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-context\
o-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.
>