this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
94 points (100.0% liked)

El Chisme

505 readers
240 users here now

Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.

Rules:

Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.

Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 4: No sectarianism.

Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

DM me

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nama@hexbear.net 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

"Perpetually constant and regular" is likely the result of translation here. I'm not going to pull up the original text cuz fuck it, but in this case it likely is -perpetual as in continuous without breaks -constant as in staying around a similar level -regular as in normalized

Could just be bad writing as well, I don't care to check. Bit often meaning gets lost in translation

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 8 points 5 days ago

i wonder if that's a regular as in organized, like the american second amendment uses it.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You'll notice that the definitions that you offered for perpetual and constant have massive functional overlap, and regular probably also meant roughly what you suggested constant means. If he's really outlining distinct qualities, then this is a poor translation because it sounds ridiculous and the distinctness of the qualities is unclear but, having read a fair amount of Hitler's writing and speeches (albeit in translation), it's my inclination to say he's just being redundant here, especially given the other comment about Hitler being a poor writer.

The criticism goes on:

Mannoni's comments are similar to those made by Ralph Manheim, who made the first English-language translation in 1943. Manheim wrote in the foreword to the edition "Where Hitler's formulations challenge the reader's credulity I have quoted the German original in the notes." This evaluation of the poor quality of Hitler's prose and his inability to express his opinions coherently was shared by William S. Schlamm, who reviewed Manheim's translation in The New York Times, writing that "there was not the faintest similarity to a thought and barely a trace of language."[41]

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 5 points 5 days ago

Apparently it's bad writing and quotes from it with good prose were actually mistranslated