Hacker News Reader

Comment by copperx | Hacker News Reader

Führer means leader, not Hitler. What's the problem?

The problem is perception. If people associate the name with Hitler (and I think they do), then no matter what the "correct" definition is, the name will be what people think it is.

This is how languages evolve. If enough people think something about a word, then over time there is a good chance that word will morph into the the new meaning. The same thing happens with pronunciation. For example, originally the "correct" pronunciation of the word "forte" was "fort", however most people think and use "fortay". Now most dictionaries will give both pronunciations or even the "incorrect" one and over time it will almost certainly change into "fortay" completely.

The fact that Hitler isn't mentioned in GP, nor Twitter, tells you exactly what the problem is.

If we are going to be pedantic, then „Führer” means someone who leads, whereas „Leiter” is more close to the English term ‘leader’. ‘Leader’ and „Leiter” share the same etymology, „Führer” does not. The same difference is present in Danish as well: »leder« vs »fører«.

Essentially, „ein Führer” is more than just a leader.

>‘Leader’ and „Leiter” share the same etymology, „Führer” does not.

You're not being pedantic, you're introducing an unnecessary element. The etymology of a word isn't relevant in determining its current meaning. Führer is usually translated as leader and there is nothing wrong with that translation.

Perhaps, but „Führer” is far more affectionate in a way than „Leiter” is. I do not disagree with the translation, but its association with Hitler in English is not entirely inaccurate.

Never mind old Adolf -- the bit of pedancy I really admire in your post is that you consistently and correctly use different typographical quoting conventions for German, English and Danish.

I did this when quoting English and German language works in an essay recently. It felt wrong, though.

This is a trait I adopted a year ago for own filthy pleasure. I felt it was wrong to quote sentences and/or words in other languages with quotation marks meant for another language.

I am confident other people have different views on this. Fortunately for most people, I don't get to write much on languages. Strangely, while my dyslexia is somewhat preventing this, it is also the same disorder that is causing me to become more obsessive about my writing, including the quotation marks.

Edit: To ensure it, I have reconfigured my keymap to have all the symbols ready as keys.

There's a strong associate between the two.

Example: It's the first thing your mind jumped too although cpeterso never mentioned the Hitler in his comment.

And Hitler is just a last name that tons of people have had, so what would be the problem with calling it Hitler? Obviously, the problem is with the inevitable connotations the name will have.

'Tonnes of people' might be an overstatement. Other than the immediate relatives of Adolf Hitler (father, mother, siblings, half-siblings and their children), no other people with the surname Hitler are known.

And there is a good reason for that. The surname „Hitler” is an alternative spelling of „Hiedler”. Hitler's father, Alois Schicklgruber, decided to change his name to his stepfather's family name, „Hielder”. Likely because Alois was born out of wedlock and wanted to rid himself of his old surname once he became established. It is unknown why he changed the spelling to „Hitler”.

Adolf Hitler did comment once that he thanked his father for changing the surname, as „heil Schicklgruber” would have sounded awkward.

In German, yes. In English, the first association is Hitler.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com