3 ms·

But depending on context, multiple connotations are possible for every euphemism. That's part of their charm in a literary context. But in politics it's the r

But depending on context, multiple connotations are possible for every euphemism. That's part of their charm in a literary context. But in politics it's the responsibility of the speaker not to be euphemistic, because deliberately trying to be being misunderstood is always a stupid tactic. "We will bury you" can mean either a) that we will kill you or b) we will outlast you. But either way, we will be alive after your death and present at your burial. Regardless of which meaning was intended, Khrushchev's decision to bring up the topic of the death of the entire "first world" at the UN was deliberately provocative, so it's hardly a mistranslation to conclude that the US and NATO have just been threatened, no matter how obliquely.

pluma 8y ago
My point was that a phrase that might have meanings {A,B,C} when translated might end up having meanings {A,D,E} (keeping its primary intended meaning A but also gaining unintended meanings D and E while losing B and C) or, at best, {A,B} (merely losing the nuance of also meaning C). There's still a difference between mere provocation ("I will live longer than you...") and a direct threat ("...because I will kill you first"). The former could still merely be a statement of confidence (i.e. "our form of government is more stable and resilient than yours, whereas you're overextending yourselves and will deplete your resources").