Why do you bother reading translations?
You aren't reading the original author at that point.
You aren't reading it in the original language which 'made the book'
You lose every meaningful thing in the translation as the prose is translated to a language that works completely different.
It's ridiculous to read translations and to even think you can talk about the book or even worse, think you have 'read the book' when you read some translation.
You basically read extremely shitty copy of the original book.
Why?
yeah joyce shouldnt have bothered reading homer coz he couldn't read him in the original greek lmao who cares that he created ulysses
>>7503656
So he read a shitty copy of it, lost all context and meaning outside the most superficial ones, and got inspired, so what.
He still didn't read Homer, he read some hack-job translator terrible interpretation of him
>>7503664
maybe it was superficial and shitty in the original greek and the translation was inspirational good shit
>>7503664
But all versions of Greek literature are copies from medieval times. Are you saying that reading Greek literature is a meme since were never getting the true form the author intended?
>>7503641
Literally who gives a fuck
>>7503641
Maybe you are just stupid, and cant see what the writer tryid to say, if havent got the original text?
>>7503664
"I fear the man of a single book"
I also fear the man of a single language. Reading nothing outside of your own tongue's literary tradition is narrow philistinism.
>>7503745
so you'll never read homer, virgil, dante, cervantes, flabuert, tolstoy, dostoevsky, proust, pessoa etc. etc.
I feel sorry for you desu
>>7503741
But you are in fact reading your own langauge if you read a book that's translated.. literally completely different language and context.
>>7503664
If the translator is smarter than you ( 99% of the cases? ) you can understand better after hes cleared things for you.
>>7503764
So the translator is now modifying the book to make people understand some points better?
How can you still claim to have read 'Homer' when you all but straight admit that the book is altered to all hell and back.
>>7503641
>all language
>not just a shitty translation of thoughts and experiences
>implying you're ever reading the original author and not just a shitty translation into symbolic logic
>implying words have one concrete meaning and no room for interpretation
>implying the minor nuances lost in a good translation mean shit compared to the effectively infinite gulf of lost meaning that occurs in putting thoughts down on the page
>"reading" instead of directly linking your mind to that of the author
Pretty pleb t b h
>>7503783
That's not the point moron.
Even if all langauge is shitty translation of thoughts
YOu still havent read the shitty Homer's thoughts
you read some fags who think he understands him and his thoughts
retard
>>7503786
Neither have you anon
Neither have the ancient Greeks who heard it right from Homer's mouth
Language is a spook and you're preferring one spook over another, which is prettyspooky
>>7503786
You are the fag thinking you understand Homers thoughts.
>>7503790
and? Are you still fucking not getting my issue with translations? After arguing so strongly yourself that they aren't the author's intent and writing and thoughts?
When I read English literature, non-translated, I know I'm reading the actual original author.
>>7503795
Just jump off a bridge you are clearly too stupid for this discussion
>>7503798
>When I read English literature, non-translated, I know I'm reading the actual original author.
But you're not, you're reading a socio-political translation of their Geist.
If all these ad hominems are to be taken at face value then you're either not very bright or posting an ebin b8 thread
>>7503804
Yes I am reading them in their original language, their own words in their very chosen language they chose to write their thoughts down.
That's not case with translations where some hack takes a language, author and context, shits it up to a langauge with completely different history and context and then his own interpretation of author's words.
When you read translation there's a stupid fucking middle man messing it all up in the middle.-
>>7503810
>When you read translation there's a stupid fucking middle man messing it all up in the middle.-
When you read the language acts as a perpetual middleman
I'd recommend you read up on epistemology or philology
At the very least hit up your local community college in a few years when you graduate
>>7503810
How can you still not grasp the obtrusive role of language in this debate?
>>7503798
>When I read English literature, non-translated, I know I'm reading the actual original author
Dumbass. Some guys write in multiple languages, and when published, they use some language - you cant know if had been translated firstplace. Have you seen The Homers original writing or not? There are books ins spanish, russian and french, that have really been originally written in english,( and also the otherwayaround) but only one reader of 10000 knows that, and then they make threads like this.
>>7503817
>>When you read the language acts as a perpetual middleman
So why are you hellbent on adding more middle men and interpretation between you and the original text, fuck you are fucking stupid for not getting this.
When you read some non-native translation you are reading interpretation of interpretation of interpretation and adding your own to it.
It's fifth times removed from the author and has absolutely fuck all to do with the author at that point.
>>7503825
>>7503821
You probably work for Translators United or something and shill here your shitty fucking Peter Green translations dont you
Just admit it you are not reading the author when you read a translated work of his. You aren't watching Mona Lisa if someone takes up shit from the toilet and manages to smear it to look like Mona Lisa
>>7503832
>It's fifth times removed from the author and has absolutely fuck all to do with the author at that point.
The second it's translated into language it's exponentially removed form the original meaning.
Why are you getting so pissy about rain when you're swimming in the ocean?
How about when an author translates his own book, like with Nabikov?
>>7503832
>Watching the Mona Lisa
You honestly believe your eyes give you a true interpretation of a painting.
>>7503844
>cantknownuffin
Not at all, you can glean a ton from any work of literature based on your own personal interpretation. The value of the work is determined by the capacity of the receiver. You're the one getting spooked by delusions of authenticity.
>>7503832
Why dont you just show me some example of text, where you clearly see, that the true meaning has lost, will you?
It's even worse if the original language and the language used in translation have different rules on how they work.
Like translating stuff from Swedish to English or Finnish to English or pick any African tribal hut language to any non-African language.
>>7503641
i rather read a translation than nothing at all
i'm not gonna learn russian, german, french, chinese and japanese just to read some books, say whatever you want but idgaf
>>7503856
>You still aren't reading the original author. You just happen to read book that shares a name, but you are reading the translator and his book
The transposing of one symbolic logic to another essentially identical symbolic logic (barring minor socio-political nuances) is infinitely closer in meaning than transposing something as ephemeral as the Geist of the author into dead symbols.
Have you read any philosophy of language at all? Genuinely curious, this entire thread reeks of /pol/lack sandbagging
>>7503641
So your point is that an author's original words can't be translated correctly?
>>7503853
Get a load of this obtuse idiot.
>>7503880
So you're going to ignore the argument before that sentence then?
Doesn't surprise me that you missed out on that meaning sinceyou're reading a translation
>>7503885
Nah senpai I just saw /pol/lack in your post and completely ignored its context.
You lost the argument.
You pulled out The Hitler Card.
All language is the translation of thoughts into symbols you complete idiot
>>7503853
Seconded
Show us a concrete example of what you're referring too OP
>>7503874
I picked a 4th language to study so I could read Russian literature later in my life.
>>7503890
Yeah but you still aren't reading the original author. You are reading someone else. You yourself argue for this.
so you cant say you have read Dante unless you read his own words in his own language.,
>>7503889
The transposing of one symbolic logic to another essentially identical symbolic logic (barring minor socio-political nuances) is infinitely closer in meaning than transposing something as ephemeral as the Geist of the author into dead symbols.
But please, continue arguing your No True Scotsman thread
>>7503853
>>Why dont you just show me some example of text, where you clearly see, that the true meaning has lost, will you?
DOesnt' even matter since it could be spelled out at the beginning of the book: true meaning of this book is revenge is cold.
You arent experiencing the original author in his original language you are reading the translator and his own book.
>>7503900
>bla bla bla cantknowfunni
I'm plenty sure the original author in every case knows more about what he wants to write down than the translator.
Guess you work for the Translators United and shill your shitty works here :v)
This is why music is the Godliest art form of them all
>>7503908
>bla bla bla cantknowfunni
Oh, so you didn't formulate a counter-argument because you literally didn't understand my line of reasoning. It's almost as if meaning transcends language and is indebted entirely to the nature of the receiver.
>>7503914
I don't need to. You shill for translators here and don't care of the original author, or his text.
>>7503880
... so it's the languages that can't be translated at all?
I'm not baiting, just curious about translation theory
>this thread
>>7503641
>b-but I would be missing out on the book!
If you are reading a translation you are still missing out on the book.
>I can't learn every language!
Have you read all the worthwhile literature written in the ~four languages you speak?
Of course you haven't.
>>7503940
No I haven't read and that saddens me also that I will die before that.
>>7503914
what is meaning without apt language to transfer that meaning?
you defeat your own argument with this post; a translator's meaning isn't the meaning that was intended by the original author in his native tongue, yet it is foisted upon you. you act as if people are psychics and can absorb meaning from literature like lungs do oxygen. it's absurd. the whole point of language is to better convey idea - good language conveys properly - and if 1000 hears into the future andaman islander translated your english novel, do you honestly think that the meaning of your novel will transcend language? the nuance of subtlety and detail would inevitably be lost. we all speak is english precisely because we don't have to "transcend language" you stupid idiot
>>7503880
>How can it be since the languages are completely different`?
Except that sometimes they aren't.
English translations always lost some meaning because it's a language fairly simple and not very expressive and precise, but this lost doesn't always occur in the same way. For example, the translations between romance language occur without so much of a loss.
>>7503964
Ironically enough you misunderstood my post
I'm saying that any claims to understand the authors true intent are baseless. We can never overcome the reef of solipsism.
That being said, language used effectively can still be very potent and a good translation will retain this potency.
>>7503971
Yeah, but shit hits the fan when you translate from language like English to language like Russian or vice versa, or even worse something like Finnish or Japanese to English, or just take something which has huge vocabulary differences like whateverthefuck Inuit's speak to Spanish.
It's so far detached I can't see how you can argue that you are reading the original author and his intent, thoughts.
>>7503989
>I can't see how you can argue that you are reading the original author and his intent, thoughts.
If you honestly believe you're reading the original author's intent just because you're reading the squiggly lines they preferred then I have some bad news for you anon.
>>7503964
>we all speak is english precisely because we don't have to "transcend language" you stupid idiot
But there are translations on this thread too, you know, and we all understand, dont we?
>>7503641
Because you can learn from a stone anon.
>>7503989
>I can't see how you can argue that you are reading the original author
the crux
>>7503989
Finnish can be translated to english just fine.
>>7503992
it's far closer to the original author and thus miles better than any translation.
>>7504009
The author is separate from their work
You do understand this right?
>>7504015
haha the old cantknownuffin, why dont you just blow your brains to see if you can die so you can finally know something
>>7504016
An author's work is separate from the life of the author
That's not an appeal to "cantknownuffin" you natural
>>7504006
How? The way I understand it Finnish works completely different in a fundamental level to English, comes from a different family of language with different rules.
And that's not even accounting on the history and context and vocabulary differences
>>7503992
>>7504000
>>7503976
1: the author INTENDED to convey an idea through his writing, that is all that is relevant. -what- those ideas were is up to interpretation
2: arguing from a place of speculative philosophy such as solipsism, in this case, is fucking meaningless and impractical. it goes without saying that the inner experiences of man are almost ethereal things, incapable of being solidified into literature.
3: language shapes thought processes as thought processes shape language. this is known
but as long as the intent to write and thereby communicate a part of himself to the world is present, muddling this fact with obfuscating theories doesn't help anyone reach any definitive conclusions.
>>7504030
Syntactical composition is separate from meaning
There are Heidegger scholars who can't speak or read a word of German yet they still understand what is meant when he refers to Mitsein or Erschlossenheit or the like
>>7504041
We weren't talking about mathematics or philosophy, they don't care of emotions there. Somethign that deals with logic can be translated because it's a learning tool and not related to emotions like describing a fucking sunset.
>>7504038
>-what- those ideas were is up to interpretation
Precisely, you can never know what the author originally intended because we're limited by language so epistemic issues that arise from translation are negligible in the grand scheme of things.
>>7504047
>they don't care about emotions in mathematics or philosophy
>Somethign that deals with logic can be translated because it's a learning tool and not related to emotions like describing a fucking sunset.
>implying language isn't a logic game
>trying to argue philology with no grounding in philosophy of language
My sides
Translations can be interpretations in the musical sense. Does listening to Mozart's music require him to be physically playing it in my living room? Would I need to learn to read the scores to relate to the original?
It just seems to me that the OP is trying to make a political point about a specific language housing an original thought.
>>7504061
1+1=2 is easy to translate.
Describing a sunset isn't.
Are you autistic perhaps? Maybe you just dont understand emotions.
>>7504062
This desu
This thread is the equivalent of saying that we've never heard any Bach because we've never experienced Bach perform it for us first hand
>>7504067
You do realize that phenomenology exists to do exactly that right?
But then again you've already admitted that you don't have any grounding in mathematics or philosophy so I guess you wouldn't.
>>7504062
The fucks with you little fucks and your /pol/ boogeymen.
Just go there if you are so obsessed with that board.
>>7504067
Congratulations anon, you've just stumbled upon the analytic/synthetic distinction
Welcome to Phil101 at your local community college
>>7504073
You've heard someone play a cover of his composition but never Bach himself.
Why is that hard to admit?
Why is hard to admit you are not reading the original author if you aren't reading his original book`?
>>7504061
Read my second point you idiot. The "why" is more important than the "what." Theory like that only obfuscates. It's an automatic response by sophists when dealing with any kind of self-expression. If that is your rationale, then why do you heed what people say when they speak to you? Surely they don't mean what they say, in the most essential part of their inner selves right?
That is how basal and non-productive your mental fumbling is.
>>7504078
then you have to read original manuscript
are you really that retarded?
>>7504080
And again, you misunderstand
I'm not saying we can't know anything, I'm saying that understanding someone's "true intention" is a spook. We will never be able to go beyond language so translation isn't an issue because we translate everything.
>>7504082
Nah just the original book since its the version the author decided was the product he wanted to release.
the sure sign of the decline of a forum when people start taking its jokes and memes seriously.
>>7504085
Why is it so hard for you to admit that reading author's original words in his original language in which he thinks is much closer to reading the proper version of his product than some fifth times removed translation?
I don't get it.
>>7504086
you're wrong, authors does not have that much of influence over the print and so on; gl with tracking the manuscripts for reading the real shit and just the interpretation of editors, correctors, typographs, typesetters and so on
>>7504089
I dont get it like.
This dude is literally saying some chinkshit copy of BMW M5 is the same as the M5 made in BMW's supervision.
It's not.
>>7504093
Well yes I tend to look for the best possible compromise when it comes to those things.
You just seem to throw your hands in the air and say CANTKNOWNUFFIN BETTER READ RANDOM WORD GENERATOR
>>7504087
Is Poe's law atranslationissue? Even if it is in the same language the meaning is bastardized beyond recognition.
>>7504089
Because as soon as they put words to the page it's translated. Any subsequent translations, if done well, will retain all the meaning of the original. There is infinitely more meaning lost in the meaning/language disconnect than in any subsequent translations.
Authors Meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Words they write down to convey that meaning > translation of those words
Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
Are you also against editors? Publishers? Peer review? It sounds to me like anything short of Joyce whispering his original manuscripts to you in a soundproof room will be unacceptable.
>>7504100
>if done well, will retain all the meaning of the original
No they simply can't because of the inherent differences in the languages and the translator and his crew vs. the author and his crew.
It literally cannot.
>>7504085
>I'm not saying we can't know anything
That's exactly what you're saying retard. True intention basically isn't real and language, conveying nothing ultimately, is both meaningless and redundant.
Mental fumbling.
>>7504105
>It literally cannot.
I take it you don't respect professional interpreters very much either.
In your opinion, should all political leaders at an international level be fluent in every known language?
>>7504087
How do you know if one takes them seriously?
I havent wrote here anything in finnish, so what i have said may have lost its meaning in translation.
>>7504110
Dont go on gibbagoobing in some other area now.
I'm just interested in how you people can claim you've read original author when you haven't read him.
>>7504109
I never said language conveys nothing, it just doesn't convey true intention. This is why any illusion of "true authorial intent" contained in a native language is a false idea.
That's it. That's my point which you seem intent on misrepresenting.
>>7504122
Oh the cantknownuffin is back.
>>7504119
Don't dodge the question. Is an interpreter conveying the words of a Chinese representative to a German representative problematic for you?
Sidenote:
Are you saying you've never read any of the Greeks, The Bible or any of the Russian realists because of this retarded need for authorial purity?
>>7504129
>literally state that language allows us to know something, just not the author's true intent.
>repeating buzzwords for lack of an argument
>>7504136
The fuck you are taking something like poltiics into this, we are talking about describing emotions and not rules of set game.
back to /pol/ with your politics obsession, this is literature board
>>7504119
>I'm just interested how you people can claim you've read original author when you haven't read him
again, the crux
>>7504145
I'm not talking politics, I'm talking translation. Can interpreters properly convey a persons thoughts or are they just "shitty fifth removed translations"?
>>7504149
again the cantknownuffin.
>>7504151
No they never can thats why its called interpretation you fucking dickwad.
>Inb4 but the author itself is interpreteting his own thoughts and you too xDDD
Then why are you so hell bent on ruining it even more by accepting translation as his work?
Its like saying just because you are listening to 320kbps encode ou might as well listen to 320kpbs transcoode
>>7504122
I'm not misrepresenting anything; the point you are making is one of complete nullification of any intent or meaning by the author and ultimately of any knowledge. Essentially you're saying we cannot know anything.
If the very use of language, of words and phrases consciously employed by an author, in a language he was inculcated in upon birth does not confer intent, and simultaenously we cannot go beyond language, and language isn't an issue also, because we translate everything, then...?
Fucking moronic that line of thought is. You negate all knowledge and meaning that way.
>>7504158
Because what is lost in putting words to a page is infinitely more than a good diplomatic translation.
>>7504160
I'm saying language contains knowledge, just not the knowledge that OP is espousing. We can't know the authors original intent so there's no point to autistically fretting about it. You glean all of your knowledge through translation and interpretation of language (a symbolic logic), my point is that all written works are translations.
You're the one that seems intent on asserting that this implies a negation of all knowledge.
Uh oh I'm liking books the wrong way again!
>>7504174
>We cant know
But we can be closer to it, much closer to it, by sticking to his original intended book.
and of course this, his book, holds more knowledge than translation, because it was written by him in his own language he knows.
>>7504176
I dont have any issue with liking any book. I just dont get how people who have never read the author claim to have read him
>>7503664
You don't read Homer you absolute plebeian. You *listen* to Homer; a fucking mongoloid would know that you uneducated dolt.
>>7504187
It's the post I replied to which first used 'read Homer' :v) Guess you can't seem to count posts 1..2..3..4...5...
>>7504174
>But that's not what I'm saying
>What I'm saying is
>You misunderstand, what I'm saying is
You're not saying anything.
>>7504200
Not rekt
Rekt
Really Rekt
Tyrannosaurus Rekt
Cash4Rekt.com
Grapes of Rekt
Ship Rekt
Rekt markes the spot
Caught rekt handed
The Rekt Side Story
Singin' In The Rekt
Painting The Roses Rekt
Rekt Van Winkle
Parks and Rekt
Lord of the Rekts: The Reking of the King
Star Trekt
The Rekt Prince of Bel-Air
A Game of Rekt
Rektflix
Rekt it like it's hot
RektBox 360
The Rekt-men
School Of Rekt
I am Fire, I am Rekt
Rekt and Roll
Professor Rekt
Catcher in the Rekt
Rekt-22
Harry Potter: The Half-Rekt Prince
Great Rektspectations
Paper Scissors Rekt
RektCraft
Grand Rekt Auto V
Call of Rekt: Modern Reking 2
Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Rekt
Rekt It Ralph
Left 4 Rekt
www.rekkit.com
Pokemon: Fire Rekt
The Shawshank Rektemption
The Rektfather
The Rekt Knight
Fiddler on the Rekt
The Rekt Files
The Good, the Bad, and The Rekt
Forrekt Gump
The Silence of the Rekts
The Green Rekt
Gladirekt
Spirekted Away
Terminator 2: Rektment Day
The Rekt Knight Rises
The Rekt King
REKT-E
Citizen Rekt
Requiem for a Rekt
REKT TO REKT ass to ass
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Rekt
Braverekt
Batrekt Begins
2001: A Rekt Odyssey
The Wolf of Rekt Street
Rekt's Labyrinth
12 Years a Rekt
Gravirekt
Finding Rekt
The Arekters
There Will Be Rekt
Christopher Rektellston
Hachi: A Rekt Tale
The Rekt Ultimatum
Shrekt
Rektal Exam
Rektium for a Dream
>>7504185
It doesn't actually matter if someone claims to read an author or not. I doubt the large majority of authors would give a shit if someone only read them in translation
>>7504185
>But we can be closer to it, much closer to it, by sticking to his original intended book.
The meaning lost in transferring living, breathing experience to dead symbolic logic is much more significant than the minor socio-political nuances lost in a good translation.
Authors Meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Words they write down to convey that meaning > translation of those words
>>7504200
>clearly state that you can know gain knowledge from language
>clearly state that you cannot know the author's true intent
>"you're not saying anything"
Maybe if Itranslatedthese simple statements into your native language you would understand me.
>>7504185
>But we can be closer to it, much closer to it, by sticking to his original intended book.
in some cases, like that finnish- to english, it is mostly better to read the translation, than move to Finland for 10 years, and try to understand finnish peoples mentality, when someone who can do that already can translate it to you. Just learning the language doesnt mean you can understan the authors "true intent".
>>7504215
>Again with 'might as well drive a chinkshit BMW m5 copy, listen to 320kbps transcode, cant know nuffin, author doesnt know his own language'
tiresome
>>7504224
>this analogy
Maybe it's valid with regards to some culturally disconnected, semi-fluent bastardized translation but just as >>7504221 said it's much more reasonable to read a well done diplomatic translation by a universally respected scholar already familiar with the language and culture of the work than to spend a decade culturally enriching yourself in order to truly understand the subtleties of Finnish syntax.
>>7504074
How does sounding like a Heidegger fan makes one a /pol/ boogeymen? There are unresolved issues here.
Take care OP, striving for originality makes a cliché out of you.
