Does anyone use a Kindle?

Are we experiencing a period of substantial transformation and realignment
of dominant methods of distribution? Obviously, we are, but are we seeing immanent "deaths" for the analog formats, only insofar as they were once the only game in town and will live on indefinitely in limited fashion and steady graceful decline.
Click to expand...
I think the original worry, before we got into format debates and such, isn't really over format or distribution methods, but over the source of production. Whether or not there are enough Florida Jim-style Luddites that want books in paper form or not (or audiophiles with their vinyl) is irrelevant compared to the economics of creation, and it's pretty much a waste of everyone's time debating paint colors while the house is falling down around us. Certainly, Amazon, iTunes, and their successors are going to sell whatever's available to them, so the distribution pipeline remains intact, but the question is: what are they going to sell? The consumers haven't gone anywhere either, but the question is: what are they going to buy?

Almost no one who's had to deal with them in any capacity is going to lament the loss of the record labels, and maybe that's true for publishers as well, I don't know. But labels, publishers, the journalists' media...they're all dying. Some faster, some slower, but the same graveyard is in sight. Publishing-on-demand is a terrific thing, and would (had it arrived earlier) have stayed the decline and fall of the publishing industry like the CD did for the recording industry (and owning, rather than fighting, downloadable media would have let them hang on a little longer still), but PoD doesn't pay for the initial authorship unless it's also the publishing version of futures (which hasn't always worked very well, judging by the number of failed attempts), and the same is true for the mechanism in other media. Without that initial, pre-consumer revenue stream, there are no economics of creation. And then it doesn't matter whether the delivery medium is a hardcover, a Kindle, or an iPhone, because the book itself isn't going to exist. Nor the recording. Nor the investigative article. Somehow, some way, someone's going to have to figure out how to pay for and market these things. If there's a workable idea out there yet, I haven't seen it.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
2)On Karenin: English does not feminize name endings for women. In most translations, therefore, wives have the same name as husbands. Thus, despite the fact that her name is in the title, Anna's last name should be translated as Karenin (the "a" not being part of her proper name, but a morpheme that has no analogue in English).
Click to expand...

I must have missed the previous discussion. But isn't Jane the feminine form via Old French of John? And there are other feminine versions of the name being used in English, too. I don't really see how this case is different from the Russian. And why is the convention only with Russian? Think of how much fun we would have if we decided to use only the masculine form of Arabic names: no more Amina, only Amin; no more Amira only Amir. Or kind of in a similar vein, should I start translating foreign names when speaking Finnish? I think talking of Yrj Washington sounds cool!
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
2)On Karenin: English does not feminize name endings for women. In most translations, therefore, wives have the same name as husbands. Thus, despite the fact that her name is in the title, Anna's last name should be translated as Karenin (the "a" not being part of her proper name, but a morpheme that has no analogue in English).
Click to expand...

I must have missed the previous discussion. But isn't Jane the feminine form via Old French of John? And there are other feminine versions of the name being used in English, too. I don't really see how this case is different from the Russian. And why is the convention only with Russian? Think of how much fun we would have if we decided to use only the masculine form of Arabic names: no more Amina, only Amin; no more Amira only Amir. Or kind of in a similar vein, should I start translating foreign names when speaking Finnish? I think talking of Yrj Washington sounds cool!
Click to expand...
I thought this discussion was about surnames (last names) like Safin and Safina for the tennis players.
 
Those are forenames, Johnathon is talking surnames. Surnames are kept standard for a reason because we don't automatically make the distinction in our head as Russian speakers would do.
 
But it is a bigger issue than just whether we talk about forenames or surnames. I wonder why there is any need to tamper with names at all? That is like linguistic spoofulation. Learning the very simple rule that Russian feminine names have an -a at the end is not difficult.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
But it is a bigger issue than just whether we talk about forenames or surnames. I wonder why there is any need to tamper with names at all? That is like linguistic spoofulation. Learning the very simple rule that Russian feminine names have an -a at the end is not difficult.
Click to expand...
Agreed but you're translating from a different alphabet so it's inexact at best.
 
From Wikipedia (I know, I know):

"Vladimir Nabokov explains: "In Russian, a surname ending in a consonant acquires a final 'a' (except for the cases of such names that cannot be declined) when designating a woman; but only when the reference is to a female stage performer should English feminise a Russian surname (following a French custom: la Pavlova, 'the Pavlova'). Ivanov's and Karenin's wives are Mrs Ivanov and Mrs Karenin in England and Americanot 'Mrs Ivanova' or 'Mrs Karenina'."

As seen from the above quotation, Nabokov favours the first convention, but subsequent translators mostly allow the actual Russian name to stand. Larissa Volokhonsky, herself a Russian, prefers the second option, while other translators like Constance Garnett and Rosemary Edmonds prefer the first solution."

It seems to make more sense when explained this way because the majority of English speakers would presume that Mr. Ivanov and Mrs. Ivanova are in fact not married. It stays technically correct, but the meaning is partially lost.
 
I remember reading Nabokov's Cornell lectures on Russian Literature, and he insisted on dropping the -a and referred to the book as Anna Karenin. I think it was because he thought "Karenina" was a Russian word that made sense only when speaking in Russian, and that, when referring to Russian surnames in English, it was better just to use the unmodified surname.

Not to take sides in this argument. Just thought I should mention it.

P.S. Looks like Cory beat me to it.
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
From Wikipedia (I know, I know):

"Vladimir Nabokov explains: "In Russian, a surname ending in a consonant acquires a final 'a' (except for the cases of such names that cannot be declined) when designating a woman; but only when the reference is to a female stage performer should English feminise a Russian surname (following a French custom: la Pavlova, 'the Pavlova'). Ivanov's and Karenin's wives are Mrs Ivanov and Mrs Karenin in England and Americanot 'Mrs Ivanova' or 'Mrs Karenina'."

As seen from the above quotation, Nabokov favours the first convention, but subsequent translators mostly allow the actual Russian name to stand. Larissa Volokhonsky, herself a Russian, prefers the second option, while other translators like Constance Garnett and Rosemary Edmonds prefer the first solution."

It seems to make more sense when explained this way because the majority of English speakers would presume that Mr. Ivanov and Mrs. Ivanova are in fact not married. It stays technically correct, but the meaning is partially lost.
Click to expand...
And if the wife retains her original surname?
 
I think the idea is that the surname should remain unmodified regardless of the marital status of the woman. (If for nothing else but to show the familial relationship between daughter and father).
 
originally posted by Yule Kim:
I think the idea is that the surname should remain unmodified regardless of the marital status of the woman. (If for nothing else but to show the familial relationship between daughter and father).
Click to expand...
???
 
That's a whole different set of circumstances that would need to be explained. Just think if you had to translate a short story where the characters were married and their surnames were russian. A russian speaker would pick up on this right away without missing a beat, and continue reading. An English speaker unfamiliar with the names would have a moment of confusion and perhaps miss some of the interactions until it was sorted out in their head. If the surnames were different entirely it would necessitate an explantion in both languages.
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
That's a whole different set of circumstances that would need to be explained. Just think if you had to translate a short story where the characters were married and their surnames were russian. A russian speaker would pick up on this right away without missing a beat, and continue reading. An English speaker unfamiliar with the names would have a moment of confusion and perhaps miss some of the interactions until it was sorted out in their head. If the surnames were different entirely it would necessitate an explantion in both languages.
Click to expand...
Seems like a theory W could agree with.
 
originally posted by Tom Glasgow:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
I think the idea is that the surname should remain unmodified regardless of the marital status of the woman. (If for nothing else but to show the familial relationship between daughter and father).
Click to expand...
???
Click to expand...

Sorry about the confusion. Generally, even if the woman retains her surname, I think Nabokov's argument is that the name should remain unmodified because the -a is added when speaking or writing about a woman in Russian. Her surname isn't actually "Karenina," but "Karenin," but when speaking about her in Russian, the grammar dictates her surname be feminized with an -a. Thus, for the sake of clarity, when referring to her in English, they should just use her actual surname, "Karenin."

Cory's argument (I think) is that feminizing a Russian surname in English could add confusion because it indicates that two people have two different surnames, when in fact, they have the same. Thus Anna Karenin should have the same surname as her husband Alexei Karenin. Similarly, Anna's maiden name should be "Anna Oblonsky" rather than "Oblonskya" to show that she had the same surname, and belonged to the same family, as her brother, Stepan Oblonsky.
 
My logic was perhaps rather tortured (I have about 9 tabs open here) but Yule has got it right about my argument. Nabokov also points that the "a" is properly translated into english as Ms. or Mrs. depending on marital status, so using Mrs. Karenina for instance, would be wrong, but a mistke English speaker would make.
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
My logic was perhaps rather tortured (I have about 9 tabs open here) but Yule has got it right about my argument. Nabokov also points that the "a" is properly translated into english as Ms. or Mrs. depending on marital status, so using Mrs. Karenina for instance, would be wrong, but a mistke English speaker would make.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'll take up this subject with my sister-in-law (with an a). I doubt she'd agree with your position. I believe there are masculine/feminine versions of Mr. Mrs. in Russian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top