GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
15:55 Nov 8, 2018 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Government / Politics | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Yvonne Gallagher Ireland Local time: 09:29 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Discussion entries: 2 | |
---|---|
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines Great political doctrines don't deal with these ideas Explanation: P |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines The aforementioned ideas can in no way constitute the basis of serious geopolitical doctrines. Explanation: The basic idea is that the ideas in question (which were presumably discussed prior to the extract you posted) can in no way be taken seriously as the basis of (or product of - meaning is unclear) serious geopolitical doctrines. Friedman seems to be implying here that such ideas are actually quite shoddy. It is like when you say that "so-and-so is certainly no Einstein" you are not only saying that he is not a genius, but that he may be rather dimwitted. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines no great geopoliical doctrines contains these ideas Explanation: This is how I understood the phrase. And It could mean that these ideas are so essential that no great geopolitical doctrines would claim it, or that these ideas aren't a part of any great geopolitical doctrines (may it's too weak, or maybe that's just how things are). read the ideas again and chose the appropriate meaning. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines All these ideas are mediocre or do not belong to great geopolitical doctrines Explanation: The author thinks that all these ideas are not to be included in the categories of "big ideas" or "great geopolitical doctrines". |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines These aren't mega-concepts needing to be incorporated in major geopolitical doctrines Explanation: I understand it to mean that Friedman isn't claiming that these are the sort of concepts that require an over-arching geopolitical doctrine in order to be implemented. So, he's saying that they can be implemented within existing systems. To rephrase: "You don't need a revolution, just get on with it and do something useful." |
| ||||||||||||||||
11 hrs confidence:
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question. You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy. KudoZ™ translation helpThe KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also: Search millions of term translations Your current localization setting
English
Select a language Close search
|