# gijzeling, gijzelingsactie



## Setwale_Charm

Hoi!
I am writing a comment on the Dutch report about the school hostage crisis in Beslan. Can sombody explain to me the nuances of the difference between _gijzeling _and_ gijzelingsactie_ and suggest the best trnslation for each?

 Veel dank.


----------



## ThinkTank

Hallo Setwale_Charm,

In my opininion, "gijzeling" can be used whether one or more people are being taken hostage (or kidnapped even) by one single person or an organized group. Its meaning and uses are more open than the word "gijzelingsactie" which, if I am not wrong, applies only when an organized group takes a group of people hostage.

Hope this helps and that other Dutch natives confirm my view


----------



## Joannes

Yes, I suppose *gijzelingsactie* implies an organized group and a well-prepared action. Also, I think it would only be used for actions in which more than one hostage is taken to serve a 'higher purpose'. For example rather for _gijzelingen _that are part of a series of terrorist actions by some movement than for kidnappings to demand ransom money, or pedophile kidnappings, for example.

But there's no clearcut distinction of course and translations are hard. Simple *gijzeling* is the broader term, if you want to be on the safe side.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

So do you mean that 'gijzeling' rather refers to the phenomenon and practice of hostage-taking itself whereas 'gijzelingsactie' refers to particular instances of hostage-taking?


----------



## Lopes

I think what he's trying to say that a 'gijzeling' could also be for example when a robbery goes wrong, one of the robbers takes a hostage to make sure he can get out. But with a 'gijzelingsactie' is meant that an organized group of people takes one or more hostages on purpose, not out of desperation.


----------



## ThinkTank

Setwale_Charm said:


> So do you mean that 'gijzeling' rather refers to the phenomenon and practice of hostage-taking itself whereas 'gijzelingsactie' refers to particular instances of hostage-taking?


 
Hi Setwale_Charm

You could put it that way, yes. "Gijzeling" has, as we all seem to agree upon, a more general _meaning_ and _use_ than "gijzelingsactie". And, as the word "actie" implies, it might, though not necessarily, refer to an actual event, occurence, in specific terms (not only in practice, but also theoretically, hypothetically, as in "planning" a "gijzelingsactie", that may or may not take place in the future).

However, the main difference between both words, when describing a hostage situation, is the idea of a "gijzelingsactie" being well organized and planned, by a group of hostage-takers and involving a bunch of people as hostages, with mediatic coverage eventually. "Gijzeling", having a broader meaning and use, could be used instead of "gijzelingsactie" in this instance. But when referring to an unplanned situation, "gijzeling" would be more appropriate.

As to the uses of "gijzeling", you may use it in sentences in which the use of "gijzelingsactie" would not be correct. For instance "iemand in gijzeling houden" is "to take somebody hostage". You wouldn't dream of using "gijzelingsactie" in this construction. And as an example of the versatility of the meanings of "gijzeling", besides meaning "hostage-taking" and "kidnapping", the expression "in gijzeling zitten" would mean "being imprisonned for debts", no relation at all with being deprived of liberty by illegal means (as in hostage-taking).

One final remark: be careful with the word "gijzelaar". According to the context, it may refer either to the hostage-taker/kidnapper (synonym: gijzelhouder/gijzelnemer) or to the hostage him/herself (synonym: gegijzelde).

Hope this helps


----------



## Setwale_Charm

OK, thank you all. I am left to wonder then why is it that the hostage-taking at a school in Beslan in 2004, which, as far as I can infer from your comments. shall by all means be a "gijzelingsactie" is referred by the media as "gijzeling" instead. But this may be due to the nuances of style then.


----------



## Joannes

The hostage-taking in Beslan could definitely be considered a 'gijzelingsactie'. But I can't think of a case in which *gijzelingsactie* could not be replaced by *gijzeling*. The former simply specifies the concept, and not even in a very clear-cut way, as you can infer from our descriptions.  Since the specification of *gijzelingsactie* will be an unnecessary one in many cases, and seen its opaqueness, I could very well imagine people to stick to simple *gijzeling*. In fact, that's what I would do.


----------



## ThinkTank

Hi Setwale_Charm 

Joannes is right: "actie" in "gijzelingsactie" only specifies a characteristic of the "gijzeling". Besides, doesn't the article you are talking about ever mention the word "gijzelingsactie"? Maybe, as "gijzeling" can always stand for "gijzelingsactie" (but not conversely), the writer simply felt like not "overloading" the text. Or, once made clear that he was talking about an organized hostage-taking, stressing again that aspect of the hostage-taking through the systematic use of "gijzelingsactie" would result too redundant to the readers.

Hope these comments help


----------

