Lit crit obscurity
Karen Sandness
and in this paragraph, the writer is talking about the scene in which
Eguchi dreams of returning to his family home and sees his deceased
mother.
しかし、この現れに立ち会うことは構造的に不可能で
ある。はじまりは常に既に過去として、しかしこれま
で一度もなかった過去としか存在しえない。見る者の
位置を奪われた主体は、夢の外に追い出される。ハジ
マリトワタシは常に出会い損なうのである。
"However, it is structurally impossible to confront this
manifestation. The beginning is invariably already in the past, and
yet, it can exist only as a past that never was. The actor, deprived
of the position of viewer, is forced out of the dream. .."
OK, as you may have guessed, this is literary criticism influenced by
French structuralism and psychoanalysis, but I'm stumped by the part
that I have put into katakana in lieu of italics. I know that 出会い
損なう is to fail to meet, but I can't find any meaning of
"watashi" (written in hiragana in the original) that makes sense.
Is anybody good at decoding this kind of stuff?
Derridaly yours,
Karen Sandness
Marc Adler
しかし、この現れに立ち会うことは構造的に不可能で
ある。はじまりは常に既に過去として、しかしこれま
で一度もなかった過去としか存在しえない。見る者の
位置を奪われた主体は、夢の外に追い出される。ハジ
マリトワタシは常に出会い損なうのである。
"However, it is structurally impossible to confront this
manifestation. The beginning is invariably already in the past, and
yet, it can exist only as a past that never was. The actor, deprived
of the position of viewer, is forced out of the dream. .."
"The encounter between the beginning and the self always fails to occur" might be one way to handle the last sentence.
Out of curiosity, why did you choose "actor" for 主体?
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Karen Sandness
Laurie Berman
私 just the narrator? The narrator can never be there at the
beginning . . . or something.
Marc Adler
Aa, naruhodo. I rejected "watashi" as "I" or "self" because the writer consistently uses other words to express that concept, but it does make sense, at least to the extent that such verbiage ever makes sense.
Contrary to popular belief, for the most part it does make sense. If it doesn't make any sense to you, you might consider telling the client.
I suppose "subject" or "protagonist" could work just as well.
They're not interchangeable, if that's what you mean. Without context, all I can do is guess, but I think "subject" might be the safest bet.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Jeremiah Bourque
literary criticism is not my usual cup of tea, I took note of Karen's
writing "but I'm stumped by the part that I have put into katakana in
lieu of italics."
Perhaps italics are not sufficient as separators? I think that 'hajimari
to watashi' could be represented by writing "the beginning" and "the
self" in quotes. I somehow believe that flipping the "fails" part is
more readable. My version, building on Marc Adler's suggestion, would
therefore be, "Never shall 'the beginning' and 'the self' encounter the
other."
I do not purport to be an expert in this area, however...
Jeremiah Bourque
Laurie Berman
On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
> Contrary to popular belief, for the most part it does make sense.
> If it doesn't make any sense to you, you might consider telling the
> client.
As in, "Sorry, I can't do this translation because I'm not an
enthusiastic proponent of French structuralism"?
Laurie Berman
Marc Adler
As in, "Sorry, I can't do this translation because I'm not an
enthusiastic proponent of French structuralism"?
Generally on this list, if someone admits they don't understand the material they're translating, they're given the good advice that they should tell the client to have someone else do it.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler writes:
Aa, naruhodo. I rejected "watashi" as "I" or "self" because the writer consistently uses other words to express that concept, but it does make sense, at least to the extent that such verbiage ever makes sense.
Contrary to popular belief, for the most part it does make sense.
If it makes sense to you, would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?
Regards,
Alan Siegrist @ Makes no sense to me…
Orinda, CA, USA
Marc Adler
If it makes sense to you, would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler writes:
If it makes sense to you, would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?
What's "it"?
The passage, which you claim makes sense.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA,
USA
Laurie Berman
On Mar 26, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
>
> That's a bit of a logical leap from what I said, because to say
> you're not a proponent you have to at least understand it first.
> Karen said it didn't make sense to her.
Now, now, this is the humanities, where schools of thought can "make
sense" to some people and not to others; where precious few scholars
really seem to care much whether the reader can "make sense" of what
they're saying; and where the volume of work is way too low for
translators to make a living specializing in literary criticism.
In this context, saying that something doesn't make a lot of sense to
you is not the same as saying you are the wrong person translate it.
As someone who does a good deal of work in the social sciences and
humanities, I feel that way about at least 25% of the stuff that
crosses my desk. Often that's because it's badly written, poorly
thought out, based on arcane or (to my mind) silly theories, full of
jargon, or all of the above. And sometimes it's because it deals with
a subfield with which I'm unfamiliar. But even if I confess my
ignorance to my client, all I'll get is, "Yeah, well, unfortunately,
we don't know a lot of competent J-E translators with expertise in
Zoroastrian ethics."
Laurie Berman
Marc Adler
The passage, which you claim makes sense.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Marc Adler
Now, now, this is the humanities, where schools of thought can "make
sense" to some people and not to others; where precious few scholars
really seem to care much whether the reader can "make sense" of what
they're saying; and where the volume of work is way too low for
translators to make a living specializing in literary criticism.
Yeah, that's a common stereotype, but I've really never found it to be true. As far as I can tell, when it comes to the humanities, people think even very technical texts should be transparently accessible to someone without any background in the subject whatsoever.
Imagine someone with no background in physics reading a physics paper, and condemning it for "being impenetrable" or "using too much jargon." You'd think the reader was stupid, not the writer. In the humanities, for some reason, it's the opposite. People condemn the writer, and not the reader, for the reader's inability to understand.
I don't quite follow you on what the "volume of work" has to do with what we're discussing.
In this context, saying that something doesn't make a lot of sense to
you is not the same as saying you are the wrong person translate it.
I don't know about that. It kind of sounds like special pleading. I can't think of why translators would be exempted from the common-sense requirement of "understanding the text in order to be able to translate it correctly" just because you're dealing with the humanities.
a subfield with which I'm unfamiliar. But even if I confess my
ignorance to my client, all I'll get is, "Yeah, well, unfortunately,
we don't know a lot of competent J-E translators with expertise in
Zoroastrian ethics."
Well, that's the reality of the business, I suppose. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether humanities texts make any sense or not, or whether translators who don't understand them should be translating them.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler writes:
Imagine someone with no background in physics reading a physics paper, and condemning it for "being impenetrable" or "using too much jargon."
You are making a poor comparison. Certainly there are concepts and theories in physics that are difficult to understand and not intuitive or even counterintuitive to the layman. But there are underlying rules in science that a good theory must accurately predict or explain observations. And anyone can independently make these observations and determine whether or not they fit the theory. The theory has to be falsifiable.
Despite the complexity of the theories, it is a rare and valuable skill to be able to explain them and their import to anyone including the layman. The late Dr. Feynman was cherished for his ability in this area. The skill of clarity of explanation is prized and no reasonable physicist intentionally obfuscates their theories or observations.
In contrast, in the humanities, there is no testing of theories, no independent observations and no falsification of theories. It is all opinion, and no one can be demonstrated to have an incorrect opinion.
There is no need for any of this opinion to “make sense” and I dare say that intentional obfuscation appears to be the norm.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist @ Yes, I did study physics.
Orinda, CA, USA
Laurie Berman
On Mar 26, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Laurie Berman
> <berma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> In this context, saying that something doesn't make a lot of
>>> sense to
>>> you is not the same as saying you are the wrong person translate it.
>
>
> I don't know about that. It kind of sounds like special pleading.
You are seriously missing the point, so I'll spell it out for you.
In American English, saying that something doesn't make a lot of
sense is not synonymous with saying "I do not have what it takes to
grasp this subject matter." In fact, more often than not it is a
negative comment on the text. Therefore, someone might well say,
"Aso's speech didn't make any sense!"--and yet still be qualified to
translate it. And by the same token, Karen can say that the Japanese
piece she is working on (of which you have seen practically nothing
and are therefore unqualified to comment) doesn't make a lot of
sense, and yet still be qualified to translate it--which I, for one,
am quite confident that she is.
> I can't think of why translators would be exempted from the common-
> sense requirement of "understanding the text in order to be able to
> translate it correctly" just because you're dealing with the
> humanities.
Gosh, neither can I. Nor can I imagine why would you impute such an
unprofessional attitude to anyone on this list, least of all someone
who expressly asked for clarification in order to better understand
and do a better job translating the text.
Laurie Berman
Dale Ponte
"Origin", as well, seems plausible for ハジマリ.
Does your text imply that this ハジマリ is that of the self? Checking it
the other way around, can it be read that the ハジマリ is anything other
than that of the ワタシ?
If it is the self's ハジマリ, then inserting the possessive might be
helpful. Though it would likely entail reversing the order of the
terms to 'self and its origin/beginning'; but this might sound kinda
theological, by itself. There's also "self's origin/beginning", though
hanging this to the Japanese might lead to taking some liberties.
ワタシ as _S_elf?
>これまで一度もなかった過去としか存在しえない
"can not exist save as a past that so far there has not ever been."
" . . .a past which at no time has there ever been."
~
Dale
Whatever softens the taffy ... ;-)
(translation like pulling taffy)
Marc Adler
In contrast, in the humanities, there is no testing of theories, no independent observations and no falsification of theories. It is all opinion, and no one can be demonstrated to have an incorrect opinion.
The only truths in the world are not the truths of science, though I will go out of my way to point out that I'm not belittling the sciences, either. Science is one thing, and it's valuable, and practical. Studying literature or culture or history, too, is valuable and practical. (In other words, they're not mutually exclusive.) You may think that it's all "bunk," and that's fine. But what stands out to me is the fact that people who have the most extremely negative opinions about them (like in this case) are often the least informed about them.
There is no need for any of this opinion to “make sense” and I dare say that intentional obfuscation appears to be the norm.
Alan Siegrist @ Yes, I did study physics.
Marc Adler
In contrast, in the humanities, there is no testing of theories, no independent observations and no falsification of theories. It is all opinion, and no one can be demonstrated to have an incorrect opinion.
The only truths in the world are not the truths of science, though I will go out of my way to point out that I'm not belittling the sciences, either. Science is one thing, and it's valuable, and practical. Studying literature or culture or history, too, is valuable and practical. (In other words, they're not mutually exclusive.) You may think that it's all "bunk," and that's fine. But what stands out to me is the fact that people who have the most extremely negative opinions about them (like in this case) are often the least informed about them.
There is no need for any of this opinion to “make sense” and I dare say that intentional obfuscation appears to be the norm.
Alan Siegrist @ Yes, I did study physics.
Marc Adler
In American English, saying that something doesn't make a lot of
sense is not synonymous with saying "I do not have what it takes to
grasp this subject matter." In fact, more often than not it is a
You don't seriously mean to say that there is only one meaning of "it doesn't make sense."
translate it. And by the same token, Karen can say that the Japanese
piece she is working on (of which you have seen practically nothing
and are therefore unqualified to comment) doesn't make a lot of
sense, and yet still be qualified to translate it--which I, for one,
am quite confident that she is.
There are, indeed, two meanings of "doesn't make sense" and if she said it in the meaning you describe, then of course she's qualified. It's impossible to determine which meaning she was using it in just from her email, though, and if you'll calm down for a second I think you'll see that I used the word "if" in my email to her. I wasn't telling her she wasn't qualified. Go back and read the email, and I think you'll see it wasn't as egregious as you seem to think it is.
Gosh, neither can I. Nor can I imagine why would you impute such an
unprofessional attitude to anyone on this list, least of all someone
who expressly asked for clarification in order to better understand
and do a better job translating the text.
That imputation is all in your eyes. That said, by that point I was responding to something you said, namely that you sometimes translate stuff you are ignorant about. I'm not getting on your case about this. I explicitly state that because you're already reading more into what I'm writing than is there. Let me repeat: I understand your situation and empathize with you. That's the reality of the business. If there's no one around who knows about Zoroastrian ethics, then the client has to use whoever is willing to take the job.
That circumstance doesn't mean that the rule that "translating in ignorance of the subject will not result in the best translation" is false, however.
And with that, I'm done talking about this subject on this list. If you and Alan wish to continue, I'll be more than happy to on the not-honyaku-redux list: http://groups.google.com/group/not-honyaku-redux?hl=en
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Dale Ponte
I'd say ワタシ ought to be "I". "Origin of the 'I' (found with and
without quotes)" is intuitive and has decent currency in
psychoanalytic thought.
The self's encounter with its origin is how it gains (so-called
objective) awareness of itself as a construction. Origin refers to how
and when, the formative circumstances amid which its treasured, but
entangling, notion of I got started. The awareness incites
liberation.
HTMakesSense,
Dale
Dwight Van Winkle
> 2009/3/26 Karen Sandness <ksandn...@comcast.net>
> Contrary to popular belief, for the most part it does make sense. If it
> doesn't make any sense to you, you might consider telling the client.
literary criticism, I spoke with the author several times to clarify
points, and she was happy to speak with me.
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler writes:
And with that, I'm done talking about this subject on this list. If you and Alan wish to continue, I'll be more than happy to on the not-honyaku-redux list: http://groups.google.com/group/not-honyaku-redux?hl=en
I would be happy to continue discussing this, but I would rather do so on a list that has a guarantee of freedom of speech, the not-honyaku list:
Mark Pendleton
First post here, but I'm a PhD candidate in Japanese history/cultural
studies and do some JtoE translation work for supervisors and my own
research. Hoping to expand that in time to other things I'm interested
in.
My humble opinion: Always-already is a must in this translation as
Marc has pointed out. I'd also definitely go for 'subject' for 主体,
'origin' for はじまり and 'self' for the italicised わたし over 'I'.
Without reading the rest of the article I don't want to go too far,
but I'd also question the choice of 'confront' for 立ち会う. Given the
psychoanalytic bent of this article, I'd choose 'witness', which ties
this into the body of work in the humanities around grief and trauma,
which appears from this snippet to be where the author is going. The
choice of 'witness' also makes the later reference to 見る者 make more
sense.
Hope this helps.
Mark
Anthony Bryant
On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Mark Pendleton wrote:
> Without reading the rest of the article I don't want to go too far,
> but I'd also question the choice of 'confront' for 立ち会う.
> Given the
> psychoanalytic bent of this article, I'd choose 'witness', which ties
> this into the body of work in the humanities around grief and trauma,
> which appears from this snippet to be where the author is going. The
> choice of 'witness' also makes the later reference to 見る者 make
> more
> sense.
Generically, I'd doubt "witness" for 立ち会う -- unless there was
enough context to make it so.
To my mind, "witness" is a passive expression. You just SEE it. I
don't know about "confront" here (context being king) but it does seem
more directly involved, which 立ち会う seems to imply to me. 会う
is a verb that implies one's not just seeing, but ACTING.
Am I wrong in this perception?
Tony
Wataru Tenga
Alan Siegrist wrote...
I think many of us may well have reservations about joining either list at this point.
--
Wataru Tenga, Tokyo
Alan Siegrist
Wataru Tenga wrote:
I think many of us may well have reservations about joining either list at this point.
I very much understand your reservations, and I am very sorry that this unfortunate situation has come about. Perhaps you should consult the people that caused the situation.
Wataru Tenga
Alan Siegrist wrote...
|
Wataru Tenga wrote: I think many of us may well have reservations about joining either list at this point. I very much understand your reservations, and I am very sorry that this unfortunate situation has come about. Perhaps you should consult the people that caused the situation. |
I won't bother. This little cartoon pretty much explains why not.
--
Wataru Tenga, Tokyo
Alan Siegrist
> I won't bother. This little cartoon pretty much explains why not.
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/
Very good. Thanks.
Best,
Roland Hechtenberg
> I would be happy to continue discussing this, but I would rather do so on a
> list that has a guarantee of freedom of speech, the not-honyaku list:
Petty, petty!
With nine participants and one of them spamming the group with
more than half of all messages 51 out of 75 this month)?
Grow up.
Roland
Roland Hechtenberg
William Taylor
quoting people?
Regards,
William Taylor
Alan Siegrist
> Does anybody know how Wataru makes that wonderful blue sidebar for
> quoting people?
Yes, that is a feature of HTML. If someone posts in HTML (not plain text)
format, any reply will have the blue sidebar instead of the > marks you see
in this reply (since I am replying in plain text format).
Wataru Tenga
Alan Siegrist wrote...
AS> William Taylor writes:
>> Does anybody know how Wataru makes that wonderful blue sidebar for
>> quoting people?
AS> Yes, that is a feature of HTML. If someone posts in HTML (not plain text)
AS> format, any reply will have the blue sidebar instead of the > marks you see
AS> in this reply (since I am replying in plain text format).
It was an accident. Had I known, I would have embedded the cartoon in my
post.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
--
Wataru Tenga, Tokyo
Rob Nielsen
On 3月28日, 午前4:57, Anthony Bryant <anthony_bry...@cox.net> wrote:
> To my mind, "witness" is a passive expression. You just SEE it. I
> don't know about "confront" here (context being king) but it does seem
> more directly involved, which 立ち会う seems to imply to me. 会う
> is a verb that implies one's not just seeing, but ACTING.
>
> Am I wrong in this perception?
to both see and speak the truth of. Modern and lay usages do exist.
There are more analogies here, like encountering events that are both
profound and improbable, or confronting your own beliefs. However,
there is a risk of hijacking a psychological passage into a more
spiritual/religious one.
Literary works are not my specialty either, but again it case it
helps ...
Rob
>
> Tony
Marc Adler
To my mind, "witness" is a passive expression. You just SEE it. I
don't know about "confront" here (context being king) but it does seem
more directly involved, which 立ち会う seems to imply to me. 会う
is a verb that implies one's not just seeing, but ACTING.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Roland Hechtenberg
> Yes, that is a feature of HTML. If someone posts in HTML (not plain text)
> format, any reply will have the blue sidebar instead of the > marks you see
> in this reply (since I am replying in plain text format).
Unfortunately, I see the blue sidebar instead of the > marks also in
your reply.
Have fun,
Roland
Roland Hechtenberg
Alan Siegrist
> Unfortunately, I see the blue sidebar instead of the > marks also in
> your reply.
That is quite astounding. I wonder if there is some mechanism between me,
the list and you that is converting the > in plain text to the blue sidebar
in HTML.
I cannot explain it.
Roland Hechtenberg
> That is quite astounding. I wonder if there is some mechanism between me,
> the list and you that is converting the > in plain text to the blue sidebar
> in HTML.
Must be a setting in the mail software, as EdMax shows the >
marks and Thunderbird shows the blue line.
Have fun (with blue lines or > marks),
Roland
Roland Hechtenberg
Dale Ponte
>'self' for the italicised わたし over 'I'.
Incidentally, googling "psychoanalysis" with "origin of the self"
rings up nearly 90,000. (None of them theological, BTW.) What was I
thinking? Seems I thought I'd run the comparison later and found
"origin of the i" stronger; or something. Ah well.. our ears are to be
trusted, ehy.
On 立ち会う, Witness or Confront? -- Witness seems to me more likely to be
on. In a psychoanalytic context it certainly is an active engagement.
After all, it's about gaining awareness -- and all that that brings
about, wo! (BTW, coupled with psychoanalysis, witness gets quite a lot
more googits.)
Perceptive comments, Mark, thanks for popping in.
~
Dale @ there's a purplish blue light pooling around the ends of my
fingers! Would anyone like some?
Mark Pendleton
term in the body of psychoanalytic literature, and especially within
the current (slightly over?) boom in trauma/memory studies. It is used
in the sense of 'bearing witness', as Rob pointed out is also common
in religious literature. As an example, two of the most well-known
authors in this body of work, literary critic Shoshana Felman and
psychoanalyst Dori Laub, published a collection called 'Testimony:
Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History' (in
1994 I think).
Again, I wouldn't want to make a firm decision without reading the
rest of the text, but I was just struck in the passage by the
possibility of witness being the intended meaning, given the context
provided. Feel free to ignore me, as I may be entirely wrong...
Good luck,
Mark
Duncan Adam
On Mar 27, 4:13 pm, Mark Pendleton <mark.pendle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First post here, but I'm a PhD candidate in Japanese history/cultural
> studies and do some JtoE translation work for supervisors and my own
> research. Hoping to expand that in time to other things I'm interested
> in.
>
> My humble opinion: Always-already is a must in this translation as
> Marc has pointed out. I'd also definitely go for 'subject' for 主体,
> 'origin' for はじまり and 'self' for the italicised わたし over 'I'.
>
>
>
> Mark
I know I have come late to this one, but I just wanted to
wholeheartedly endorse this. 主体 should certainly be 'subject' as
'subjectiviy' （主体性） is such a major theme in literary criticism. And
definitely 'self' for watashi.
Duncan
Dale Ponte
> the scene in which Eguchi dreams
>of returning to his family home and sees his deceased mother.
>
> しかし、この現れに立ち会うことは構造的に不可能で
> ある。はじまりは常に既に過去として、しかしこれま
> で一度もなかった過去としか存在しえない。見る者の
> 位置を奪われた主体は、夢の外に追い出される。ハジ
> マリトワタシは常に出会い損なうのである。
While supposing that "witness" is useful as a conceptual orientation,
I'm having doubts whether it rightly translates 立ち会うこと in this very
case. So here's my experiment with the passage, guesses 'n rough 'n
blind spots included:
"However, it is structurally impossible for him to be present to this
manifestation. The (self's) origin is, as such, always-already of the
past; but is incapable of existing except as a past which thus far has
never occurred. Deprived of its position as viewer, the subject is
driven out of the dream. Origin and self constantly mis-encounter."
That's some sticky taffy, lemme tell ya!
Dale