It is not at all obvious to me that EAHI's translations are "superior." Nor have I become "irrational." He's only discussed a few phrases from the first chapter of our translation. Some of the points he made were based on misrepresentations of our book (such as claiming that Evola referred to "Christianity" in a positive light, as opposed to "Catholicism"). He is correct that "ci รจ stato dato" should not have been translated as "I was told," and I've made a note about it. As for the other points, our translator stands by his version and I see no reason to change them. You're right that there is a difference between translation and interpretation, but inevitably, there is always a certain amount of interpretation in any translation. Translation is not an exact science - that is why we have many versions of texts
from other languages. Readability is another factor when producing a translation. As I already said, EAHI is welcome to produce his own translation with whatever interpretations he wishes to make, and let readers judge for themselves. While we welcome criticism, we are not obligated to accept it.
I have no problem accepting justified criticism of our books - indeed, I've made many corrections to Arktos' books based on readers' comments. But I don't appreciate being accused of "bad faith," and treated as though we are deliberately trying to distort Evola's work, because of a few quibbles over linguistics and terminology.
From: sithwalker <aaijkwd@...>
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 1:52 PM
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: 'The Path of Cinnabar'
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.
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.