rasoplichter

16:29 Aug 12, 2010 

Thank you Barend,

Of course likewise, you are permitted to voice your ideas and opinions, in the spirit of mutual sharing, helping and respect, and more, my intentions are the gaining of knowledge and understanding.

Barend quote:
-> I disagree with you on both points. 1) "quack" has both the meaning you mentioned and this other meaning.

Unquote.
You said it had the meaning I outlined and 'this other one'.

I took the 'this other one' part, as meaning, the other meaning here above asked in the question.

16:17 Aug 12, 2010 

I cannot respond to something that you don't mention
You now introduce a new point, the point pertaining to the question of the meanings of quack

I do think it has two meanings:

1) someone who pretends to be a doctor - used in order to show disapproval
quacks selling weight-loss drugs

2) British English informal a doctor
You'd better go and see the quack with that burn.

I NEVER implied you have no right to voice your opinions, but I do have a right to voice mine as well

I have to leave my home now but I could respond later to further entries if appropriate

16:16 Aug 12, 2010 

My answer would be born con-artist, because I dislike gender defined terms in writing. Dutch is full of them and mostly in the male form, he this and he that. In this day and age that old-fashioned male dominated approach is way out of date, in my opinion. I avoid translating things repeating it and using it in English. I also don't like using ONE in English as it sounds pompous but I do and otherwise I find other ways around this.

Still, the root is 'confidence trickster', all the rest are abbreviations and abbreviated bastardisations. If I were to write such a thing it would be using confidence trickster, because my belief is that such statements are not real, nobody is born a killer or a liar.

16:09 Aug 12, 2010 

Barend, you mentioned two things, one about quack, in your response, in light of this, I have every right to voice my opinions in more detail in response to you.
I know you did not say that there is such a thing as born quack, but your idea that it could be right, in relation to it having two meanings, leads me to say again, you are wrong.
Barend, the point of a discussion option is to discuss, you say one thing I say another, therefoere I have every right to articulate on what I think.
Positive criticism is something good, some people though, do not understand what it is, and experience such things as all out attack.

16:08 Aug 12, 2010 

Terry, after your three neutrals and additional discussion entry, and being a native English speaker, what is your suggested translation for 'rasoplichter' in this sentence?

15:53 Aug 12, 2010 

I NEVER used the phrase "born a quack"
someone else offered "a born con-man"

all I offered is "archcharlatan", I offered something with "arch"
so don't critizice me for something that doesn't exist


I avoided "quack" as this seemed to me to be too specific

the rest is all your thoughts, so I would say just offer as an answer what you think that it should be

15:12 Aug 12, 2010 

Barend, a person cannot be a born quack.

I cannot see that quack could correctly convey what is meant here.
Con is the abbreviation of confidence, confidence alone is not usable, trickster is the other qualifying part. Along with the abbreviation to con, the word trickster has been replaced by man (gender assigned) merchant or artist.

To write out Born confidence artist, would make no sense, nobody uses that, and, it actually has no meaning. Same with merchant. Born confidence merchant, meaningless, born confidence man, meaningless.
Even 'born confidence trickster' doesn't sound right, but it is.