I will ask our translator about this passage.
He also had second thoughts about some of your earlier criticisms. He wrote:
"1) "I was able to..." instead of "I was told to..." (I must have read "detto" instead of "dato" - sorry).
2) We might want to translate "essere" with "being" rather than "existence".
3) "essenzialità" is better translated as "existentiality" than "existentialism", which has different overtones."
2) We might want to translate "essere" with "being" rather than "existence".
3) "essenzialità" is better translated as "existentiality" than "existentialism", which has different overtones."
I'll make these corrections when we revise our translation later this year.
He also added:
"As for "più-che-vivere", that would literally be "more-than-living", i.e. "more-than-life": I'm not sure why he thinks that "supra-existence" is "New Age": but if you can come up with any better way to translate it, by all means let's change it."
From: Evola <evola_as_he_is@...>
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: 'The Path of Cinnabar'
The difference is indeed significant, especially as J. Evola's position on Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is a sensitive subject. "Concerning Catholicism as a positive religion in general" is the only possible translation for so crystal-clear an Italian clause as "Circa il cattolicesimo in quanto, in genere, religione positiva..."
It was translated accurately in 'El camino del cinabrio', too :
"En cuanto al catolicismo como religión positiva en general, ejerció sobre mi efectos deplorables en tanto que se reducía a formas religiosas, sentimentales y moralistas al margen de la sociedad burguesa y que no satisfiz en absoluto mi aspiración originaria a una verdadera sacralidad y a un gran ascesis, el sentido de una gran ascesis, el sentido interior de los símbolos, ritos y sacramentos."
http://juliusevola.blogia.com/2006/100101-el-camino-del-cinabrio-01-.-el-contexto-personal-y-las-primeras-experiencias.php
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "sithwalker" <aaijkwd@...> wrote:
>
> It is evident that EAHI's translations are superior; more informed and authentic. For example, why do you say there is no difference in meaning between "And while I recognised the validity of Catholicism as a positive religion" & "Concerning Catholicism as a positive religion in general"? The difference is obvious and very significant. Becoming irrational when someone points out one's errors, or the errors of one's work, or errors in what one has concern for, is not manly.
>
>
> You might seemed to have missed the difference between translating and interpreting, and you wouldn't be the first or the only one to do so. For example, interpreting, indeed dumbing down sentences, is the norm in the world of subtitles for TV and movies.
>
>
> translate (v.):
> c.1300, "to remove from one place to another," also "to turn from one language to another," from L. translatus "carried over," serving as pp. of transferre "to bring over, carry over" (see transfer), from trans- (see trans-) + latus "borne, carried," from *tlatos, from PIE root *tel-, *tol- "to bear, carry" (see extol).
>
> interpret (v.):
> late 14c., from O.Fr. interpreter (13c.) and directly from L. interpretari "explain, expound, understand," from interpres "agent, translator," from inter- (see inter-) + second element of uncertain origin, perhaps related to Skt. prath- "to spread abroad," PIE *per- "to traffic in, sell" (see pair (n.).
>
> Do you perhaps also here see no difference?
>
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <ouro_boros@> wrote:
> >
> > You have your interpretations. Our translator has his. Nothing you have posted has convinced me that our translation is in need of rectification, whatever name-calling (vis-a-vis your "bad faith" comment) you want to indulge in. You are welcome to produce your own version.
>
It was translated accurately in 'El camino del cinabrio', too :
"En cuanto al catolicismo como religión positiva en general, ejerció sobre mi efectos deplorables en tanto que se reducía a formas religiosas, sentimentales y moralistas al margen de la sociedad burguesa y que no satisfiz en absoluto mi aspiración originaria a una verdadera sacralidad y a un gran ascesis, el sentido de una gran ascesis, el sentido interior de los símbolos, ritos y sacramentos."
http://juliusevola.blogia.com/2006/100101-el-camino-del-cinabrio-01-.-el-contexto-personal-y-las-primeras-experiencias.php
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "sithwalker" <aaijkwd@...> wrote:
>
> It is evident that EAHI's translations are superior; more informed and authentic. For example, why do you say there is no difference in meaning between "And while I recognised the validity of Catholicism as a positive religion" & "Concerning Catholicism as a positive religion in general"? The difference is obvious and very significant. Becoming irrational when someone points out one's errors, or the errors of one's work, or errors in what one has concern for, is not manly.
>
>
> You might seemed to have missed the difference between translating and interpreting, and you wouldn't be the first or the only one to do so. For example, interpreting, indeed dumbing down sentences, is the norm in the world of subtitles for TV and movies.
>
>
> translate (v.):
> c.1300, "to remove from one place to another," also "to turn from one language to another," from L. translatus "carried over," serving as pp. of transferre "to bring over, carry over" (see transfer), from trans- (see trans-) + latus "borne, carried," from *tlatos, from PIE root *tel-, *tol- "to bear, carry" (see extol).
>
> interpret (v.):
> late 14c., from O.Fr. interpreter (13c.) and directly from L. interpretari "explain, expound, understand," from interpres "agent, translator," from inter- (see inter-) + second element of uncertain origin, perhaps related to Skt. prath- "to spread abroad," PIE *per- "to traffic in, sell" (see pair (n.).
>
> Do you perhaps also here see no difference?
>
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <ouro_boros@> wrote:
> >
> > You have your interpretations. Our translator has his. Nothing you have posted has convinced me that our translation is in need of rectification, whatever name-calling (vis-a-vis your "bad faith" comment) you want to indulge in. You are welcome to produce your own version.
>