Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print translation | |
|
polythread
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 07, 2003 Location: Connecticut Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 11 |
 #1
I was thinking again about the Dada movement, as I usually do, and the thought of translation and original text came upon me and another thought of evolution of human speech. So, to think... how evolved are we really? The fact that centuries and languages have passed and here we are still unable to speak raw human thought. In relation to the Dada movement, Hugo Ball had several sound poems, which though were just raw sounds that expressed human emotion...no one but Hugo Ball could really completely understand it. example: ugqu soodjui juiopel feu fifii s;om booo eto sjie what does it mean? well, it can't even be expressed clearly because of having to put it all into symbols to be translated. We can't just communicate raw human emotion and thought to others. Also, what about the words we do use to help us translate? Think about the first speakable languages and how those words no longer even mean their "rough" translation of today. I'm not just suggesting the thought of belting out noises as those in the Dada movement, but to truly understand emotion and thought and give it a truer word or sound or even...truer expression. I only wish I could evolve. |
|
Gozchips
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 30, 2002 Total Topics: 9 Total Posts: 96 |
#2
What do you mean by raw human emotions? If I am guessing right then we already have the perfect way to express this. Sounds in the form of grunting, crying, laughing. Also facial expressions, expresse most emotions one has and the degree of it too. I see from your avatar that you're really into dadaism, well much more then me anyway  so I'm probebly in no position to argue but I see Hugo Ball's intension of composing the sounds only for shock value and to make the point of not following convention. He might not even have meanings for those sounds. I see our language as having evolved from expressing raw emotions to more complex matters. The fact that the meaning of words chnage is a clear sign of our continuing evolution, though I must add it's not going anywhere fast. 
|
|
Brad
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 29, 2002 Total Topics: 21 Total Posts: 882 |
#3
gqu soodjui juiopel feu fifii s;om booo eto sjie It means not to mean. How difficult is that? You made that quite clear. |
|
Paul
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Mar 10, 2002 Location: Northern California Total Topics: 480 Total Posts: 12543 |
#4
I'd say it's clear that all translation is indeterminite. See Quine's indeterminacy of translation paper. Commentary about it here, the paper itself seems to be under copyright. 'Course you can observe the misunderstandings of communication in every day life, you don't really need a formal theory for it. I'd go a bit further (actually, IIRC Quine also says this), to say that the understanding of what another person says in your own language is also indeterminate. You make various assumptions about a person's meaning, which work if you have shared context/experience but which don't give you the exact intent the speaker was trying to express. What you end up with is your own version of how you think their utterances should be translated, not exactly the same as they intend. |
|
flatliner
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 07, 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Total Topics: 44 Total Posts: 1766 |
#5
Paul wrote: I'd say it's clear that all translation is indeterminite. See Quine's indeterminacy of translation paper. Commentary about it here, the paper itself seems to be under copyright. 'Course you can observe the misunderstandings of communication in every day life, you don't really need a formal theory for it. I'd go a bit further (actually, IIRC Quine also says this), to say that the understanding of what another person says in your own language is also indeterminate. You make various assumptions about a person's meaning, which work if you have shared context/experience but which don't give you the exact intent the speaker was trying to express. What you end up with is your own version of how you think their utterances should be translated, not exactly the same as they intend. Well, Quine had lots of crazy views. What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html |
|
ch
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 21, 2004 Total Topics: 21 Total Posts: 53 |
#6
maybe by raw human emotions he means the exact thought or exact emotion, not just the general thought or emotion like joy or fear. Maybe with all the digital crazyness going on some day it will be possible to communicate through raw thought. People who try to predict the future always end up sounding foolish, but anyway think about somehow digitalizing a thought or idea and then redirecting it to someone else. That might clear up some communication misunderstandings |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.