spaztastic

Apr 25, 2006 01:30

i think i had my first "crazy grad student" moment tonight ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 4

5500 April 25 2006, 11:52:58 UTC
they've corrupted you.

Reply


spudmoose April 25 2006, 21:33:12 UTC
If you define "Translation" as [an estimation of a certain text in a new language], where "Language" is [any means of relating texts]; then the real truth of any text is always changed by translation.

The argument that this estimation is never perfectly precise or entirely accurate is, of course, true; and it does seem more likely that the original will be prettier in the end. However, literary translations can bring new truths to light for all, but especially for those who cannot read the original text.

P.S. Notice that translation is itself a language here; as well as reading, writing, thinking, etc.

Reply

ozmakid April 25 2006, 22:50:10 UTC
what is the real truth of a text? is it meaning? benjamin would say that translations are only tangentially translations of meaning...

if you think of translations as an end (as opposed to a means or a form, as benjamin does), then you can speak of a translation's accuracy or "faithfulness" to an original.

p.s. you're the only one who hasn't totally dismissed my entry so far! yes!

Reply

spudmoose April 26 2006, 14:40:17 UTC
The real truth of a text must be defined as its entire (and very complex) meaning in the real world. It is often helpful to speak of subsets of this truth, such as the meaning of a text to a particular audience (be it one or many).

I would say tangential is an accurate description of the relationship between original and translation.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up