# Auch bei Abtreibungsgegnern stieß Trumps Aussage auf Unverständnis



## twinklestar

> Auch bei Abtreibungsgegnern *stieß* Trumps Aussage auf Unverständnis. John Kasich, der wie Trump darum kämpft, von den Republikanern als Präsidentschaftskandidat nominiert zu werden, lehnte die Position Trumps entschieden ab.


Source: Spiegel Online

Hello,

What does "stoßen" mean in this context?

I've looked it up on several dictionaries, but I am still in the dark.

The following defintions are from Wikdictionary about this word-stoßen. Which one fits?



> (transitive) to push; to shove; to thrust
> (transitive or reflexive) to bump; to knock; to strike; to hurt
> (reflexive, figuratively, with an) to take exception (to something)
> (intransitive) to jolt; to kick; to thrust



Here are definitions from Leo. dictionary, and I don't find a good explantion either.

Many thanks!


----------



## bearded

Hello
''...stieß auf Unverständnis'' means ''found incomprehension'' or ''came across incomprehension''.
Please see the WRDictionary, entry: stoßen auf.


----------



## Demiurg

It's a set phrase: _auf Unverständnis stoßen_ (_to be met with incomprehension_).

"stoßen" here means _to come across / to encounter_.

Edit: crossed with bearded man


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you both very much for your help.



bearded man said:


> Please see the WRDictionary, entry: stoßen auf.



I looked up "stoßen auf" on Wikdictionary, and it defines its infinitive is "aufstoßen". And "aufstoßen" is defined as "push open", "bump open" there.

Is it a separable verb? or "auf" just collocate with "stoßen" ?




Demiurg said:


> "stoßen" here means _to come across / to encounter_.



Is "come across" for "stoßen" only applied to this set phrase?

Would anyone of you answer the questions again?


----------



## bearded

The verb in your example is just 'stoßen', not aufstoßen. (I mentioned WRD: see above ''Dictionary and thread title search'' German-English)
Therefore it is ''auf etwas stoßen'', and not ''etwas aufstoßen''.
You can 'auf Feindschaft, Unverständnis, Hindernisse....stoßen': it is an idiomatic, metaphorical  use of 'stoßen'.


----------



## twinklestar

bearded man said:


> The verb in your example is just 'stoßen', not aufstoßen. (I mentioned WRD: see above ''Dictionary and thread title search'' German-English)
> Therefore it is ''auf etwas stoßen'', and not ''etwas aufstoßen''.
> You can 'auf Feindschaft, Unverständnis, Hindernisse....stoßen': it is an idiomatic, metaphorical  use of 'stoßen'.



Thank you for your help again. I am sorry I misread your word - WRDictionary, and I went to Wikdictionary.

In your examples, it seems stoßen just goes with negative words. Is it okay if I say "auf Freundschaft stoßen" ?


----------



## ger4

twinklestar said:


> Is it okay if I say "auf Freundschaft stoßen" ?


Not really, but you can say _auf Gegenliebe stoßen_ - 'to be met with approval'. It seems to occur more frequently in the negative form: _nicht auf Gegenliebe stoßen. _

_Der Vorschlag ist nicht auf Gegenliebe gestoßen. _

It isn't used referring to persons.


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you very much, Holger. I see.


----------



## Dan2

twinklestar said:


> The following defintions are from Wikdictionary about this word-stoßen. Which one fits?


"bump into" is not so far off.  Compare:_He bumped into the wall_ (literal), _He bumped into incredulity_ (figurative) = _He met with incredulity = He encountered incredulity_.


twinklestar said:


> And "aufstoßen" is defined as "push open", "bump open" there.
> Is it a separable verb? or "auf" just collocate with "stoßen" ?


I believe you can tell that it's not the separable verb from the word order:
_Auch bei Abtreibungsgegnern stieß Trumps Aussage auf Unverständnis _(not_ Unverständnis auf_).
Compare:
_Er stieß die Tür auf._ (separable verb)


----------



## berndf

_Auch bei Abtreibungsgegnern stieß Trumps Aussage auf Unverständnis.

Trump's statement was mit with disapproval even by anti-abortionists._


----------



## elroy

I would just say "met with" rather than "was met with."


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I would just say "met with" rather than "was met with."


My understanding is that the sentence is part of the text and isn't the headline.


----------



## elroy

Me too.  "Met with" is used intransitively with this meaning.  That's what I would use here.  I didn't mean it as an elided version of "was met with."  (See also Dan's "he met with incredulity" in #9.)


----------



## berndf

A person may meet with something. A thing is met with something, right?

_The statement met with disapproval_ sounds strange to me.


----------



## elroy

It works with both people and things - although I guess when it's a thing there's usually (or maybe always) an association with one or more people:

_The announcement/suggestion/argument met with approval/disapproval/criticism._

These are things, but they originate from people.


----------



## berndf

Do you sense a semantic difference between the passive and active variants or is the choice just a matter of taste to you?


----------



## elroy

My reaction was mostly based on personal preference and usage.  "Met with" sounds better to me here because that's what I think most closely matches this use of "stoßen auf" in terms of feel and nuance, and because that's what would be more commonly used to express this meaning, in my experience. 

The difference is the same as that between, say, "he encountered approval" and "he was received with approval."  The latter evokes the image of an (imaginary) agent, while the former does not.


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you for your help, Dan.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> The difference is the same as that between, say, "he encountered approval" and "he was received with approval." The latter evokes the image of an (imaginary) agent, while the former does not.


Yes, that how I see it as well and that's why I chose the passive form. Though _auf etwas stoßen_ is formally active it is semantically passive, i.e. it means_ something is received with_.
To illustrate this let's take a prototypical example of the active_ meet_:_ He met his fate_. It wouldn't work very well to translate this as _*Er stieß auf sein Schicksal_.


----------



## elroy

I don't think of either "meet with" or "stoßen auf" as active forms here.  They're intransitive.  I don't feel like "stoßen auf" evokes the image of an agent.  "Meet with" here is kind of like "begegnen."

A. My proposal _met with_ approval. = When my proposal was made known, _*there was approval*_. = *Approval* followed the presentation of the proposal.

B. My proposal _was met with_ approval. = When my proposal was made known,* certain people responded *with approval. = *Certain people expressed approval *following the proposal. 

I feel like "stoßen auf" corresponds to A (or at least more to A than to B). 

Of course, we know that the approval came from _somewhere_ (i.e. a person), but that's not emphasized when "met with" is used.  "Was met with" makes it more explicit.

I think it's a matter of imagery, more than anything.  "Meet with" and "stoßen auf" evoke the image of A _experiencing B_.  The emphasis is not on the agent who is performing B.  The emphasis is on A experiencing B.

What's more, I don't think the "with" in "met with" is even the same as the "with" in "was met with."

met with = came upon = experienced
was met with = was received with 

In "met with," "with" links A and B ("proposal meets with approval") 
In "was met with," "with" links B and the agent ("agent responds with approval") 

"The proposal was met with approval." = "An agent responded with approval."
"The proposal met with approval." - This sentence could theoretically be used if the approval were automatic and not given by an agent. 

"Stoßen auf" can still be used in the "automatic approval" scenario, right?  

("He met his fate" is a totally different situation.)


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I don't think of either "meet with" or "stoßen auf" as active forms here. They're intransitive.


Intransitive forms do not have a passive because they don't have a patient but they are still active which by definition means_ agent=subject_.



elroy said:


> met with = came upon = experienced
> was met with = was received with


I can only repeat._ Was received with _is exactly what_ stößt auf_ means. If the phrase _was met with_ hadn't been available that is exactly how I would have translated _ stößt auf_ in this sentence. It seems you are still distracted by the formally active voice of the German expression. But semantically it is not. The agent is the audience and not the statement. The statement is the patient.


elroy said:


> B. My proposal _was met with_ approval. = When my proposal was made known,* certain people responded *with approval. = *Certain people expressed approval *following the proposal.


Yes. That's what it means. A very typical example: _Seine Ausführungen stießen sowohl auf Zustimmung als auch auf Ablehnung. _I.e. certain people expressed approval and others disapproval.


elroy said:


> "Stoßen auf" can still be used in the "automatic approval" scenario, right?


I certainly wouldn't use it then.


----------



## elroy

dict.cc Wörterbuch :: stoßen auf :: Deutsch-Englisch-Übersetzung

The vast majority of the translations using a form of "meet" use "meet with," not "to be met with."  And the vast majority of the others use verbs similar to "meet" in terms of transitivity/voice. 

As I said in my earlier post, the existence of an agent is not explicitly coded in the verb.  Only context determines whether there is an agent, and "stoßen auf" can be used even if there is no agent (examples from the link: "auf Fakten stoßen," "auf Geld stoßen," "auf Probleme stoßen"). 

When you say "I experienced rejection," one can assume that someone rejected you, but that's different from saying "I was rejected."


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> ...examples from the link: "auf Fakten stoßen," "auf Geld stoßen," "auf Probleme stoßen"


May I quote you?


elroy said:


> "He met his fate" is a totally different situation.


So are the expressions you quoted.


elroy said:


> Only context determines whether there is an agent, and "stoßen auf" can be used even if there is no agent...


Of course there is an agent in those expressions: The person who _stößt auf Fakten, Geld, Probleme_. Please note that the subject (=agent) in those expressions can only be a person and never a thing (like a _statement_).


----------



## elroy

That's not what I meant.  I meant an agent bringing about/causing the _object_ of "stoßen auf."  You said, and I quote, "_Was received with _is exactly what_ stößt auf_ means." "Was received with" is passive and implies an agent (the one doing the receiving).

My point was the following:
*
An sich* beinhaltet "stoßen auf" nicht die Bedeutung, dass das, worauf gestoßen wird, durch ein Agens verursacht oder ins Leben gerufen wird. 

Der Vorschlag stößt auf Akzeptanz. - Hier geht man, wenn überhaupt, allein *wegen des Kontexts* davon aus, dass _jemand_ (ein Agens) den Vorschlag _akzeptiert_ hat, das aber nur, weil das Substantiv "Akzeptanz" impliziert, dass jemand etwas akzeptiert hat, nicht aber weil das Verb "stoßen" etwas mit "receiving" zu tun hätte.

Ich stieß auf Geld. - Hier wird kein Agens (hinter der Existenz des Geldes) impliziert, was zeigt, dass die Existenz eines Agens nichts mit dem Verb zu tun hat. 

Darüber hinaus gibt es doch im Wörterbuch-Link Beispiele zuhauf, die unserem Beispiel sehr ähnlich sind und mit "meet with" oder ähnliches (sprich kein Passiv!) übersetzt werden:

auf Ablehnung stoßen: to meet with disapproval
auf Gegenwehr stoßen: to meet with resistance
auf Interesse stoßen: to attract interest
auf Kritik stoßen: to meet with criticism
auf Skepsis stoßen: to meet with scepticism 
auf Widerspruch stoßen: to meet with opposition 
auf Widerstand stoßen: to encounter resistance
auf Zustimmung stoßen: to meet with approval 

Thus, "to be met with" is an _interpretive _translation that may or may not be justifiable depending on the context, while "to meet with" is closer to the actual meaning of "stoßen auf."

(I hope this post clarifies my position.  Ich glaube, wir haben teilweise aneinander vorbeigeredet.)


----------



## JClaudeK

@ twinklestar
Here you get a big choice of translations for "auf etw. stoßen" which might help you to get it's meaning.
And here for the separable verb "aufstoßen" which does not only mean "push open".

(The translations given by Wiktionary are quite limited, aren't they? Why don't you use other dictionaries, (too)?)

Edit:
cf. elroy's link in #22


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> *An sich* beinhaltet "stoßen auf" nicht die Bedeutung, dass das, worauf gestoßen wird, durch ein Agens verursacht oder ins Leben gerufen wird.


"An sich" in der Tat nicht. In diesem Satz in meinem Sprachempfinden aber schon, das durch die folgende Tabelle zu unterscheidender (es gibt sicher noch mehr, aber das ist jetzt egal) Paradigmen beschreiben lässt:



ParadigmanumberParadigmasatzFormaler AgentSemantischer Agent1Der Bohrer stößt auf ÖlDer BohrerDer Bohrer2Der Redner stößt mit seinen Aussagen auf AblehnungDer RednerDer Redner3Die Aussagen des Redners stoßen auf AblehnungDie AussagenDie Zuhörer (implizit)

Wie immer Du die drei Sätze übersetzen willst. Um die Nuancen richtig wiederzugeben sollte der semantische Unterschied zwischen 2 und 3 in der Übersetzung erhalten bleiben.


----------



## elroy

I think I see what you're saying.  I may have been influenced by English, because in English, to me, "The speaker, having made his statements, met with disapproval" and "The speaker's statements met with disapproval" are semantically the same.


----------



## berndf

It would be useful for other German native speakers to tell us, if they share my _Sprachgefühl _here or not. Holger has also instinctively used the passive form, so I suppose he does.


----------



## Kajjo

I agree with Berndf, that there is a difference between _paradigma 1 and 2_ and this is even quite drastic.

If I make a statement here in the forum, others can think it to be wrong with regards to the specific content. But we all make mistakes and they will not be opposed to me personally, but only to the specific statement: _Meine Meinung zum Thema stieß auf Ablehnung.
_
If I repeatedly offend people, it may be me personally, who is met with opposition: _Ich stoße mit meinen Beiträgen auf Ablehnung.
_
I am very sure this is the same in English.


----------

