[Lexicog] When Semantics Doesn't Matter

[David Frank]

This is a very interesting philosophical question, whether a translation can be better than an original. The reason it is so interesting is that in answering the question, some premises might have to be stated that might have been left unstated otherwise.

It seems to me that if it is absolutely impossible for a translation to be better than the original, you are saying that the primary virtue of a translation is its faithfulness to the original. That is, to the extent that it is not faithful to the original, to that same extent it is not legitimate somehow. Would you say that that is the case for every kind of translation? Can you really say that, for example, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in German cannot be better (in any way?) than Shakespeare's original in English? Is it really disqualified from being better, or it rather a question for research to see if it is better?

We don't want to try to answer these questions on the Lexicography List, but there may be a different place where such issues can be discussed. I appreciate Bill Poser for bringing up a though-provoking idea.

-- David Frank

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fritz Goerling 
  To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:33 PM
  Subject: RE: [Lexicog] When Semantics Doesn't Matter


  Hayim,

   

  Let me comment on a few of your points. 

   

  Fritz

   

  The statement was made:

   

  <<Shakespeare is better in German translation.>>

   

  Hayim responded:


  Let me share some thoughts relating to this generalization.
  <
  5. Do Shakespeare's witticisms and phraseology sound better in translation?

   

        Witticisms and puns can very rarely be reproduced. It is always better to read

        the author in the original. In a translation one can add a footnote explaining

        a pun in order not to lose the effect.


  6. Can anybody state that KJV of the Bible or German Luther's translation
  or any other translation of the Bible be better than Hebrew original.

   

        Of course, not. Translators of the Bible should know the original languages.

        A model is St. Jerome, responsible for the Vulgata, who settled down in Jerusalem.


  7. Can anybody state that any translation of a classical work (I mean 
  one written in classical Greek or ancient Latin) be better than the original?  

   

        Never, but a translation can be "kongenial" ( I don't know how to translate

        the German word into English because "congenial" seems to be a false friend;

        maybe "ideally matched"). An example would be the late Hans Wollschläger's

        legendary translation of James Joyce's "Ulysses" into German.


  8. There are many excellent translations from language A to language B,
  and how laudable they can be they never are going to be equal to the
  original.

   

       At best "kongenial."

   
  Hayim Sheynin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070702/b1bcefac/attachment.htm>