0
Catttt Posted 10 years ago
Grammar

graffiti-busting chemical

1. Does " graffiti-busting chemical" mean "the chemicals which does not allow graffiti paint to sit on the wall" or "the chemical that is used to remove the graffiti existing on the walls"?

2. What are "Hitler’s model companies"? I have not ever heard of them.

3. What does the yellow highlighted sentence mean?

one of the most poignant ironies of the new site was the discovery, at a very late stage in its construction, that the graffiti-busting chemical being used to treat the stelae had been produced by one of Hitler’s ‘model companies’ Degussa.
My point is not that this kind of controversial ‘overlaying’ of the site is ‘all fine’ – as ‘fine’ as the graffiti would have
been that might have adorned the stelae had they not been treated – that things change and we have to move on. Instead it is that such occurrences are indicative of and instructive about the Germany of today, and this includes the public response of being outraged by such scandals. In other words, they reveal, in this particular case, that such ex-Nazi companies were not disbanded, that they are indeed still very much alive and well, not exactly run by Nazis
  

Top answer

1. org/wiki/Evonik_Industries#Historical_significance , it seems to mean the former. 2.

  • 1.
  • org/wiki/Evonik_Industries#Historical_significance , it seems to mean the former.
  • 2.
  • The link above explains something about this matter.
  • 3.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

2 Answers
0
1. It is ambiguous in itself (actually I would tend towards the latter interpretation), but according to the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evonik_Industries#Historical_significance, it seems to mean the former.

2. The link above explains something about this mat
0
GPY3. I cannot see a way that this sentence is correctly structured. It may be missing a "but" after the second dash.
I'm sorry, I think I misread it. I think the last part is not a contrast (the contrast comes in the next sentence) but a restatement of the same idea.

Related Questions