Talk:Verkehrsanschauung

@Fay Freak Could you create this please? Per utramque cavernam 16:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam I can. I first have to fix Verkehr however to reflext the senses important for it. The way jurists use it is a somehow thinking thing, an objectified third party observer. The way German Wiktionary defines it does not hit the nail at all, defining as “movement on roads” and “social interaction” and “exchange of goods” (and very similarly DWDS). This is way too casuistic and I must see how I can lump it, and this even before searching for any archaic usages – if there is a dictionary-qualified definition somewhere, I have not seen it yet and it is not widespread, and anyway in law studies one learns to find the Tatbestandsvoraussetzungen oneself. It often leans to tautology like that Verkehrsanschauung sind die Anschauungen der beteiligten Verkehrskreise. Verkehrskreise is however a term one can memorize too: Less-informed consumers, more informed consumers, more or less negligent youths (when a young man leaves the fryer in the kitchen which causes a fire, is it simple negligence or already gross negligence for which the insurance does not pay? For this question one might form a Verkehrskreis [because § 276 II BGB defines, and this is applied in the whole law system: “Fahrlässig handelt, wer die im Verkehr erforderliche Sorgfalt außer Acht lässt.” “Negligent is he who lets the care demanded in the Verkehr get out of heed”] of young men and certain experiences and the like and perhaps call it simple negligence while it would be gross negligence for an old cook – I refer here actual cases from memory). I see the § 276 II BGB “Verkehr” wording gets translated with Verkehr being “society” because of the concept being so normative, but this is just a stopgap translation, not a possible gloss. Well now you perhaps get a grasp of how this word is used. Fay Freak (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: With the definition you've provided at Verkehrsauffassung ("the conception of a normative concept that is dominant in the specific business"), I'm thinking of the word doxa. Our definition seems lacking, at least for French: "Ensemble, plus ou moins homogène, de préjugés populaires, de présuppositions généralement admises et évaluées positivement ou négativement, sur lesquelles se fonde toute forme de communication." Per utramque cavernam 20:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam That’s some nice find. The word “doxa” seems to have encroached upon English and French in the second half of the twentieth century, possibly from the works of Roland Barthes to whom I find references when I search the term – otherwise when setting a time limit, one finds “doxa” in few cases of discussions of specific mindsets of Ancient Greek philosophy or theology, it being only little a verkehrstauglich word. Doxa should be considered more for translations, though there are differences in usage and the other translation direction is more dubious: Like the phrases given on fr:doxa, “doxa néolibérale”, “doxas de races, de sexes”, “doxa dominante”, one would not say those things with Verkehrsanschauung. Fay Freak (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)