Peter D. Junger wrote: > I doubt that that is the implication, since Wittgenstein would > probably have been thinking "er ist ein Mensch" or, as people > would say in New York, "he is a mensch." "Mensch" can be > translated as "human being" but that hardly gets the sense > of the word, which is probably more like "humane person" or > "warm person" or simply "good person." But then, of course, > the word "person," when translated back into German, is a rather > unflattering word for a woman---a lady of good family might well > refer to a shopgirl as "diese Person." > > To translate is, after all, to betray. No doubt. But in this case, Wittgenstein was speaking English. Robert robert.paul@xxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html