Absetzen and Versetzen

[Jake_Norwood]

I remember in 2003 someone asked Bart "what's the difference between absetzen and versetzen?" His answer was good (it's one of the theories that I mention below).

Anyway, this was rekindled by a converasation with Jeff Gentry recently. Here's some snippets:

Jeff wrote:
>Goliath, Ringeck, all the german manuel's translate absetzen and vier
>versetzen as setting aside and 4 setting aside's is the word versetzen another form
>of absetzen and when we add the vier to versetzen, does it some how change
>the meaning/translation.
>
>I am working from my little pigeon medeival german learned through osmoses
>so bear with me, i am assuming setzen is setting in both the above and i can
>see absetzen as setting aside (ab=aside, setzen=setting) the word versetzen
>though seem's to mean something else not entirely diffrent, just diffrent, i
>am thinking it is just because of the way it is being used with the vier in
>front i just cannot reconcile the ver (?) setzen(setting), any thought's or do
>you know why this is?

My scattered reply:

I, too, gained my knowledge of German via "osmosis," so this is based more on my training as a linguist, than as a germanist.

Ab=off. Setzen= to place, to set. So Absetzen is literally "offsetting." In the French/Latin off=dis and setting=place, thus absetzen=ofsetting=displacment. Absetzen is obviously related to the english "aside." The latin/french is where it gets screwed up in translation, I think. In truth "dis" better fits "ver" than "ab." I think that "Versetzen" is "displacing" and Absetzen is "ofsetting." There's a lot of theories that basically propose that Absetzen is all parries, etc., but that those violent proactive strikes-as-parries are versetzen. Other theories are that absetzen is for thrusts and versetzen is for cuts and stances.

I think that a versetzung can be against a leger (hence the vier versetzen) because it removes it from its place (see below). An Absetzen, on the other hand, is re-direction, not a block, not a strike, not an attack.

I think.

All this really cool talk prompted me to bust out my Cassel's German Dictionary (printed 1909). Here's what Cassel has to say:

Ab-, (as an adjective it means) off; down, away form , from, exit. (As a prefix it) implies separation from, disinclination to, and somtimes participation in. In many verbs it denotes to tire one by the repeated action of the verb, to do a thing out and out.

Absetzen's actual entry is very enlightening. Some notable definitions are: to set down; to deposit; to remove (from office); to depose (a king); to dismiss, to discard, to discharge; to bring forth (clandestinely); to wean; to break off; to throw off; to unhorse (!)...also "to take the glass from the mouth, to stop drinking...

The phraze "setz ab!" is military German for "ground arms!"

On to versetzen:

Ver-, inseperable prefix added to verbs and to the nouns and adjectives derived from them, whith the idea of "removal, loss, untoward action, using up, change, reversal, etc.

Cassell's definition of the word Versetzen is about a page long(!) and includes the meanings "to displace, to misplace, to obstruct, to throw, to remove, to transplant" or even to "deal someone a blow"!

The difference appears clearly subtle but substantive.

Thoughts?

Jake

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jake

I, too, gained my knowledge of German via "osmosis," so this is based more on my training as a linguist, than as a germanist.

I figured your lingustic training would be handy for clarifacation on this.

The difference appears clearly subtle but substantive.

I agree it is a subtle diffrence and a somewhat substancive one when reading or teaching the two.

I think that a versetzung can be against a leger (hence the vier versetzen) because it removes it from its place (see below). An Absetzen, on the other hand, is re-direction, not a block, not a strike, not an attack.

This was the feeling i was getting when reading, just wanted to check my method of thinking.


Jeff

[G.MatthewWebb]

Jake,

Thanks for the linguistic and etymological discussion. You know I love that sort of thing. However, I'm still confused about the difference. How does an absetzen redirect if it is not a block or strike. Is there blade contact or have we found clear evidence of a European form of "kong jing?" <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> (No contact "empty force" technique---a qi technique---joke)

How does one use a versetzen against the 4 Leger or an absetzen. Examples please.

Thanks for the thread. I've always thought that most translators and interpretors were fuzzy about the distinctions, if any, between the two terms.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hey Matt.

While it's possible that there isn't a clear enough difference in English--that something is "lost in translation" may be the case. It certainly happens. But I'm loathe to rest on my laurels and say that's the case.

Perhaps it has to do, on the English side of the house, with subtelness of movement. Not that that's "quite it," but as a mediary for our translation problem.

Absetzen doesn't seem to have the same kinetic value, linguistically, that versetzen does. Nor does it seem to be about opposition--just "offsetting." Smaller movements, perhaps. A simple displacment of an incoming strike or thrust. A transition from one guard to another that foils an intended attack. Don't think "qi," but something along the lines of Tai Chi's "water hands" might not be alltogether wrong. Absetzen seems to me to be more about the enemy's force than about my own.

Versetzen is somewhat the opposite. There's a general sense of "oppositeness" in the prefix "ver-" according to Cassel's, as well as a sense of completeness. This is not as subtle, and it's more proactive. You cannot, I think, absetz something that isn't moving (e.g. one of the vier leger) but you can versetz one of them (i.e. the vier versetzen). Versetzen are made in opposition. They are made (in my little universe) with a sense of violence and "oppositeness." Absetzen is about flow and denying an attack "gently," if there is such a thing. Versetzen is a block and if it is a redirection it's not a little one. In latin-come-english "ver" becomes "dis" and "setzen" becomes "place." To understand "ver" let's undrestand "dis."

Disrespect (opposite of respect)
Disregard (opposite of regard)
Disengage (to go from a state of engagement to one of no engagement)
Distance (the opposite of being close)
Disenfranchise (to remove someone from the group...okay, loose translation)
Disutopian (not utopian)
Disestablishimentariansim (the second longest word...)
Disparity (the opposite of parity, which is itself "equality")

now, "Displace" (to remove something from it's place).

If the vier leger both protect and threaten they you must "versetz" or "displace" them in order to remove them from the "place" where they are functional as threateners or protectors.

If someone attacks you then you can versetz it--remove the attack from it's place entirely.

or you can absetz it...simply set it off of it's current course.




Perhaps the distinctions I'm making are somewhat artificial--there's probably no way we can know. It might be enough to say that "absetzen and versetzen" mean "don't get hit and don't let the other guy cover," which ultimately is correct and probably sufficient for many fighters.

But there is also great depth of yet untapped meaning in what we're doing. If they, the original practicioners and masters felt that these to actions were different enough to be named, then we should understand why--even if the difference in meaning is as small as the diffrence in spelling (just 2-3 letters).

Jake

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jake

I think it might also indicate how much power or speed to use.

i.e. he is in a gaurd you may need more power(versetzen), if he is moving from or too a gaurd you may need more speed(Absetzen)

So the 2-3 letter's could make a diffrence in the usage.

Is just a random thought.

Jeff

[Jake_Norwood]

It could, and while I think that's an element of the whole, I don't see anything in the words that imply or suggest that.

In fact, I don't think that you would absetz any slower than you would versetz...absetzen are just smaller movements.

Maybe.

Jake

[JeffGentry]

Jake

smaller movement would be a better description, of what i was thinking for absetzen.

Jeff

[Randall Pleasant]

Jake

Thanks! That was a really informative discussion.
Looking forward to reading more.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Fro what it is worth, here is may take on it.

I think absetsen has the ideas that we do not oppose the blade, more like letting the opponent blade go the way it want to go just changing it direction a little.


Versetsen seems to be more in opposition.
The baddy versten us with his quillons a few time in ringeck
And in VD the fits pieces of the Zorhn we verstez him with the strike against his strike

The thing that I find relatively interesting is how Von Dantzig and Ringeck comments the line.
Vor versetzen huett dich Geschicht daß auch sere müetzß dich
From verzeten guard yourself, should it happen/come into being (geschicht=schicken,) it profit you well (mieten=lohnen, belohnen)

In Ringeck it is part of the verse on the 4 displacement and that is what the gloss said

Vnd hyt dich vor allen versetzen, die die schlecht vechter tryben. Vnd merck: wen er hawt, so haw och, vnd wen er sticht, so stych och. Vnd wie dü hawen vnd stechen solt, das findest dü in den fünff hewen vnd jn den absetzten geschryben.

And guard yourself from all versetzen, that the poor fencer does. And mark when he strike then strike as well, when he thrust then thrust as well and how you are to strike and thrust you will find described in the five strike and in the Abzetsen.

Basically do not do versetzen it is bad and evil (save the one that breaks the guards)


And VD
Daß ist der text und die gloß daß man nicht vor setzen sol.
Vor versetzen huett dich Geschicht daß auch sere müetzß dich
/ Glosa / merck daß ist daß du nicht verseczen solt als die gemainen vechter thuen / wenn die verseczen / So halden sy iren ort in die hoch oder auff ein seitten / und daß ist ze versten daß sy in der versaczung mit dem die vier plöß nicht wissen zu süchen / Dar umb werden sie offt geschlagen / oder wenn du verseczen wild / So versecz mit deinem haw oder mit deinem stich / und suech Indeß mit dem ort die nächst plöß / So mag dich kain maister an seinen schaden geschlachen

This is the text that and the gloss that one should not versetsen

From verzeten guard yourself, should it happen/come into being (geschicht=schicken,) it profit you well (mieten=lohnen, belohnen)

Glose/ note that it is that you are not to versetsen as the common fencer do. When they Verseten so hold have the point high or onto the side, and that is understood that they do not want to sech for the 4 openings hence they are often hit. But when you will versetz , so versets with your strike or with your thrust and search &amp;#8220;indes&amp;#8221; the nearest opening with the point. So no master will be able to strike at his leisure.

So clearly it is all right to do versetzen as long as it is done properly. (and hence the abetzen would fall in the proper versetzen category if you see what I mean)


And may be he meaning of verstsen absetzen is not really equivalent form one master to another (or from a region to the other).
What do you think ?

[Jake_Norwood]

Philip,

To distil what you're saying,

Absetzen is a type of versetzen which uses a smaller, redirectional movement.

DIfferent masters see the definitions of these items in subtly different ways, though the above generally always applies.

There are "good" versetzen and "bad" versetzen (incidentally this is a big deal in Meyer, too). The "vier versetzen" and absetzen both threaten as they protect (or protect as they threaten, depending) and are therefore "good." Other versetzen--moves or techniques that fit the bill of "opposition" and "displacement" are "bad" versetzen because although they effectively displace they fail to gain advantage (Meyer's words).

Sound right? That's what I'm seeing in all of the Leichtenauer stuff I'm reading.

Jake

[Matt Bryant]

Jake, as a student of german language and from what I have learned whilst in ARMA, I would have to say that you have hit the nail on the head.

Completely agree.

[philippewillaume]

Hello jake

Yes I think we are saying the same thing. Basically it is linked to the striking from the Nach and gaining the Vor. Any verstezen that doesn&amp;#8217;t not do that is bad

I know what you mean by a small redirectional movement but Rinegeck absetsen from the krump is a big movement (you are going to end up in a schrankhut) hence my slightly different definition.

phil

[JeffGentry]

Hey Guy's

A litttle recap here for my own clarification.

Absetzen: Ab indicate's a more gentle type of moving something, ie set that over there

Versetzen: Ver indicate's a more active type of moving, ie push that out of the way.

So they are very similar and subtley diffrent in how they are used or done?

Jeff