Would you really find the word "nazi" so evil and frightning if they hadn't killed all those jewish people? |
The about seven million others who died in the concentration camps (that includes detention-,,labour- and death camps btw) alone should take care of that part.
If not,,the systematic atrocities commited behind the frontlines might suffice as well.
However,,my theory is that the case of Nazi-Germany was the first to be laid open for the world to see,,much like the Vietnam war was the first to be shown in the public's living rooms.
The horrors in the colonization of the west USA as well as those done in the name of the people of USSR were somewhat known,,but no where near the complete awareness of what had been going on in the name of the Führer.
A true and proper translation of a foreign word should result in the correct vocalisation using our own alphabet, not their's!! |
The problem is that we are not talking about translations at all.
For instance Husband,,brought by the Vikings meaning the head of a self owning farm.
(Org. "husbonde". Hus = House. Bonde = farmer.)
Before the Vikings took Brittain,,it was the Romans,,after them the French.
If you start looking at the roots,,there are (comperativly) very few words left that are "original" to the English language.
Now,,spelling them consistently with rules common to the alphabetic ones (shouldn't that be 'alfabet' in that case?

would solve the argument whether it's spelled "cheque" or "check".
However,,the knights riding in the night would still be in an ankward position since people just cannot be bothered to prenounce the "k" nowadays

Hm... it might solve the puzzle of why "blood" and "hood" only rhymes in print though.
However, Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits might argue with you. |
Since he still havn't recived any milk,,I doubt it.
Regardless,,Noone is a name,,not a word.