3 ms·
I always wonder how German words end up with these weird changes when they get replicated in English. It seems someone got it wrong and other authors just repli
by virtualritz 7y ago
I always wonder how German words end up with these weird changes when they get replicated in English. It seems someone got it wrong and other authors just replicated (incl. this one).
It's Stangenkunst (no 'en' postfix)[1].
This literally translates to "the art of rods".
The postfix makes it sound like the plural of the word in a Scandinavian language or maybe Dutch. But it's neither.
The German plural (not used) would be Stangenkünste (Stangenkuenste, with the umlaut written out). This would translate the "arts of rods"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatrod_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatrod_system
- dredmorbius 7y agoKeep in mind that "art" had a meaning closer to "technology" than "creative expression" ("fine arts"), as it does today. Much the same way as "science" referred to all knowledge, regardless of whether it was "scientific" (Baconian method of experimentation and observation) or not. Not all translation is literal, and "rod mechanism" rather than "rod arts" is an arguably better translation. Though I can't help but think of Neal Stephenson's "rod logic" from Diamond Age. Or perhaps the Curta mechanical calculator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta
- detaro 7y agoThere's a few remaining traces of that use of "art"/"Kunst" in modern language: "state of the art"/"nach allen Regeln der Kunst", "artisan" for a skilled craftsperson, ... Specific to mining, "Kunst" both was used for a specific mechanism and the overall technology and its mastery.
- phreeza 7y agoI wonder if in the past maybe the plural of kunst as in the specific mechanism was Kunsten, and the plural of the genre/knowledge was Künste, and only the latter has survived. That could explain why Stangenkunsten seems to be used in the English literature.