sich in Polemik verlieren

12:14 Feb 3, 2019 

Randepisoden is somewhat and über den Tisch ziehen is definitely colloquial. However, in Polemik verlieren is "Bildungssprache" and is quite formal; you'll just have to trust me on this.

The way the letter is written isn't unusual either, at least not in German, IMO (I studied law). It wasn't unusual in politics 20 years ago either.

Here's a Bundesgerichtshof ruling that includes "Polemik":
"Das gilt auch für Äußerungen, die in scharfer und abwertender Kritik bestehen, mit übersteigerter Polemik vorgetragen werden oder in ironischer Weise formuliert sind..."
https://www.jurion.de/urteile/bgh/1993-10-12/vi-zr-23_93/

That was more than 25 years ago.

Or here, from 1978:
"Die dagegen gerichteten Angriffe der Revision erschöpfen sich im wesentlichen in Polemik gegen die das Revisionsgericht bindenden Feststellungen des Tatrichters."
https://www.jurion.de/urteile/bgh/1978-03-14/1-str-8_78/

I can quote you books from the 19th century too. Also, the rules have changed a long time ago, liberation movements and all :D

Best wishes

11:28 Feb 3, 2019 

über den Tisch ziehen and sich im Polemik verlieren - none of these are what I would call formalized legalese, which again do not detract from their viability. The text, in my humble opinion, is a classic case of shifting language usage, throwing up the question: what on Earth is viable, appropriate language? In my earlier years, such metaphors/similies would never be found in legal disputations, or, if they were, then couched in much more obscure phraseology. Interesting, interesting, interesting. Focus on those willing to join your crusade for linguistic knowledge - not many believe they have the time for such idiosyncrasies.

11:06 Feb 3, 2019 

"...entire text is littered with colloquialisms..."

Curious: Where? I don't see any, except for the one in quotation marks and maybe Randepisoden.

"...to know what works where when..."

That's the point. I hav to quote a lot and every time I am on non-ENS pages after reading some ENS articles, it feels weird. Some of those pages sound like English but the way the text is written feels forced; like you're trying to make something fit that doesn't.

This may sound odd to some people, but I'm actually here to learn and I've learned a lot over the past years. Lately, though, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find creative answers that don't go down the "literal" route (and some things are just wrong, but it's no use crying over spilled milk).

The same is happening in the EN-DE forum, so that's no consolation.

Am glad, though, that some people are still willing to discuss these things. Thank you.

Best

10:40 Feb 3, 2019 

The entire text is littered with colloquialisms, detracting from the plaintiff's seriousness or ability to formulate a serious complaint. I did not say you should because you could, my statement is more a general plea for independent, linguistic awareness of native-speaker professionalism, hence their inherent ability to know what works where when. Everything is always open to discussion, which is the beauty of linguistics. I love my language, perhaps passionately, perhaps polemically. Have a lovely Sunday.

10:27 Feb 3, 2019 

Of course not; I didn't start it. In fact, it's a very bad indicator when it comes to German Google, since a lot of perfectly acceptable phrases won't show up at all.

Having said that, now that we have the full sentence, it's even more likely ad hominem is fine too:
"...es ist absurd, wenn der Kläger behauptet, die Beklagte habe ihn 'über den Tisch gezogen...'"

Also, we are talking about lawyers, not politicians. And even then, I have never seen it used; populist, yes (especially nowadays), but not polemic and I read multiple news articles each day.

That's why I agree with Susie, since I think you should use something else. Just because you can write something doesn't mean you should or would. This has become a big problem on here and I'm surprised you, being a very creative person, would support a sentiment like this. E.g., "caught up" is a phrasal verb and is thus rather colloquial (I'm familiar with Ken Adams' and Bryan Garner's work, so I think I'm allowed to say something here; plus, the second phrase is in quotation marks, which means the first should be a bit more formal, IMO).

Best wishes and enjoy your Sunday!

09:40 Feb 3, 2019 

Please remind all linguists that rarity does not immediately imply diminished viability. Ghit-exclusive reckoning promotes the evolution of linguistic gits. Thank you and enjoy a sacrosanct Sunday, Save My Language Foundation.

17:56 Feb 2, 2019 

"That's a personal attack on an individual."

Here's a Macmillan blog post:
"It seems to me that many of our political arguments are ad hominem arguments that work just like Waldman’s, in which some person or group of persons is held to account for being disingenuous, irresponsible, or hypocritical."
[Edit: Posted wrong link] https://community.macmillan.com/community/the-english-commun...

An attack on your opponent, individual or not.

I'm open to suggestions, but Susie is right (and I do agree with her regarding the things she wrote in her added note). Polemic is indeed not used that much and, considering that you often place so much importance on how many Ghits something gets: If you subtract all non-ENS sources and translations from the search results, your "engaging in polemics" is rare too.

Also, "verlieren" could be translated as "resort to." This is all a bit literal. As I said, it's more or less an idiom. I don't have the wider context, but I believe the writer is trying to insinuate something by mentioning issues that are entirely unrelated. Often employed strategy in (U.S.) politics.

Best

17:16 Feb 2, 2019 

I was going to post an answer of my own, minus the word "rhetoric", but then decided Susie's answer was near enough.

It doesn't mean "ad hominem", though. That's a personal attack on an individual.

15:39 Feb 2, 2019 

Actually, I agree with Phil and don't understand why he changed his comment from neutral to agree.

I agree that polemic is rarely used (I have never seen it used in any of the myriad US news pieces I've read during the past months), so it's odd that the answer would include it. In fact, "sich in Polemik verlieren" is somewhat of an idiom in German. It's called an ad hominem in English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[The standard term is "personal attacks."] Hey, I got it right here in a court document:
"Noting that plaintiff’s “entirely inappropriate language
and ad hominem attacks . . . . serve[] only to disparage the defendants and to detract from the dignity of the Court,' the Court also dismissed the remainder of plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file an amended complaint within thirty days"
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_12-cv-04...

Or:
"Make ad hominen attacks on opposing counsel or be sarcastic in either your oral arguments or written briefs."
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Publications/AttySvcs/cour...

Cf Duden: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Polemik

Best