The Translation Thread: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » The Translation Thread » The Translation Thread

The Translation Thread

The Translation Thread

Absurd Sysyphus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 13, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 09/13/09 - 09:07 AM: Subject: The Translation Thread	#1
When I was taught Descartes, our classroom used the Hackett 4th edition of his text, translated by Donald Cress. It appears Descartes has had his effect on me, and I myself asking "Is this the best possible translation?". Cartesian doubt has triumphed. This question has been bothering me for quite some time. What makes a translation "good". Is it its accessibilty to the modern reader, or its fidelity to the original language of the author? My fear is that pivotal nuances of the text, whether it be Descartes, Kant, Hegel, etc., are lost in translation. My request to you then, is to describe what you believe makes a translation a "good" one and which translation of Descartes you recommend (I have heard wonderful things about the Cambridge text). Perhaps there should be a sub-forum dedicated to a discussion concerning recomended traslations of individual works.

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 233

Posted 09/13/09 - 08:16 PM:	#2
I think that, as a text becomes older and older, a 'good translator' would be one who can understand the idiom and style of the original text within its own context, and convey this to the modern reader; not, that is, one who slavishly reproduces every grammatical twist and turn, but who with the least loss of information transmits the purpose of the original words, as well as their affect. You see this more commonly with classical texts, where translators either need to provide heavy annotation or find words in English (or the target language) which are suitable. An example (grabbed at random) is Martial 2.9: "scripsi, rescripsit nil Naevia: non dabit ergo. / sed, puto, quod scripsi legerat: ergo dabit", which Craig Williams translates as: "I wrote; Naevia wrote nothing back: she won't be putting out, then. / But I think she read what I wrote. She will put out, then." The problem is translating the verb "dabo," which Williams translates as "put out," but carries a double meaning: normally, it means "give," but it also has the connotation of 'giving' a sexual favor (lit. penetration). An older translation merely renders the verb as "give," and the clause as "won't give anything," leaving the innuendo to the readers discretion; the more modern translation renders it "putting out," clearly rendering "give" with all its sexual connotation. Other examples are grammatical in nature. Do you render (the same phrase) "...non dabit ergo" as "Nothing, therefore, will she give," "Nothing will she give, therefore," and retain the order of the original, or do you render it in more colloquial English, mimicking the purpose of the epigram (short, punctuated, biting, stylish): "she won't be putting out, then", even if this isn't the most literally faithful translation. I have no idea what the best translation of Descartes is, though.
Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com (cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.