Robert Lieblich wrote:
UC wrote:

[ ... ]

The issue is lousy translations and
monstrous English, specifically by Gary Hatfield (translating Kant) and
Thomas G. West (translating Aristophanes and Plato) . Do you have
anything to say about this or not?

Rather than merely wailing and moaning, I'm doing something about it. I
have written and published articles about translation. I am now writing
to the offenders and their superiors to inform them of their trespasses.

I hope you will post their reactions here. I expect them to be quite
interesting.

I expect to receive patronizing dismissals, so typical of academics
(spit).

The academics for whom I have respect can be numbered as the fingers of
one badly mutilated hand.

UC wrote:

Robert Lieblich wrote:
UC wrote:

[ ... ]

The issue is lousy translations and
monstrous English, specifically by Gary Hatfield (translating Kant) and
Thomas G. West (translating Aristophanes and Plato) . Do you have
anything to say about this or not?

Rather than merely wailing and moaning, I'm doing something about it. I
have written and published articles about translation. I am now writing
to the offenders and their superiors to inform them of their trespasses.

I hope you will post their reactions here. I expect them to be quite
interesting.

I expect to receive patronizing dismissals, so typical of academics
(spit).

The academics for whom I have respect can be numbered as the fingers of
one badly mutilated hand.

Then why are you wasting your time trying to persuade those who cannot
be persuaded?

Are you hoping for a miracle, or do you get some sort
of thrill from trying to stir up trouble?

Thank God you're not a lawyer.

UC wrote:

[ ... ]

The issue is lousy translations and
monstrous English, specifically by Gary Hatfield (translating Kant) and
Thomas G. West (translating Aristophanes and Plato) . Do you have
anything to say about this or not?

Rather than merely wailing and moaning, I'm doing something about it. I
have written and published articles about translation. I am now writing
to the offenders and their superiors to inform them of their trespasses.

I hope you will post their reactions here. I expect them to be quite
interesting.

It makes me feel superior, I admit. I get a kick out of out-smarting
those who are supposed to be 'experts'. It pleases me that someone with
only a moderately greater than average intelligence (my IQ is 131, I
think) can actually out-smart Ph.D.'s who supposedly have all the
brains and the training to do the sort of work that they're doing.

I am quite serious and determined.

Then, why aren't you determined to the same degree in the selection of
newsgroups? Your original ranting about translators and "literalist
nonsense" and everything which followed in 106 postings has nothing to do
with language usage - neither German nor English.

Therefore, please, <censored> off!

Paul: You are, of course, free to ignore this thread if it troubles you
so.

UC wrote:
...
I have sent letters to West, his dept. chairman, and the president of U
of Dallas demanding his dismissal. I'm not joking about this.

In that case you are no more an inoffensive loony. You should be
restrained.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:18:48 -0500, Robert Lieblich
r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com> wrote:

UC wrote:

[ ... ]

The issue is lousy translations and
monstrous English, specifically by Gary Hatfield (translating Kant) and
Thomas G. West (translating Aristophanes and Plato) . Do you have
anything to say about this or not?

Rather than merely wailing and moaning, I'm doing something about it. I
have written and published articles about translation. I am now writing
to the offenders and their superiors to inform them of their trespasses.

I hope you will post their reactions here. I expect them to be quite
interesting.

Cover your ears, Bob. I'm sure there will be a loud screech as the
world of academia comes to an immediate stop because UC has put them
on notice.

--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Robert Lieblich wrote:

UC wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

On 28 Dec 2006 08:45:24 -0800, "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

On 28 Dec 2006 08:16:35 -0800, "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com
wrote:

[ ... ]

No, the inference was not logical Of course I read my own writing. If
you want to criticize my writing, go ahead,

I already have done so. But thanks for asking.

I also have worked professionally as an editor.

In short, I have superior English writing and editing skills. You must
have to ask yourself why you cannot understand what is written by
competent writer.

Writing expresses the thoughts of the writer. If the thoughts don't
make sense, no amount of mechanical skills in arranging the written
form will make the result understandable.

Neither good editing nor accurate translation are indication of the
editor's or the translator's ability to be sensible in their own
writing.

Well, Tony, I have published my own writing in an academic journal. You
have to ask yourself how that could have happened if, as you say, I
cannot write cogently.

What's significant about these papers is that they concern rather
esoteric matters, yet do not require a specilaist's understanding. That
is the mark of a good writer. You don't have to know German to
recognize a bad translation of Nietzsche or Kant.

Please take the time to look these over and you'll see that I can put
an argument together.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/VERSCH.html

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html

Am I the only one who finds this pathetic?

Do you mean that UC's posting of the links in support of his argument is
pathetic? I don't think so. (I think I may have posted links to my own
published work in the past, but for entertainment purposes, rather than
supporting an argument.)

Curiosity led me to follow the first link. Different disciplines have
different ways of presenting ideas so the paper doesn't look like the
sort of papers I am familiar with, and write. I would have expected the
argument to be grounded in existing discussions of mistranslations, on
which I assume there is a literature.

It seems a tad unusual to use
Conan Doyle as a reference point but I and my co-authors have on
occasion used equally unexpected linkages to arouse the interest of
readers.

The argument seems to be clearly expressed, although I am not
competent to judge the content.

It is certainly easier to follow than
UC's posts in aue but it doesn't seem to require the sort of intricate
development that other disciplines might demand.

The influence of the
co-author may well be a factor in this, too, so I don't think it
provides evidence of UC's claim to have "superior English writing and
editing skills" which was, I assume, his reason for posting the links.

People with bees in their bonnets both within and outside the academic
community often get dismissed as loonies because of their manner of
raising issues rather than the content.

I haven't been following UC's
account of his attempts to convince the academics involved, other than
to note that he has threatened formal complaints, but I assume that he
has tried to present his argument to them through the normal channels,
offering his papers for comment, for example.

Googling on UC's name revealed that he is in the unfortunate position of
having to share it with a somewhat controversial individual. That might
well do funny things to a person's ontological security.

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Someone has to do something about this. It seems that translations are
being produced by people who have no 'formal' training in translation,
which in itself is no sin, but it does lead to bad translations.
Translation is a skill like any other.

Without proper guidance, all
manner of excrement may be produced and is being produced.

There are no
"checks and balances" when someone who is a professor of classics or
philosophy decides on his own to produce a translation. Usually, the
translation suffers from a lack of knowledge and experience and
criticism that comes from studying translation theory. I have read and
recommend Peter Newmarks's books (though I do not agree with him in
everything he says).

UC wrote:
Someone has to do something about this. It seems that translations are
being produced by people who have no 'formal' training in translation,
which in itself is no sin, but it does lead to bad translations.
Translation is a skill like any other.

Of which you have not the foggiest.

Without proper guidance, all
manner of excrement may be produced and is being produced.

Among which crap like your Kant.

There are no
"checks and balances" when someone who is a professor of classics or
philosophy decides on his own to produce a translation. Usually, the
translation suffers from a lack of knowledge and experience and
criticism that comes from studying translation theory. I have read and
recommend Peter Newmarks's books (though I do not agree with him in
everything he says).

What would you know?
You should first learn a language, what?

mb wrote:
UC wrote:
Someone has to do something about this. It seems that translations are
being produced by people who have no 'formal' training in translation,
which in itself is no sin, but it does lead to bad translations.
Translation is a skill like any other.

Of which you have not the foggiest.

And who are you to criticize? Are you a German speaker? Most
translation by Germans into English are horrid. You don't usually have
a clue about English rhythm and you don't know that you often need to
invert the sentence order. The translations are hopelessly pedantic.

UC wrote:
mb wrote:
UC wrote:
Someone has to do something about this. It seems that translations are
being produced by people who have no 'formal' training in translation,
which in itself is no sin, but it does lead to bad translations.
Translation is a skill like any other.

Of which you have not the foggiest.

And who are you to criticize? Are you a German speaker? Most
translation by Germans into English are horrid. You don't usually have
a clue about English rhythm and you don't know that you often need to
invert the sentence order. The translations are hopelessly pedantic.

"You"? That's a good one.

Robert Lieblich wrote:

LFS wrote:

Robert Lieblich wrote:


UC wrote:


[ ... ]


Please take the time to look these over and you'll see that I can put
an argument together.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/VERSCH.html

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html

Am I the only one who finds this pathetic?

Do you mean that UC's posting of the links in support of his argument is
pathetic? I don't think so. (I think I may have posted links to my own
published work in the past, but for entertainment purposes, rather than
supporting an argument.)


No, that's not what I mean. UC's been posting here for many months,
and he's waded as deep into controversy as anyone, and we don't need
to read long professional articles of his to tell us how good he is at
putting an argument together or expressing himself in English. I
think that part of what he's up to is continuing the controversies
over translation that he himself has initiated, and I find it pathetic
that UC is trying to persuade the likes of Tony Cooper (snipped from
this post but very much with us) and me that he is a better translator
of Kant or the ancient Greeks than those over whom he claims
superiority. This sub-thread came unmoored from sci.lang and
sci.lang.translations many posts ago, and still UC flaunts[1] and
preens as if there's someone there who can actually pick and choose
among competing translations and ideas about translating.


Curiosity led me to follow the first link. Different disciplines have
different ways of presenting ideas so the paper doesn't look like the
sort of papers I am familiar with, and write. I would have expected the
argument to be grounded in existing discussions of mistranslations, on
which I assume there is a literature. It seems a tad unusual to use
Conan Doyle as a reference point but I and my co-authors have on
occasion used equally unexpected linkages to arouse the interest of
readers. The argument seems to be clearly expressed, although I am not
competent to judge the content.


Well, there you are. Three cheers for the attempt. I waded in,
quickly realized that I was over my head even with the water only up
to my knees, and got the hell out. How many participants in AUE are
competent to render professional judgments on comparative translations
from 18th century German? And yet UC seeks to persuade us. That's
what I find pathetic.

I don't read much of what he posts here because I don't find it
interesting - I generally only see it when other people whose posts I
read regularly engage with him. UC's general comments on English usage
often appear to me to be ill-informed and couched in terms which are, at
best, aggressive. His rants on Kant seem distinctly off-topic:
pointless, rather than pathetic, perhaps.

As an academic, I don't appreciate denigration of the academic
community. It seems to me that people who indulge in this sort of
blanket castigation may be motivated by envy or by unpleasant
experiences at the hands of academics and, having time on my hands [1],
I was sufficiently intrigued by the background to UC's behaviour to
follow the links he provided. I remain unconvinced that he has pursued
his convictions through effective channels. Ranting and blustering are
unlikely to make any impression.


As for his writing ability, IMO, he's not so much a bad writer as a
crank about certain aspects of English usage, and I suspect there's a
tendency to think his writing is as bad as the worst of his absurd
positions about English usage. I'd say he's up to AUE RR standard.
He'll probably take that as an insult. It's not so intended.

I don't agree. There are many people here who display far more skill in
their writing, who make no claims for their superiority and even
stimulate debate by inviting a critique of their posts.

[..]

[1] Obaue: what a strange expression *that* is!

Robert Lieblich wrote:

LFS wrote:

Robert Lieblich wrote:


UC wrote:


[ ... ]


Please take the time to look these over and you'll see that I can put
an argument together.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/VERSCH.html

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html

Am I the only one who finds this pathetic?

Do you mean that UC's posting of the links in support of his argument is
pathetic? I don't think so. (I think I may have posted links to my own
published work in the past, but for entertainment purposes, rather than
supporting an argument.)


No, that's not what I mean. UC's been posting here for many months,
and he's waded as deep into controversy as anyone, and we don't need
to read long professional articles of his to tell us how good he is at
putting an argument together or expressing himself in English. I
think that part of what he's up to is continuing the controversies
over translation that he himself has initiated, and I find it pathetic
that UC is trying to persuade the likes of Tony Cooper (snipped from
this post but very much with us) and me that he is a better translator
of Kant or the ancient Greeks than those over whom he claims
superiority. This sub-thread came unmoored from sci.lang and
sci.lang.translations many posts ago, and still UC flaunts[1] and
preens as if there's someone there who can actually pick and choose
among competing translations and ideas about translating.


Curiosity led me to follow the first link. Different disciplines have
different ways of presenting ideas so the paper doesn't look like the
sort of papers I am familiar with, and write. I would have expected the
argument to be grounded in existing discussions of mistranslations, on
which I assume there is a literature. It seems a tad unusual to use
Conan Doyle as a reference point but I and my co-authors have on
occasion used equally unexpected linkages to arouse the interest of
readers. The argument seems to be clearly expressed, although I am not
competent to judge the content.


Well, there you are. Three cheers for the attempt. I waded in,
quickly realized that I was over my head even with the water only up
to my knees, and got the hell out. How many participants in AUE are
competent to render professional judgments on comparative translations
from 18th century German? And yet UC seeks to persuade us. That's
what I find pathetic.

I don't read much of what he posts here because I don't find it
interesting - I generally only see it when other people whose posts I
read regularly engage with him. UC's general comments on English usage
often appear to me to be ill-informed and couched in terms which are, at
best, aggressive. His rants on Kant seem distinctly off-topic:
pointless, rather than pathetic, perhaps.

As an academic, I don't appreciate denigration of the academic
community. It seems to me that people who indulge in this sort of
blanket castigation may be motivated by envy or by unpleasant
experiences at the hands of academics and, having time on my hands [1],
I was sufficiently intrigued by the background to UC's behaviour to
follow the links he provided. I remain unconvinced that he has pursued
his convictions through effective channels. Ranting and blustering are
unlikely to make any impression.


As for his writing ability, IMO, he's not so much a bad writer as a
crank about certain aspects of English usage, and I suspect there's a
tendency to think his writing is as bad as the worst of his absurd
positions about English usage. I'd say he's up to AUE RR standard.
He'll probably take that as an insult. It's not so intended.

I don't agree. There are many people here who display far more skill in
their writing, who make no claims for their superiority and even
stimulate debate by inviting a critique of their posts.

[..]

[1] Obaue: what a strange expression *that* is!

Laura:

I have not heard from anyone since my last post. It is with you in
particular that I am interested in conversing.
[...]