I was going to take German in college in order to read the Critiques in German. I was informed by a professor of mine, who had done so, that one was much better off reading them in translation. Funny thought, Kant was worse in his native language.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An Open Love Letter
- Thread starter Roger LaMarque
- Start date
I was going to take German in college in order to read the Critiques in German. I was informed by a professor of mine, who had done so, that one was much better off reading them in translation. Funny thought, Kant was worse in his native language.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
A pre-pomo approach to translation involved smoothing the reading process in the target language.
It still prevails in French. This is why Kafka is so much more alive for me in English than in French (my German isn't good enough to read in the original). Even things that should be "closer" in the Latin language category, such as Julio Cortzar, are far better rendered in English than in French (btw, everyone should read Hopscotch, like, now).
Though Tolstoy rocks in French, and of course, Dostoevsky is improved...
It still prevails in French. This is why Kafka is so much more alive for me in English than in French (my German isn't good enough to read in the original). Even things that should be "closer" in the Latin language category, such as Julio Cortzar, are far better rendered in English than in French (btw, everyone should read Hopscotch, like, now).
Though Tolstoy rocks in French, and of course, Dostoevsky is improved...
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Thanks, Jonathan; I'll just grab something in Amazon.
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
A pre-pomo approach to translation involved smoothing the reading process in the target language.
It still prevails in French. This is why Kafka is so much more alive for me in English than in French (my German isn't good enough to read in the original).
Kafka is one of those authors who (IMO) is best read in his native language. He was actually a prose stylist in German and his use of the language doesn't translate easily to other languages. OTOH, you have to have a solid grasp of German grammatical rules to make sense of his writing, so one should only take Kafka on in German with some preparation.
Mark Lipton
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
You make me feel so inadequate!
I am a huge fan of the German language, studied it a bit (but it's been a bit) and wish I could read Kafka in it, damn it all to hell, back, and anywhere else.
But, good point.
I am a huge fan of the German language, studied it a bit (but it's been a bit) and wish I could read Kafka in it, damn it all to hell, back, and anywhere else.
But, good point.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Speaking of German, what's amusing to me is the Freud essay "Das Unheimliche"a brilliant thing (and what got me reading Hoffmann)easily rendered "The Uncanny" in English. Guess how they shift it into French? "L'inquitante tranget." I.e. "the unsettling strangeness."
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Good to know, 'cos I never know how to translate uncanny into Portuguese. So, estranheza inquietante it is.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Kafka's approach to writing was to transcribe the words as directly as possible from a kind of dream-like state; I imagine it'd be hard to get the same flow in translation.
On the other hand, though I suppose Thucydides is better in Greek, I would not have missed the Peloponnesian War for the world. You do what you can.
As to inadequacy, I wish I had your command of English.
On the other hand, though I suppose Thucydides is better in Greek, I would not have missed the Peloponnesian War for the world. You do what you can.
As to inadequacy, I wish I had your command of English.
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Speaking of German, what's amusing to me is the Freud essay "Das Unheimliche"a brilliant thing (and what got me reading Hoffmann)easily rendered "The Uncanny" in English. Guess how they shift it into French? "L'inquitante tranget." I.e. "the unsettling strangeness."
Interesting. But this is another example of the slippery task of translation from the German (or any language, I know you'll add). Das Unheimliche is the noun created from the adjective unheimlich, which is the opposite of the adjective heimlich. One meaning of heimlich is home-ly in the sense of comforting and familiar. Another sense of heimlich, though, is secret and hidden. So, which meaning did Freud intend for his usage of unheimlich? Uncanny, as in unsettling and eerie? Or that which is hidden, revealed? It seems to me (and others) that a case can be made for either reading. More than likely is that Freud purposefully chose that word for its ambiguity of meaning, which is much of what Kafka did in his writing, too.
Mark Lipton
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Right on, Mark.
I fooled around translating some Rilke over the holidays - it's really hard to get the words and meanings - explicit and implicit - lined up. Rubrik's cubish. Rhyming compounds the difficulty.
I fooled around translating some Rilke over the holidays - it's really hard to get the words and meanings - explicit and implicit - lined up. Rubrik's cubish. Rhyming compounds the difficulty.
Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
I have met several native German speakers who find both Kant and Heidegger easier to read in English translation than in the German original, FWIW.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by MLipton:
Interesting. But this is another example of the slippery task of translation from the German (or any language, I know you'll add). Das Unheimliche is the noun created from the adjective unheimlich, which is the opposite of the adjective heimlich. One meaning of heimlich is home-ly in the sense of comforting and familiar. Another sense of heimlich, though, is secret and hidden. So, which meaning did Freud intend for his usage of unheimlich?
Precisely, it was about that slippage.
Uncanny, as in unsettling and eerie? Or that which is hidden, revealed? It seems to me (and others) that a case can be made for either reading. More than likely is that Freud purposefully chose that word for its ambiguity of meaning...
Yes, yes! Freud discusses and plays on the ambiguities inherent in the term. I love this essay for that reason. And for its discussion of the automaton. Or children thinking that dolls are at play behind a door when it's closed and fall still when the door opens.
Freud was more a stylist and a fascinating writer than a rock-hard persuasive scientist, but there is so much in there.
(Another of my favorite books ever is "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life." Such a brilliant read. And case histories like no other. Etc.)
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I fooled around translating some Rilke over the holidays
Awesome!
Have you read The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge? If I could write like that... It's minor-key Musil.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
So much since I last signed on. And all I have are a list of agreements:
1) I have heard as well that Kant is easier to understand, even for German speakers, in English. Still, as with a lot of translations, you need to know about problems terms, such as zweck and its various forms for the 3rd Critique. Still one can learn these things. Philosophy is comprehensible in translation with sufficient effort.
2) Listen to Sharon about Hopscotch.
3) Listen to Sharon and Mark Lipton about Freud. Neil Hertz has a great essay on this essay and Hoffmann, "Freud and the Sandman" in The End of the Line.
4) Ian, if you are forced to read Kant in English, the Pluhar translation of the 3rd Critique is the way to go. His translation of the First Critique is probably better than the Norman Kemp Smith, but that one has the value for me of being the way I learned that book so I can't get outside it well. Pluhar writes English as if it were German, so reading him is almost like reading the original.
1) I have heard as well that Kant is easier to understand, even for German speakers, in English. Still, as with a lot of translations, you need to know about problems terms, such as zweck and its various forms for the 3rd Critique. Still one can learn these things. Philosophy is comprehensible in translation with sufficient effort.
2) Listen to Sharon about Hopscotch.
3) Listen to Sharon and Mark Lipton about Freud. Neil Hertz has a great essay on this essay and Hoffmann, "Freud and the Sandman" in The End of the Line.
4) Ian, if you are forced to read Kant in English, the Pluhar translation of the 3rd Critique is the way to go. His translation of the First Critique is probably better than the Norman Kemp Smith, but that one has the value for me of being the way I learned that book so I can't get outside it well. Pluhar writes English as if it were German, so reading him is almost like reading the original.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I fooled around translating some Rilke over the holidays
Awesome!
Have you read The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge? If I could write like that... It's minor-key Musil.
No, I need to get out more. But my semester is just wrapping up now, and I'll put it on my summer reading list.
Guess I should take up one of Jonathan's recommendations after all, if English is the path of least resistance where Kant is concerned. Thanks, Jonathan.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
4) Ian, if you are forced to read Kant in English, the Pluhar translation of the 3rd Critique is the way to go. His translation of the First Critique is probably better than the Norman Kemp Smith, but that one has the value for me of being the way I learned that book so I can't get outside it well. Pluhar writes English as if it were German, so reading him is almost like reading the original.
Prof and Sharon (and Ian and others),
You might get a kick out of reading this review of a Kant translation by an Internet wine acquaintance of mine -- a complete ass, BTW, who claimed that wines didn't age and that nothing produced outside of Italy was worth drinking (clearly, an open-minded and thoughtful person).
Mark Lipton
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
If he can't be trusted on wine, Mark, why would we read his cant on Kant?
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I'm going to take an ingenuous view of this question. Even on the Parker board, though, you will have heard Robert Fleming and me carry on about the use of varietal to describe a grape as opposed to a wine made from a grape variety.
The proper word for a subcategory of a species for all species including vitis vinifera is "variety," as in "red squirrels are a variety of squirrel," or "according to some zoologists, chimps and bonobos are two varieties belonging to the same species whereas others class them as different species."
Using "varietal" to refer to a variety of a grape is a form of wine geek technobabble based on ignorance of how the words are used. Usage may yet come to authorize it, but the proper position right now is to fight against such an unfortunate authorization by the kind of vigilance necessary to maintain freedom. Other boards are laissez faire about this. We are laissez-faire about almost anything else, but not about this, Here one refers to grape varieties or one will be buked in scorned in subsequent messages.
yet another example of why I love Jonathan.
originally posted by John Ritchie:
Must be a fruit day.
Actually, it was a root day, which accounts for why I disliked each (well, except one) of the 9 wines I was served last night.
or maybe it was because they were italian...