disambiguating iyaku
Mika Jarmusz
One may say それは意訳が過ぎる, but that's like saying それは冗談が過ぎる, i.e., "that's not funny because it's not 冗談 anymore." それは意訳が過ぎる means "that's not iyaku anymore (it's mistranslation)." We all know technical documents must be translated 直訳 as closely as possible, but 意 still needs to be 汲む. When the source text is not well written or you're not familiar with the subject matter, you can't iyaku.
【意訳】 （名）ｽﾙ
大辞林
原文の一語一語にこだわらず，全体の意味をとって翻訳すること。また，その訳。「日本人にわかりやすく―する」
学研国語大辞典
原文の一語一語にこだわらず､全体の意味･文章のニュアンスなどをくみとって翻訳すること｡─
大字泉
原文の一語一語にとらわれず、全体の意味やニュアンスをくみとって翻訳すること。
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Uwe Hirayama
thank you for your nice article. This was the first time that
I heard (or read) about 意訳.
And it shows the gap between a traditional concept of translation
(slave to the original - 直訳) vs. translation in the sense of
production of text which fulfill their function.
I think the Daijirin's definition and sample sentence is very interesting:
>>>
【意訳】 （名）ｽﾙ
大辞林
原文の一語一語にこだわらず，全体の意味をとって翻訳すること。また，その訳。「日本人にわかりやすく―する」
<<<
Without having grasped the meaning one won't be able to translate.
What would be the opposite of 意訳? If it was 直訳 is the result
difficult to be understood?
BR
Uwe Hirayama
hira...@t-online.de
Derek Lin
>
> And it shows the gap between a traditional concept of translation
> (slave to the original - 直訳) vs. translation in the sense of
> production of text which fulfill their function.
I remember reading on a translation blog, the name of which slips my
mind presently, the view that all translation is 意訳 first, 直訳 second.
To wit: if a translated text does not convey the meaning of the
original, it fails formally and functionally as a translation,
regardless of the words it uses. One thus starts off with the meaning
and then attempts to select words as close to the original as
possible. In the case of non-literary translation, word selection is
more straightforward than in the case of literary translation, where
implied meanings, themes, and abstract nuances sometimes necessitate
recasting or rewriting such that readers from different linguistic and
cultural contexts can have an experience as close as possible to those
of the original -- non-literary texts often possess a common context
(e.g., Economics, business, patent law, etc) shared across different
linguistic-cultural groups that make this unnecessary.
Under no circumstances is 「意訳」 ever an excuse for vagueness and imprecision.
> Without having grasped the meaning one won't be able to translate.
> What would be the opposite of 意訳? If it was 直訳 is the result
> difficult to be understood?
I would suggest that the opposite of 意訳 (meaningful translation) be
無意訳, non-translation (cf. 意味←→無意味).
Derek
Mika Jarmusz
【直訳】 （名）スル
原文の字句・語法に忠実に翻訳すること。
Iyaku somehow has been looked upon as something to be avoided by translators, which puzzled me, and I realized that in real life many Japanese use the word 意訳 in the sense of paraphrasing. I do too sometimes, but none of the dictionary definition of 意訳 include words like かいつまんで、大雑把に、nor わかりやすく言い換える. My understanding is that paraphrasing can be iyaku, but iyaku is not always paraphrasing.
When we talk about translation, iyaku in its original sense is the one that matters. Iyaku in the sense of "freely translating" is hardly worth anything, is it?
Shinya Suzuki
> Language pairs, English and Japanese for example, do not map precisely over
> each other for various reasons, so I shouldn't and can't stray too far, but
> 意訳 has two meanings. The original, correct meaning is 意を汲んだ訳. Another, a
> common misuse (which too has currency) is 意のままの（勝手な）訳. "Fee, broad
> translation," translating freely" or "paraphrasing" are all translation of
> the latter, is it not?
Eg, 超訳資本論, 自由訳老子, etc.
Shinya Suzuki
Jim Lockhart
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:01:09 -0800 (PST)
Shinya Suzuki wrote:
> The latter type is nowadays called 超訳 or 自由訳.
>
> Eg, 超訳資本論, 自由訳老子, etc.
Use 超訳 at your peril: It's a registered trademark.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%AB%E3%83%87%E3%83%9F%E3%83%BC%E5%87%BA%E7%89%88
超訳とは、天馬龍行（本名：益子邦夫・アカデミー出版社長）が考案し
た翻訳法で、作者が何を言おうとしているのかを主眼にして、読者が読
みやすいよう自然に訳す、という概念の翻訳法である。直訳や意訳など、
他の翻訳法と比較される。アカデミー出版の登録商標。
Since their definition of 超訳 is essentially coincides with what real
translation should be (i.e., 意訳 without the negative connotations), I
find this kind of offensive.
OTOH, I more or less underscores the need to educate not only
translators, but the public in general about what translation really is
all about (I thought the description in Derek Lim's post was pretty
good).
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo, JPN
Mika Jarmusz
Michael Hendry
> dictionaries, I wonder if "faithful translation" might be assigned as the
> appropriate match for (what I call) the first definition of 意訳. Any
> thoughts?
Ah, but then you'd have to define faithful... Faithful to the word? Faithful
to the overall meaning? Faithful to the intended meaning???
When I first learnt French, I heard the expression "free translation" and
that still works best for me. If you want to define free as being as close
as possible to what a target-language speaker would say in _exactly_ the
same situation, then that'd do me as well... ;-)
Michael Hendry, in Newcastle Australia
Mika Jarmusz
Uwe Hirayama
>>Ah, but then you'd have to define faithful...
>
> Michael, how about "Faithful to the intended meaning".
> I hope this conversation doesn't get too abstract,
>
I'd say; faithful to the client
Maybe the 直訳対意訳 subject should be left to those who translate
"belles lettres" where it may make sense.
IMHO for "実訳" only the concept that Michael Hendry stated will work.
BR
Uwe Hirayama
hira...@t-online.de
Mika Jarmusz
non-literary texts often possess a common context
(e.g., Economics, business, patent law, etc) shared across different
linguistic-cultural groups that make this unnecessary.
A misguided translator who does not know the "common context" across cultures in that specialized field can still attempt to translate a document word-for-word without understanding it. He/she can produce 直訳 without capturing the intended meanings. Resulting translation will be 誤訳 (not 意訳). Am I missing something?
Derek Lin
>
> However, even in 実務翻訳, all GOOD translation has to be 意訳 (as in 意を汲む), does
> it not?
Yes, it does. I am, in fact, agreeing with you, Mika. I was observing
that sometimes we fall into the habit of calling the process of
{taking liberties with phrasing} 意訳 as long as the original meaning is
captured. Good translations, both 実務 and otherwise, *must* 意を汲む. In
addition, the phrasing should resemble the original as much as is
linguistically possible; this is what I meant by "直訳". Like you say, a
直訳 as in the case of "Good morning→良い朝" is not a 訳 at all.
Hence, 意訳 first, 直訳 second (可能な限り).
It's tempting to think that the latter is not as important as the
former, but consider a person who is truly bilingual and who hears
something in one language and repeats in another in his or her own
words as he or she understands it. I wonder how many of us would liken
what we do to this.
Derek
Dale Ponte
English that popped to mind was 'willful translation'.
Also, though needless to say, the history of literary translation
abounds, pullulates with acts of unfaithfulness. Perhaps this is no
less true even if a survey were restricted to just the core of the
tradition. By its nature, the raisin de etre ;) of literary
translation smiles on acts of promiscuity here and there. Eros...
Not that I endorse willful translation that is irresponsible. What I
recognize is that non-functional translation needs a mixed bag of
tools and tricks, the more so as it enters literary territory. Small
liberties here and there can facilitate the delivery of content or an
effect that is worth more than their cost. Translators are imperfect
humans, and yet the work has got to get accomplished. And,
imperfection is of the essence of any work of art; we call that
imperfection "perfect!"--it is where Spirit breathes.
Incidentally, although I don't have time right now to describe with
due care just what I mean by this, a term I've made up as a refinement
of a certain sense of "accuracy" is "capturacy".
Finally, have a variously good day,
Dale
草々 as ever
Mika Jarmusz
>...but consider a person who is truly bilingual and who hears
something in one language and repeats in another in his or her own
words as he or she understands it.
>It's tempting to think that the latter is not as important as the
former,
直訳と意訳はあたかも相反するもののように語られることがあり、
その中間を狙え、そのバランスがとれないときは「直訳をとれ」
という鉄則のようなものが
特に日本人翻訳者の間にはなかったでしょうか。
巷で使われている「意訳」は意外と多義であり、
本来の1.「意を汲む」とはむしろ逆の2.「（翻訳者が己の）意のままに」
さらに3.「かいつまんで、大雑把に」などの意もあります。
翻訳者が惑わされるのも「さもありなん」かもしれませんが、
2.と3.のような口語的な解釈は翻訳を語る上では百害あって一利なしです。
capturacyは愛嬌があって私は気に入っていますが
文学を翻訳する人は、原語をせいぜい消化して、それを自分なりの「ダンスの動き」に
（柔軟さで、スピードで、手先の動きで、アゴの角度で、目線で・・・）
表現して見せればいいだけのことだと思いますので、話を実務翻訳の域に戻します。
直訳と意訳の優先順序については私もDerekさんと全く同意見です。
１．翻訳は必ず「意訳でなければならない」。これを免れることはできない。
２．翻訳は「上記を損なわない限りで」直訳が望ましい。
そこで練習問題です。
問題：以下のような状況にはどのように対応すべきかを、なるべく簡潔にまとめよ。
「たとえばラテン語系言語間のように、文法や、文章の構成が似ている場合は、内容が理解できなくても、単語を置き換えるだけでほぼ間違いの無い翻訳ができるかも知れませんが、英語と日本語の間では、ある程度の内容の理解なくしては、翻訳はかなり困難です。」
私が見る限り「その場合には、大きな誤訳を避けるため、
できるだけ原文に近い翻訳をせざるを得ません。」という「直訳のススメ」は
まさに「わからないときには目をつぶりなさい」というアドバイスに見えます。
これでは出来ない人ほど『出来るように錯覚する』という不思議な現象、すなわち
ダニング・クルーガー現象をますます増長させるだけではないでしょうか。
上の練習問題の答えは「わからないと気付くこと」であってほしい。
翻訳は原文が原語の対象読者に理解可能な内容である限り、
訳語における対象読者にも理解「可能な」文章を作ることであってほしいですね。
Jim Lockhart
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:34:42 -0800 (PST)
Dale Ponte wrote:
> To drop in just a wee comment, when I came across "意のままの（勝手な）訳" the
> English that popped to mind was 'willful translation'.
問題は誰の意のままか。素直に読めば、「原文の」意にままで、「勝手な」訳で
はないのです。
In addition to that, when I see or read _willful translation_, the first
thing that pops into _my_ head is What the *hell* is that? I have no
idea what _willful translation_ means. How about a definition?
> Also, though needless to say, the history of literary translation
> abounds, pullulates with acts of unfaithfulness. Perhaps this is no
> less true even if a survey were restricted to just the core of the
> tradition. By its nature, the raisin de etre ;) of literary
> translation smiles on acts of promiscuity here and there. Eros...
This is very true, which I think indicates that distinctions need to be
made about what constitutes "good" or "faithful" translation, a point
the Mika and Derek are approaching well.
> Not that I endorse willful translation that is irresponsible. What I
> recognize is that non-functional translation needs a mixed bag of
> tools and tricks, the more so as it enters literary territory. Small
> liberties here and there can facilitate the delivery of content or an
> effect that is worth more than their cost. ... And,
> imperfection is of the essence of any work of art; we call that
> imperfection "perfect!"--it is where Spirit breathes.
>
> ... I've made up as a refinement
> of a certain sense of "accuracy" is "capturacy".
Not a bad idea at all. But where, for instance, does your "willful
translation" rate on any scale of capturacy if it neither makes
(intuitive*) sense to the English reader nor reflects the content of 意
のまま?
* I write intuitive here because I think translators have a degree of
license to cook up neologisms or use the original-language term in the
absence of a perfectly good, existing English expression for something.
In non-literary translation, Mika and Derrik's thoughts on 意訳 and 直訳
seem to me to be pretty much on the nose: 意訳と直訳とのちょうどいい塩梅
is what we should be aiming for in non-literary translation, with the 塩
梅 informed by elements such as the purpose of the translation and its
intended audience.
Unfortunately, many people--translators themselves as well as the
general public--can't even get past the 意訳 and 直訳 stage (and within
that stage, arguments premised on 意訳 and 直訳 being diametrically
opposed), let alone into the realm of decision how to adjust the 塩梅.
Mika Jarmusz
>問題は誰の意のままか。素直に読めば、「原文の」意にままで、<snip>
Allow me to rewrite:
問題は誰の意か。素直に読めば「原文の」意が「そのまま」読みとれるはずです。
意のまま is a bad thing, the translator's wild poetic license, translating on a whim, disregarding the source text's 意, which needs to be 汲む.
原文の「意を汲む」
訳者の「意のまま」に（勝手に）訳す
今まで気付きませんでしたが、
意の一字が「原文の」意なのか「訳者の」意なのかは
呼応する語によって違ってくる、ということみたいですね。
（言わずもがな）
ままに
《連語》文語。{名詞「まま(儘)」に助詞「に」がついたもの。接続助詞的に用いる。活用語の連体形につく}成り行きに任せる意を表す。…につれて。
意のままに、思いのままに、欲するままに、感じるままに（まかせて訳す）
=bad for translation.
Derek Lin
>
> 今まで気付きませんでしたが、
> 意の一字が「原文の」意なのか「訳者の」意なのかは
> 呼応する語によって違ってくる、ということみたいですね。
> （言わずもがな）
つまり、「原文の意味そのまま」とも読み取れるのだが、
ここで論じられてきた「意のまま」というのは「翻訳者の（勝手な）意思のまま」、
ということですね。
私は最初から「意訳」の「意」が「原文の意味」のつもりで
いたけれど、それを顕示しないとなかなか伝わりにくいですね。
まあ、そもそも英語で書きましたが。
林傑デレク
Daniel
That was the point I too was trying to clarify.
Do Japanese native translators see the 「意」 in 意訳 as the 「意味」 of the 原文 or the 「意見」 of the translator?
I think we may have to change the topic of this thread to 'Ambiguity reigns supreme'....
Daniel
Jim Lockhart
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 23:40:42 -0800
Mika Jarmusz wrote:
> 問題は誰の意か。素直に読めば「原文の」意が「そのまま」読みとれるはずです。
>
> 意のまま is a bad thing, the translator's wild poetic license, translating on a
> whim, disregarding the source text's 意, which needs to be 汲む.
>
> 原文の「意を汲む」
> 訳者の「意のまま」に（勝手に）訳す
意のままは、原文(作者)の意のままに（＝意を汲んで、その「意（こころ）」か
ら逸脱も過不足もなく）と、解釈もできます。
ただし、この話に飛び込んできたので美香さんがスレッドの早い段階で別な意味
で「意のままに」と発言しているのなら、そのときの脈絡を無視したことになり
ます。その場合はご容赦ください。
翻訳は翻訳者の意のまま、翻訳者本意では困るものです。
> ままに
> 《連語》文語。{名詞「まま(儘)」に助詞「に」がついたもの。接続助詞的に
> 用いる。活用語の連体形につく}成り行きに任せる意を表す。…につれて。
>
> 意のままに、思いのままに、欲するままに、感じるままに（まかせて訳す）
> =bad for translation.
これはもちろんそうです。
しかし、「ままに」には次のような意味もあります。
日本語大辞典 第二版
(4)そのありさまの変わらないこと。そのとおり。<用例>生の～食べる。借りた～返さない。
三省堂 スーパー大辞林
（３）元のとおりで，変えてないこと。そっくりであること。「見た―を話す」
「昔の―で少しも変わらない」
（４）状態が続いていること。一つの動作・作用が終わり，それに続くはずの動
作・作用が始まらないこと。「受け取った―積んである」「借りた―だ」「立っ
た―眠る」
広辞苑第六版
３）事を終えたその時の状態であること。その通りであること。源氏物語末摘花
「しか、まかで侍る―なり」。「散らかした―だ」「服を着た―寝る」
４）さながらそのもののようであること。そっくりであること。枕草子96「これ
が声の―にいひたることなど語りたる」
Anyhow, I'm working on another post at the moment. I'm pretty sure
you'll agree with its content when I get done, and apologies for any
confusion I may have caused by jumping in at the wrong moment.
Jim Lockhart
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 18:20:48 +1000
Daniel wrote:
> That was the point I too was trying to clarify.
>
> Do Japanese native translators see the 「意」 in 意訳 as the 「意味」 of the 原文 or
> the 「意見」 of the translator?
>
> I think we may have to change the topic of this thread to 'Ambiguity reigns
> supreme'....
意訳 can be either or, which is why people often wind up talking past
eachother. I've even seen confusion about 直訳, where one group
interprets it as meaning literal, word-for-word translation with minimal
if any attention to meaning, whereas the other group interprets to mean
little more than following the presentation (sentence and paragraph
order, etc.) of the original. Non-Japanese almost always fall into the
former group, though; whereas informed Japanese refer to literal
translation as 逐語訳 ChikuGoYaku.
These problems develop because so many people (translators and lay
persons alike) are (often me included) unfamiliar or uncomfortable with
the proper terms of art, yet _assume_ everyone understands terms like 意
訳、直訳、超訳、逐語訳 in the same way, when individuals often
have highly divergent images of what they are or entail.
An interesting perspective on these things is presented in, of all
places, 蘭学事始, where the author describes the trials and tribulations
he and his colleagues went through in translating 解体新書 from Dutch.
Derek Lin
>
> 意訳 can be either or, which is why people often wind up talking past
> each other.
[snip]
> These problems develop because so many people (translators and lay
> persons alike) are (often me included) unfamiliar or uncomfortable with
> the proper terms of art, yet _assume_ everyone understands terms like 意
> 訳、直訳、超訳、逐語訳 in the same way, when individuals often
> have highly divergent images of what they are or entail.
Bravo. In this thread we seemed to have plunged straight into the
discussion without first establishing how the terms were going to be
used.
> Non-Japanese almost always fall into the
> former group, though; whereas informed Japanese refer to literal
> translation as 逐語訳 ChikuGoYaku.
I was considering throwing this term into the fray at one point of
time to differentiate it from what I meant by 直訳, but decided it would
probably only cause more confusion by then.
Derek
Mika Jarmusz
> 意訳 can be either or, which is why people often wind up talking past
> each other.
[snip]
> These problems develop because so many people (translators and lay
> persons alike) are (often me included) unfamiliar or uncomfortable with
> the proper terms of art, yet _assume_ everyone understands terms like 意
> 訳、直訳、超訳、逐語訳 in the same way, when individuals often
> have highly divergent images of what they are or entail.
これでもってお開きになっては元の木阿弥です。
ここでは「意訳」のみを取り上げますね。
一見しただけでは「意訳のように見える」、つまり
原文とは語彙・構文的にかけ離れた訳でも、
実は原文の意を汲んでおらず、ただの誤訳でしかないことがあります。
本来の解釈を明らかにしておけば、意訳という語は
逐語訳から「漠然と形が離れている」だけはありません。
逐語訳や直訳でも同時に意訳になりうるわけです。
さらに「その訳は意訳か否か」という
前向きの話し合いに「使える言葉」になります。
逐語訳のよしあしを判断するときに役立つはずです。
「意訳になっていないってことは、つまり誤訳ですね？」
というごく当然のコメントが、当たり前にやりとりできるようになるためには、
まず明確化が必要です。
多義混在のままでは混乱するばかりです。
本来の意味がまずあって、それ以外は「口語的解釈」。
これで片付きませんか。
Dale Ponte
> 問題は誰の意のままか。素直に読めば、「原文の」意にままで、「勝手な」訳で
> はないのです。
>
> In addition to that, when I see or read _willful translation_, the first
> thing that pops into _my_ head is What the *hell* is that? I have no
> idea what _willful translation_ means. How about a definition?
>
The expression came to mind in reference to 「勝手な」訳. That is, the
translator imposes upon the 原文 a stiff, overbearing dose of his/her
own will, stemming from some oversight, bias, agenda, mood,
incapability, oversight or even blindness, for example. As a result, the
attempted translation doesn't hold water.
Not exactly a definition, but I hope it clear things up.
> This is very true, which I think indicates that distinctions need to be
> made about what constitutes "good" or "faithful" translation,
>
Of course I'm with you about the value of making distinctions. The
debate itself is so necessary and healthy. Without thinking it about it
too hard, my sense of criteria is that they are something that live and
breathe with the times and environments (both macro and micro), and so
require conscious and detailed upkeep. It's just cultivation.
> Not a bad idea at all. But where, for instance, does your "willful
> translation" rate on any scale of capturacy if it neither makes
> (intuitive*) sense to the English reader nor reflects the content of 意
> のまま?
>
I hope what I said above makes clear that I see willfulness as
undesirable, corrupting the process of valid and effective translation.
That being said, this 意 we're surmising about can sure seem like a
swimming target at times. In such cases, when success requires an
_adroit_ 汲む, that's capturacy, y'might say ;-)
The work of drawing water continually involves, in the blend with other
aptitudes of course, the wisdom and tools of good ol' creativity, even
quite frequently in fields regarded as highly technical. Or so I seem to
observe.
~
Dale
hail and loud lightning
...into quiet snow thick and swaying--
ah what can i say??
Jim Lockhart
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:55:14 -0800
Mika Jarmusz wrote:
> 一見しただけでは「意訳のように見える」、つまり
> 原文とは語彙・構文的にかけ離れた訳でも、
> 実は原文の意を汲んでおらず、ただの誤訳でしかないことがあります。
けっこうあります。原文の意味を伝えていそうな格好いい単語を格好良く並べて
いるものの、よくみると原文を表層的に読んだだけのものであまり掘り下げてい
ないものです。要するに原文を咀嚼して再現しなかったのです。理由はさまざま
で能力的な問題もあればいわば経済的な「言い訳」(そこまでやる暇がない、
それほどやればお金にならない、など)も聞きます。後者は悪質で willful とも
いえるでしょう。
> 本来の解釈を明らかにしておけば、意訳という語は
> 逐語訳から「漠然と形が離れている」だけはありません。
> 逐語訳や直訳でも同時に意訳になりうるわけです。
正確な意訳という前提を満たせば直訳でも逐語訳でもよい、ということです。中
身の問題をクリアすれば形は問いません。
> さらに「その訳は意訳か否か」という
> 前向きの話し合いに「使える言葉」になります。
> 逐語訳のよしあしを判断するときに役立つはずです。
>
> 「意訳になっていないってことは、つまり誤訳ですね？」
> というごく当然のコメントが、当たり前にやりとりできるようになるためには、
> まず明確化が必要です。
とおもいます。
> 多義混在のままでは混乱するばかりです。
> 本来の意味がまずあって、それ以外は「口語的解釈」。
> これで片付きませんか。
Now you've lost me, but OK....
And now I think I finally understand the subject line... ;(@@);
Dale Ponte
Dale Ponte wrote:
> The expression came to mind in reference to 「勝手な」訳. That is, the
> translator imposes upon the 原文 a stiff, overbearing dose of his/her
> own will, stemming from some oversight, bias, agenda, mood,
> incapability, oversight or even blindness, for example. As a result, the
> attempted translation doesn't hold water.
> Not exactly a definition, but I hope it clear things up.
>
In case this didn't get my thoughts across very well ... 原文 should be
原文の意, for one thing.. The 意 gets neglected and/or distorted or
whatever somewhere along the line, owing to the translator's 勝手な
mindset, attitude or slip or whatever, i.e. willfullness. We speak of
transparency as one of the basic virtues of fine translation.
Willfullness, on the other hand, tends to be anathema to transparency.
> my sense of criteria is that they are something that live and
> breathe with the times and environments (both macro and micro),
(While I'm here, cut "are something that.") My thought is that
distinctions, definitions, criteria and the like must ultimately jibe
with moment (time) and situation (place), or what I personally like to
call exigency. This is just how I experience it, nothing more.
> I hope what I said above makes clear that I see willfulness as
> undesirable, corrupting the process of valid and effective translation.
>
> That being said, this 意 we're surmising about can sure seem like a
> swimming target at times.
At this point I had removed *(or is it our mind??)* I think it ought to
be in there though.
> In such cases, when success requires an
> _adroit_ 汲む, that's capturacy, y'might say ;-)
>
> The work of drawing water continually involves, in the blend with other
> aptitudes of course, the wisdom and tools of good ol' creativity, even
> quite frequently in fields regarded as highly technical. Or so I seem to
> observe.
>
My feeling here was basically that sound creativity itself knows no
categories, definitions, provinces, or dichotomies such as literary and
non-literary, functional and non-functional (I admit that I'm the one
who harps about this last one, though always the insincerity gives me a
pang) or what have you. Everywhere comfortable, creativity just at-ones
itself with whatever's required and fruitful.
~
Dale
hail and loud lightning
..._then_ quiet snow thick and swaying