunch of Americans were asking “what does your language mean?” I would either, out of a desire to appear cool, or out of a hatred of Americans NOT go into detail.
November 21, 2002 01:51 PM, Erin said:
Sorry to make you explode, AK. Although your answer was extremely useful and informative. Had I time enough I would make a Du Hast "FAQ" for all those curious enough to argue out the lyrics.
Dave, I'm taking it that, like David Hume, you don't "buy" inductive logic, and only deductive logic. Any reasonable person would not assume that I could have manufactured a glossy postcard in the span of five minutes in my room just to settle an argument (especially as an 8th grader with no color copier). Furthermore, I know who had access to my room in my parents' home. I'm also certain that the postcard had a logo of some kind. Better still, my family had amassed no small amount of photographic evidence, merchandise, and eyewitnesses that could have backed me further (if the photos had been developed by that time). I could have even produced a map of Florida, with entrances to Disney World well-marked by Rand McNally.
The other two examples from my post, upon further consideration, would have annoyed me less had the "Stubborn" party provided intelligent evidence to support their claims. If the kid at sci-fi club had cited historians, he might have been more credible. If the high school kid had known more about Rammstein lyrics, I might have been more sympathetic. Had Jen produced some contrary postcard (that was not hand-drawn), I would have to seriously re-consider the nature of my reality.
In another example, Adan once argued with N and Hal for half an hour over whether or not electrons are capable of "jumping" from one point in space to another. Although Hal and N backed their claims by quoting scientific journals, Adan was reduced to shouting, "LOOK AT MY HAND! IT MOVES!" while waving one arm back and forth. I found both the volume and length of the debate to be incredibly taxing.
November 21, 2002 02:43 PM, marxgirl169 said:
Or, the postcard could have been the source of your misinformation. It really has nothing to do with problems of induction, because you never introduced all the other evidence you had. As it stood with the kid in your class, you had introduced two pieces of evidence, and as shown above, one of them could have been dependent on the other, and both wrong. One or two examples are weak no matter what your beliefs about the viability of induction as a method of reasoning.
November 21, 2002 02:57 PM, Dave said:
---Dave, I'm taking it that, like David Hume, you don't "buy" inductive logic, and only deductive logic. Any reasonable person would not assume that I could have manufactured a glossy postcard in the span of five minutes in my room just to settle an argument (especially as an 8th grader with no color copier).
There is no problem with inductive logic. However, the inferences drawn from the premise must be 1) reasonable; 2) their credibility independently assessed. Any additional premises that the inferences are actually based on must also be more “likely than not” and therefore competing inferences must be evaluated.
Anyway, I think you mean to say “any reason person would not PRESUME.” Just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean that there is some set of additional facts, that if presented could make is more likely.
Now, if you meant to say “any reasonable person would not ASSUME…” I have to say that any assumption probably faulty. Forcing people to except, as a fact, beyond contravention that the writing on a postcard is a statement of fact means that anything printed on a postcard is true, and not subject to impeachment.
----Furthermore, I know who had access to my room in my parents' home. I'm also certain that the postcard had a logo of some kind. Better still, my family had amassed no small amount of photographic evidence, merchandise, and eyewitnesses that could have backed me further (if the photos had been developed by that time). I could have even produced a map of Florida, with entrances to Disney World well-marked by Rand McNally.
You could have presented all of the things, but there still might be some reason why they are incorrect. In fact, I would agree that in my mind, a map creates a presumption of correctness that he who challenges the map must rebut. However, there are cases when maps might be inaccurate. For example 1) they can be doctored with Photoshop; 2) Rand McNally puts deliberate errors in its maps to detect copyright violations; 3) RM might have made a mistake, because after all the people who work at RM might be human as well (actually, a ambulance service was just sued for responding to a call too slowly.) They produced as evidence a map that they had which they said tended to show that they had taken the fastest route to the dying person’s home. Turns out that the map was wrong. (The litigation is still going on, because as you can see, there are unresolved issues.))At the end of the day, you seem to be saying that you are credible because you can produce documentary evidence which tends to support your point. However, my point is that such documentary evidence is not inherently truthful (and therefore your assertion is subject to attack), instead the credibility of that evidence must be first independently determined, and then the credibility of your subscription must be assessed.
Interesting you should mention “logos” and trade inscriptions. Awhile back Congress was trying to figure out whether a logo or trade inscription actually mean that was attached to it was true. Eventually they came to the conclusion that the logo created the presumption of authenticity, and there was no need for a witness to subscribe to it. Fed. R. Evid. 907(7). Likewise in 19 USC 1615, Congress said that in a forfeiture proceeding “Marks, labels, brands, or stamps, indicative of foreign origin, upon or accompanying mechandise [sic.] or containers of merchandise, shall be prima facie evidence of the foreign origin of such merchandise.” But, this only serves to shift a burden of production, in fact, it is quite possible for someone to demonstrate that a “foreign mark” on a suitcase, is, in fact not indicative of its foreign origin. Granted, most of the time people can’t make such a demonstration, but they should be able to try. See, e.g., U.S. v. One 56- Foot Yacht Named Tahuna, 702 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. $22,287.00 In U.S. Currency, 520 F.Supp. 675 (E.D.Mich.1981), aff'd. 709 F.2d 442 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, Etc., 590 F.2d 196 (6th Cir.1978).
Congress and the court’s view seems to make the most sense, since it allows the person who seeks to dispute such a finding to prove otherwise, and at some point in time they might just be able to do that.
November 21, 2002 02:59 PM, Dave said:
---I found both the volume and length of the debate to be incredibly taxing.
I don't understand. Does that make either of their arguments and more or less correct?
November 21, 2002 03:15 PM, Erin said:
I'm beginning to find the length of this debate incredibly taxing and ultimately annoying.
The point of my post was not so much about correctness or the nature of evidence, but about annoyance, and a certain kind of argument which tends to annoy me the most. Since my annoyance is entirely subjective, my examples are rather arbitrary.
I'm done!!
November 21, 2002 03:44 PM, Sam said:
hey erin, random and unrelated — you know you can import your blogger entries into movable type, right? and keep your comment links too?
November 22, 2002 02:51 PM, thomas said:
For a lawyer, Dave sure has a lot of free time.
I had no idea so many people cared about Rammstein.
Disney World is actually a black hole, so its specific location is hard to chart.
November 23, 2002 03:42 PM, Dave said:
I don't spend my free time in "The Hamptons" or buying fine China like the rest of them. Sorry. Would you rather that I did?
November 25, 2002 02:01 AM, thomas said:
Lawyer stuff. You know, dredging the bottom of oceans, chasing ambulances, taking ads out on the bus. Lawyer stuff.
November 25, 2002 02:42 PM, Thomas said:
You know... the sad part is, Thomas, is that I am actually on your side.
November 25, 2002 02:42 PM, Dave said:
Oh, there has been on interesting thing about "irrefutable evidence" in the news, but this will be posted on my blog when I get a chance.
November 25, 2002 07:30 PM, marxgirl169 said:
Dear Thomas,
You suck. Are you being rude or just stupid? Either way, you are a complete fuckhead. Sometimes I wonder how such a pompous pseudo-intellectual like yourself has time to write stupid annoying comments on the blogs of so many people who neither know nor like him. I mean, aren't you awfully busy, hanging around in coffee shops and bemoaning things you don't understand and are too lazy to do anything about anyway?
In conclusion, you suck.
November 26, 2002 12:34 AM, Rick said:
Wow, I was going to be nice to Tum for a little while because I sort of appreciated his post on the war protest thread, but marxgirl really has him pegged.
November 26, 2002 11:02 PM, Peace-pipe Phil said:
I'm going to paraphrase a famous Japanese general when I say, "I think Thomas has awakened a sleeping giant."
But seriously, in light of the holidays, let's break it up and all be friends :D
Don't we all have days when we're jerks? I know I do; I call them weekdays. And at any rate, I believe this is Erin's blog, so she should be arbiter of what's rude or stupid. It's just my opinion. Once I post comments again, my blog will need hits.
November 27, 2002 11:03 AM, thecomicman said:
"In another example, Adan once argued with N and Hal for half an hour over whether or not electrons are capable of "jumping" from one point in space to another. Although Hal and N backed their claims by quoting scientific journals, Adan was reduced to shouting, "LOOK AT MY HAND! IT MOVES!" while waving one arm back and forth. I found both the volume and length of the debate to be incredibly taxing."
okay a) it was quarks, not electrons, 2) it was not jumping, it was "teleporting", and d) they never once quoted any kind of scientific journals, or anything else, for that matter. the three of them (Noah, Hal, and Dan) were reduced to saying "but scientists have proved this". what kind of fucking proof is that? i can say, and have said, the same thing and where does it get me? in fact, me waving my hand back and forth may have been the only kind of proof offered during the entire argument. so until Hal, Noah, or Dan find some fucking 'scientific journals', i consider this argument unresolved.
November 27, 2002 01:14 PM, Peace-pipe Phil said:
Now of course, my call for a truce does not mean I excuse whatever Thomas wrote. He was obviously being an asshole. Certainly, writing rude and insulting comments on the blog of a person I don't know is the LAST THING I would do.
November 27, 2002 04:29 PM, Dave said:
The ironic part is that I actually did resolve the Hal v. Adan debate (solution: both are partially right). However, I think that methods of debate are much more interesting than the substance, so I will take a back seat.
April 23, 2004 04:55 AM, Phentermine said:
Erase this message and you'll never see it again. ( - Phentermine) http://www.fda-phentermine.com 74.1915694045932
April 29, 2004 05:17 PM, said:
it's "have", not "hate". as someone mentioned before, the past perfect tense uses either the conjugations of haben or sein plus the past perfect verb at the very end of the sentence.
"hast gefragt" makes sense, "hasst gefragt" does not, because the conjugation of "haben" is not there to link the past perfect verb.
August 14, 2004 04:08 AM, Viagra said:
3649 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com
August 15, 2004 06:08 PM, poker said:
487 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Post a comment