"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:g3vhm0cxf5ph$.ghndho830tor.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:48:35 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:1uesggvb6jef6.1vjuy1a25rzar.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:14:37 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166986827.791112.198120@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

So, if Aristophenes used a Greek verb in the text that means "to
ponder" and somewhere else used another word built from the same
stem, which means "done without pondering", we do NOT use
'unponderingly', but rather some other word that means what
Aristophenes said. Translation is not concerned with etymology.

I completely agree. Since languages develop independently of one
another,
etymology is irrelevant to translation. The fact that two words have a
common history (or are equated in a dictionary) doesn't mean they
should
be
used in analogous contexts. Which unfortunately doesn't stop
journalists
writing things like "die Bush-Administration" on a daily basis.


Writing "die Busch-Administration" is not the consequence of not
following your guideline. Complaining about journalists writing "die
Bush-Administration" is.

What do you mean? The German for "administration" is "Regierung". Try
googling for "die Bush-Administration" and "die Merkel-Administration".


What I mean is: your guideline, as I understand it, suggests not to
look at the etymology [...]

The guideline obviously applies to translation, not to translation
criticism, and the fact remains that "Administration" is not a synonym for
"Regierung".

So in fact the German
for "adminstration" is indeed "Regierung". Except that it also is
"Administration" in case of the American administration.

No, "Bush-Administration" is just a common mistranslation of "Bush
administration".

Regards,
Ekkehard

Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:g3vhm0cxf5ph$.ghndho830tor.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:48:35 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:1uesggvb6jef6.1vjuy1a25rzar.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:14:37 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166986827.791112.198120@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

So, if Aristophenes used a Greek verb in the text that means "to
ponder" and somewhere else used another word built from the same
stem, which means "done without pondering", we do NOT use
'unponderingly', but rather some other word that means what
Aristophenes said. Translation is not concerned with etymology.

I completely agree. Since languages develop independently of one
another,
etymology is irrelevant to translation. The fact that two words
have a
common history (or are equated in a dictionary) doesn't mean they
should
be
used in analogous contexts. Which unfortunately doesn't stop
journalists
writing things like "die Bush-Administration" on a daily basis.


Writing "die Busch-Administration" is not the consequence of not
following your guideline. Complaining about journalists writing
"die
Bush-Administration" is.

What do you mean? The German for "administration" is "Regierung".
Try
googling for "die Bush-Administration" and "die
Merkel-Administration".


What I mean is: your guideline, as I understand it, suggests not to
look at the etymology [...]

The guideline obviously applies to translation, not to translation
criticism, and the fact remains that "Administration" is not a synonym
for
"Regierung".

So in fact the German
for "adminstration" is indeed "Regierung". Except that it also is
"Administration" in case of the American administration.

No, "Bush-Administration" is just a common mistranslation of "Bush
administration".

Regards,
Ekkehard

I take it that it should be "Bush-Regierung"?

It's not a matter of 'understanding', you nitwit.

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:

UC schrieb:
snip

But there is no verb or adjective or adverb for 'vision'

to envision, visionary, visible/visibly are all derived from "vision2 or
its Latin root.


or 'insight'
or 'bread'. There is no "to bread",

Yes, there is. It means "to cover with breadcrumbs"


That's a different word, used onlt as 'breaded' or 'breading', and it
clearly does not refer to a loaf of bread. It actually refers to
breadcrumbs.

Why is it a different word? It derives from the same root and is

no "insightly"

In English we never make adverbs by adding "-ly" to nouns.


Oh yes we do!

Fearfully
Hopefully
Occasionally

On no, we don't!

UC schrieb:


Kant writes:

"... indem sie ... mit Heftigkeit und mehrenteils mit großer
Unbescheidenheit ... bewiesen ..."

Hatfield has:

"...proving with vehemence and more often than not great insolence..."

What's wrong with:

"adduced...in sharp words and often with overweening vanity and
presumption..."*

First of all, I have never heard anyone 'prove' anything with
'vehemence'. I cannot even imagine what that could mean.

Harlan can, and so can I. "vehemently" or "with vehemence" is an
excellent translation of "heftig", "mit Heftigkeit". Other
possibilities might be: passionately, ardently, fiercely, hotly,
angrily, ... with passion, ardence, ...


[...]

Secondly, Hatfield is under the delusion that 'beweisen' can mean only
'prove' or 'demonstrate', whereas a whole range of meanings is
possible, depending on the context. In any event, 'prove' is incorrect
here.

This is why I'm reluctantly responding: the delusion is yours alone.
The meanings of "beweisen" (= "mit Taten oder mit Gründen, Urkunden
oder Zeugen dartun") are covered by "prove" (via OF from L probare) and
"demonstrate" (from L demonstrare), whereas your "adduce" (from L
adducere; rendered in German as anführen, beibringen, heranziehen)
misses them. See the entry "beweisen" in Grimm:

http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?lemid=GA00001

(The reflexive use (3) can be ignored for your sentence.)

Martin.

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167144250.410188.196690@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It's not a matter of 'understanding', you nitwit.

UC, while I agree with your basic point about literal translations, I don't
think it needs to be made so aggressively. You owe Einde an apology.

Regards,
Ekkehard

UC schrieb:
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:

UC schrieb:
snip

But there is no verb or adjective or adverb for 'vision'

to envision, visionary, visible/visibly are all derived from "vision2 or
its Latin root.


or 'insight'
or 'bread'. There is no "to bread",

Yes, there is. It means "to cover with breadcrumbs"


That's a different word, used onlt as 'breaded' or 'breading', and it
clearly does not refer to a loaf of bread. It actually refers to
breadcrumbs.

Why is it a different word?

It derives from the same root and is
obviously connected with the root meaning since it means "to apply bread
to" the object being "breaded".

You simply alleged that there was no
verb "to bread". It may be rare and may not be in your beloved
dictionaries, but the fact that the past participle and the present
participle are actively used as an adjective and a noun respectively
shows that the verb was in more widespread use at some stage - possibly
before dictionaries had been invented.

no "insightly"

In English we never make adverbs by adding "-ly" to nouns.


Oh yes we do!

Fearfully
Hopefully
Occasionally

On no, we don't!

"fearfully" derives directly from the adjective "fearful", which in turn
derives from the noun "fear".

"hopefully" derives directly from the adhjective "hopeful", which in
turn derives from the noun "hope".

"occasionally" derives directly from the adjective "occasional", which
in turn derives from the noun "occasion".

However, I shouldn't have used the word "never". There are as always
exceptions, e.g. certain adverbs (and adjectives with the same form)
deriving from nouns referring to time, such as "hourly", "daily",
"weekly", "monthly", etc.

Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
UC schrieb:
snip

no "insightly"

In English we never make adverbs by adding "-ly" to nouns.

Oh yes we do!

Fearfully
Hopefully
Occasionally

UC wrote:
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
UC schrieb:
snip

no "insightly"

In English we never make adverbs by adding "-ly" to nouns.

Oh yes we do!

Fearfully
Hopefully
Occasionally

Or, more to the point perhaps, "haply", "daily", "weekly", "yearly".
All of them can be adverbs, and AFAICT the first one always is.

(aeu cut)

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167144344.667939.183100@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:g3vhm0cxf5ph$.ghndho830tor.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:48:35 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:1uesggvb6jef6.1vjuy1a25rzar.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:14:37 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166986827.791112.198120@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

So, if Aristophenes used a Greek verb in the text that means
"to
ponder" and somewhere else used another word built from the
same
stem, which means "done without pondering", we do NOT use
'unponderingly', but rather some other word that means what
Aristophenes said. Translation is not concerned with etymology.

I completely agree. Since languages develop independently of one
another,
etymology is irrelevant to translation. The fact that two words
have a
common history (or are equated in a dictionary) doesn't mean
they
should
be
used in analogous contexts. Which unfortunately doesn't stop
journalists
writing things like "die Bush-Administration" on a daily basis.


Writing "die Busch-Administration" is not the consequence of not
following your guideline. Complaining about journalists writing
"die
Bush-Administration" is.

What do you mean? The German for "administration" is "Regierung".
Try
googling for "die Bush-Administration" and "die
Merkel-Administration".


What I mean is: your guideline, as I understand it, suggests not to
look at the etymology [...]

The guideline obviously applies to translation, not to translation
criticism, and the fact remains that "Administration" is not a synonym
for
"Regierung".

So in fact the German
for "adminstration" is indeed "Regierung". Except that it also is
"Administration" in case of the American administration.

No, "Bush-Administration" is just a common mistranslation of "Bush
administration".

Regards,
Ekkehard

I take it that it should be "Bush-Regierung"?

Exactly.

"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED-RS@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:emrdmb$9kp$00$1@news.t-online.com...

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167144344.667939.183100@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:g3vhm0cxf5ph$.ghndho830tor.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:48:35 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"Joachim Pense" <snob@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:1uesggvb6jef6.1vjuy1a25rzar.dlg@40tude.net...
Am Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:14:37 +0100 schrieb Ekkehard Dengler:

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166986827.791112.198120@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

So, if Aristophenes used a Greek verb in the text that means
"to
ponder" and somewhere else used another word built from the
same
stem, which means "done without pondering", we do NOT use
'unponderingly', but rather some other word that means what
Aristophenes said. Translation is not concerned with etymology.

I completely agree. Since languages develop independently of one
another,
etymology is irrelevant to translation. The fact that two words
have a
common history (or are equated in a dictionary) doesn't mean
they
should
be
used in analogous contexts. Which unfortunately doesn't stop
journalists
writing things like "die Bush-Administration" on a daily basis.


Writing "die Busch-Administration" is not the consequence of not
following your guideline. Complaining about journalists writing
"die
Bush-Administration" is.

What do you mean? The German for "administration" is "Regierung".
Try
googling for "die Bush-Administration" and "die
Merkel-Administration".


What I mean is: your guideline, as I understand it, suggests not to
look at the etymology [...]

The guideline obviously applies to translation, not to translation
criticism, and the fact remains that "Administration" is not a synonym
for
"Regierung".

So in fact the German
for "adminstration" is indeed "Regierung". Except that it also is
"Administration" in case of the American administration.

No, "Bush-Administration" is just a common mistranslation of "Bush
administration".

Regards,
Ekkehard

I take it that it should be "Bush-Regierung"?

Exactly.

Actually, "die Regierung Bush" would be more natural.

Ekkehard

Harlan Messinger wrote:
UC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
UC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
UC wrote:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksocrates.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=6NoPabBYcgAC&dq=four+texts+on+socrates&pg=PP1&ots=ALym2s58-v&sig=VOse4SZV4LvvMXdmFO4JG8aNFUU&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dfour%2Btexts%2Bon%2Bsocrates&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1#PPA7,M1

More literalist nonsense:

"If the translator tries to capture the particular shade of meaning
intended on each occasion a given word appears, the reader remains
ignorant that the word recurs at all."

Why should the reader have to know that "the word recurs"? Who is
behind such nonsense? A translation destroys, and SHOUILD destroy, any
1:1 correspondence between the original and the target language. I
should like to know who is responsible for spreading such nonsense,
which seems to pervade much current academic (cough, spit) translation.
It isn't nonsense at all. If the writer consistently used a single term
to identify some thing or express some concept, that consistency may be
quite significant, and in any event the translator would be hard pressed
to justify hauling out the thesaurus to replace the uniformity of the
original with variety.
All words can take on different meanings depending on the context.
If the same writer in the same work uniformly uses one word over and
over again to refer to the same thing or concept rather than coming up
with a variety of words and phrases to refer to the same thing for the
sake of variety and flavor, and the translator thinks that the writer
intended different flavors and nuances to be found in each instance of
this identical word, then the translator isn't paying attention.
But many words in English that are used as adjectives or nouns or verbs
have completely different counterparts:

To know, knowledge, what is known

To see, sight, what is seen

But there is no verb or adjective or adverb for 'vision' or 'insight'
or 'bread'. There is no "to bread", no "insightly" (though there is
'insightful(ly)' or "to insee" (though there was at one time, I
believe).

Many words in German have cognates in the various parts of speech. Just
because the German or Greek does that does not mean that we should try
to imitate it in English.

In German compounds can be formed at will (I don't know about ancient
Greek). Heidegger's Sein und Zeit poses tremendous translation
problems with the various forms of 'Sein' used by Heideger (das
Seiende; Dasein, Sein, etc.). In English, we are more restricted ("to
be", 'being', 'existence', "that which is/exists", etc.)
and not all the terms are etymologically related as they are in German.

So, if Aristophenes used a Greek verb in the text that means "to
ponder" and somewhere else used another word built from the same
stem, which means "done without pondering", we do NOT use
'unponderingly', but rather some other word that means what
Aristophenes said. Translation is not concerned with etymology.
I see what you mean here. No, translation isn't concerned with
etymology, but it is concerned with maintaining the writer's intent. If
a work containing a particular Greek verb was used over and over, and
then a related adjective was used, it would be unfortunate if there
*weren't* an adjective in English related to the English translation
that the translator had been using for the verb. Of course, if there
isn't one, there isn't one, and there's nothing the translator can do
about it.

Thank you for grasping what is to me obvious.

But there isn't anything wrong with "unponderingly".

There most certainly is.

We have
"unwittingly", "unthinkingly", "unsmilingly", and these *are* all in the
Merriam Webster unabridged.

True, and, of course, irrelevant.

If "unponderingly" isn't in the
dictionary, it's because the dictionary makers didn't encounter it and
didn't come up with it, but it's a perfectly acceptable construction
following English rules of derivation and consistent with the other
words that the dictionary makers *have* attested.

No, it's not common enough (and in fact appears to be a nonce-word) to
be usaed.

UC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
UC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
UC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
UC wrote:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksocrates.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=6NoPabBYcgAC&dq=four+texts+on+socrates&pg=PP1&ots=ALym2s58-v&sig=VOse4SZV4LvvMXdmFO4JG8aNFUU&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dfour%2Btexts%2Bon%2Bsocrates&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1#PPA7,M1

More literalist nonsense:

"If the translator tries to capture the particular shade of meaning
intended on each occasion a given word appears, the reader remains
ignorant that the word recurs at all."

Why should the reader have to know that "the word recurs"? Who is
behind such nonsense? A translation destroys, and SHOUILD destroy, any
1:1 correspondence between the original and the target language. I
should like to know who is responsible for spreading such nonsense,
which seems to pervade much current academic (cough, spit) translation.
It isn't nonsense at all. If the writer consistently used a single term
to identify some thing or express some concept, that consistency may be
quite significant, and in any event the translator would be hard pressed
to justify hauling out the thesaurus to replace the uniformity of the
original with variety.
All words can take on different meanings depending on the context.
If the same writer in the same work uniformly uses one word over and
over again to refer to the same thing or concept rather than coming up
with a variety of words and phrases to refer to the same thing for the
sake of variety and flavor, and the translator thinks that the writer
intended different flavors and nuances to be found in each instance of
this identical word, then the translator isn't paying attention.
But many words in English that are used as adjectives or nouns or verbs
have completely different counterparts:

To know, knowledge, what is known

To see, sight, what is seen

But there is no verb or adjective or adverb for 'vision' or 'insight'
or 'bread'. There is no "to bread", no "insightly" (though there is
'insightful(ly)' or "to insee" (though there was at one time, I
believe).

Many words in German have cognates in the various parts of speech. Just
because the German or Greek does that does not mean that we should try
to imitate it in English.

In German compounds can be formed at will (I don't know about ancient
Greek). Heidegger's Sein und Zeit poses tremendous translation
problems with the various forms of 'Sein' used by Heideger (das
Seiende; Dasein, Sein, etc.). In English, we are more restricted ("to
be", 'being', 'existence', "that which is/exists", etc.)
and not all the terms are etymologically related as they are in German.

So, if Aristophenes used a Greek verb in the text that means "to
ponder" and somewhere else used another word built from the same
stem, which means "done without pondering", we do NOT use
'unponderingly', but rather some other word that means what
Aristophenes said. Translation is not concerned with etymology.
I see what you mean here. No, translation isn't concerned with
etymology, but it is concerned with maintaining the writer's intent. If
a work containing a particular Greek verb was used over and over, and
then a related adjective was used, it would be unfortunate if there
*weren't* an adjective in English related to the English translation
that the translator had been using for the verb. Of course, if there
isn't one, there isn't one, and there's nothing the translator can do
about it.

Thank you for grasping what is to me obvious.

Well, now, aren't you ever just such a *genius*? Your mother must be so
proud of you. Perhaps if you learned to express yourself more clearly
you wouldn't have such a hard time communicating to others the things
you find obvious.

But there isn't anything wrong with "unponderingly".

There most certainly is.

We have
"unwittingly", "unthinkingly", "unsmilingly", and these *are* all in the
Merriam Webster unabridged.

True, and, of course, irrelevant.

Let's see: these examples demonstrate how in English the derivation of
negative adverbs from participles by prefixing them with "un" and
suffixing them with "ly" is productive, but that's irrelevant to a case
of creating a negative adjective from a participle. Your grasp of the
concept of relevance and your understanding of how word derivation
operates in languages leave much to be desired.

If "unponderingly" isn't in the
dictionary, it's because the dictionary makers didn't encounter it and
didn't come up with it, but it's a perfectly acceptable construction
following English rules of derivation and consistent with the other
words that the dictionary makers *have* attested.

No, it's not common enough (and in fact appears to be a nonce-word) to
be used.

Words only exist if they're used, and if they don't exist you shouldn't
use them, huh? One wonders how you think new words ever enter a language.

plonk

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
UC schrieb:
Martin Ambuhl wrote:

UC wrote, after listing the dictionaries he owns (should we be
impressed? Many of us in AUE have collections that dwarf his):

I bet you don't. Those are only my major English dictionaries. I have
quite a number of German and English dictionaries (Flügel,
Muret-Sanders, Adler, as well as a CD of Adekung's
Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart etc.) as
well as synonym dictionaries, thesauri, grammars, etc. In any case,
Webster, Oxford, and the Century are the primary generalist
dictionaries. Do you have a Johnson?

I'm not at all sure what the relevance of this "My dick is bigger than
yours" talk is to anything we discuss in sci-lang.translation - or in
any of the other newsgroups listed.

The comment was made that they had more dictionaries than I. I meant
only to give a short list of what I do have.

It's not a matter of 'understanding', you nitwit. Do you understand
what 'unprovokingly' means? It's not in Webster's Third.

What's wrong
with "without provocation", if I may ask, or perhaps 'unprovokedly'?

Actually, "die Regierung Bush" would be more natural.

Ekkehard