1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Ik staak niet met geweld."

"Ik staak niet met geweld."

Translation:I do not strike with violence.

December 15, 2014



Is it ok to translate met geweld as "violently"? I would have thought there's no difference between "with violence" and "violently", but it wasn't accepted.


"Geweld" is meant to be used as a noun in this sentence, not as 'how' the action (ik staak) is performed. This is up for discussion though.


I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Yes, of course "geweld" is used as a noun, because that's what it is...?


Excuse my bad explanation, you're right. Let me just explain this a whole lot simpler: "I do no strike violently" would have been the translation of "Ik staak niet gewelddadig". 'Violently' = 'gewelddadig' = 'how' I strike.


Ok, I see what you mean now. I still think "violently" is a valid translation of "met geweld" though, even if it's of course not the most literal one.


Is "strike" here used in the sense of industrial action? And if so, does it only mean, or does it also mean "to impact upon" as in English? Or bear any other meanings?


I'm curious about this as well.


I wonder too, but I doubt it. I assume "slaan" would be the way to say that you are striking SOMETHING and not FOR something. If that makes sense. We also distinguish between them in Swedish.


Staking means the industrial action, although it can also have other meanings, none of which are related to the other meaning of "strike" that you mentioned ("to impact upon").


Not according to Wiktionary, it seems: the definitions it gives are ‘to strike; to go on strike’ and ‘to suspend’. French Wiktionary supports this.


geweldig = violent = awesome? haha...


Well, "awesome" itself went through a similar evolution. "Awe" originally had a connotation of fear, and so awesome was originally something that struck reverent fear into people. Over time, 'awesome' shifted to a sense of great wonder (without fear), and then just a very enthusiastic 'good.' And now, thanks to the '80s, it's totally awesome, dude!


It is a bit odd, isn't it? Apparently "geweldig" used to mean "mighty, powerful", but over the centuries that meaning shifted to awesome.


Well, here in Ireland, 'mighty' is often used in the sense of 'awesome, great', so it's not too odd.


All of a sudden "the Mighty Mighty Bosstones" makes so much more sense ;)

  • 39

Isn't it 'gewelddadig', instead of 'geweldig'? I've never heard of 'geweldig' = 'violent' before... :P


Yeah, I should have been more clear.

  • Geweld = violence
  • Geweldadig = violent
  • Geweldig = awesome

Obviously they are all etymologically related, but the last one doesn't really fit in, when it comes to meaning. That is what I was musing about.


etymologically, I think the origin of awesome is awe, an overwhelming feeling of admiration (maybe it has bear the meaning of "cool" only recently?).

Such meaning can also be traced back to the primitive construction of words by sounds. I guess "AWE" is the sound of exclamation that ancient people make, when they saw sublime things.

From that sence, I think the "violence = awesome" equality is clearer, as in early history they contain the same characteristics.


It's better not to make stuff up off the top of your head in this kind of discussion. Two minutes of Google searching reveals that the English word "awe" derives from the Proto-Indo-European root *agh-, meaning "depressed or afraid".



Thanks for your input. However why agh- is a quite universal expression about fear, have you thought about it? In Japanese "Oki" is large,great,big. Indo-European language, as you have enlightened, use "agh". In Chinese, elongated "Ach" , "Oh"(sounds exactly same with "awe") is still used to express the admiration or fear towards sublime entities.

I am just suggesting, it may be a human nature, regardless of the lingual background, to address these feeling with this certain sound. Furthermore it's also a natural way of creating words from the very beginning.

Lastly, thanks for your input again.Also, I am sorry for quite a digression from the topic of this question.


There may be something to those kinds of suppositions, though it's much harder to prove than written linguistics that leave a paper(/papyrus/sheepskin/parchment/stone tablet/hieroglyphics/cavepaint/etc.) trail through history. Having to gaze up at something large pulls on your neck and lower jaw, and if you just let it open and vocalize, you end up with an "aaaah" sound.

I've heard a theory that /m/ is the easiest consonant to make (clench your jaw and activate your vocal cords), and /a/ is the easiest vowel (keep the cords engaged and open your mouth), so "ma" is the first semi-voluntary sound most babies make, and since they (at least, traditionally) spend most of their time around their mother, that's how "ma" came to be a near-universal root for "the woman who births and cares for a child." (cf: Hindi mām̐, Arabic 'ami and Hebrew ama, Chinese 妈 ma1, Zulu umama...wildly different linguistic families, but still highly similar). Japanese, Turkic, Mongolic, and Finno-Uralic seem to be the few exceptions, and even that's for recorded language, not baby-talk.


In my opinion "ik staak niet" can be translated into " I do not go on strike" and I have reported it. Anybody else agrees with me?


I agree with you. I've been reading through these comments, hoping to come to one that I could add my own comment to (or "to which I could add my own comment", to put it in proper English). My instinct here would be to say "I do not use force when I go on strike", which I think is the sense behind this sentence.


I used "I don't use violence in a strike". While this is not word-for-word, saying "I don't strike with violence" is ambiguous in English because you would usually mean "I strike" as in "ik sla" rather than "ik staak".


Not necessarily, when your union decides that there'll be a strike as a protest or a way to demand something, and your co-workers want to know whether you'll be joining the strike or not, they'd normally ask you "are you striking tomorrow?"


"do not ... with" =/= "without"..?


Yes, it is not quite equivalent. "I do not strike with violence" leaves the possibility that I am not striking at all.


Could this sentence be also written as "Ik staak zonder geweld"?


How does one "strike with violence"? Am I the only one to find that concept odd?


In a labor strike, one could either demonstrate peacefully with signs and chanting, or violently with Molotov cocktails and so on.


I wont stop with violence should also be approved in my opinion, as "staken" also means "to stop"


Perhaps, but you misspelled "won't".

Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.