tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post6734311107805019971..comments2024-01-08T00:08:53.008+00:00Comments on ombhurbhuva: Lost in Translationombhurbhuvahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post-66691234825999970022012-06-28T01:45:05.017+01:002012-06-28T01:45:05.017+01:00That was very interesting. Thank you.
I also thin...That was very interesting. Thank you.<br /><br />I also think, one of the reasons native speakers disagree on the meaning has to do with mode of transmission. When the preferred mode of transmission of source text is a terse sutra, it automatically opens itself to the possibility of multiple interpretations. <br /><br />Consider another example, When I encounter words such as moksha, kaivalya, nirvana, mukti and I see them all translated as 'liberation' (or salvation) that is when I perceive a loss of texture and precision. I see that this is a universal phenomenon now. Yes,one solution is to come up with specific equivalent term in the target language or precise explanation would work in such cases or leave some terms untranslated.Vidyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post-91616864758877366412012-06-28T00:42:07.010+01:002012-06-28T00:42:07.010+01:00What do you put down the phenomenon of native spea...What do you put down the phenomenon of native speakers disagreeing on the meaning of some philosophical text to? When I read the word 'mind' in Kant, Locke or Hume or Wittgenstein I know that these writers have different connotations. This is part of what is called speaker's meaning. No text stands alone. If a genuinely new problem field comes up it may require a new vocabulary. Even in your native language bridges have to be built using what is available to create new connections and a new understanding. It's a form of translation also. Samuel Taylor Coleridge writing on Plato made some error in Greek which a Professor was quick to point out. However others declared that while the Professor knew more Greek Coleridge knew more Plato.ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781646534201708629.post-7661637086621599902012-06-27T19:44:59.504+01:002012-06-27T19:44:59.504+01:00I agree in a general sense that knowledge of a lan...I agree in a general sense that knowledge of a language is neither necessary nor sufficient to know philosophy and there is a social history surrounding language, power and knowledge. However, I wanted to add an addition perspective into the mix on your discussion on poetry vs philosophy.<br /><br />- If you look at the some of the discussions among aestheticians, there are viewpoints that say prAkrta is more beautiful than samskrta when it comes to poetry and music and Samskrta is the preferred route for sastra-s.<br /><br />- Personally whether it is Samskrtam or another language like Tamizh,I believe it is the "layered meaning" that get lost in translation esp in philosophy. <br /><br />A subjective opinion here but, I sometimes feel English vocabulary limits me to unidimensional usages in representing some ideas.In Samskrta (or other Indian languages too), we encounter the same terms in many senses based on the context- ie what is termed sAmAnyArtha or generic and visheshArtha or specific/qualified usage. Yet English, I would need to write paragraphs to explain such subtleties of usage. There is also a lot of thought in texts as to why a certain word has been used, background history of its derivation and an awareness of words- either through translation or in original is also part of the knowledge corpus so obtained. I think this is a part of what people mean when they say lost in translation when it comes to philosophy.<br /><br />What I would like to know is whether such a viewpoint prevails among other European languages too - such as whether someone who translates Leibniz or a Latin theological work into English feels this way? ie The question is if this just a part of universal 'classical' language ivory tower or if it has to do inherent 'linguistic' properties?Vidyanoreply@blogger.com