From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Sun Jul 23 2006 - 16:56:29 EDT
Thanks to those who responded. On Jerry's point. Notwithstanding the Verwertung problem Nicolaus is I think better than CW. One problem with CW 28/29 is that the two bits were translated by different people with inconsistencies. ALso CW 29 209 has reified instead of objectified which is quite a bad mistake. But I will have to compare systematically Chris On 22 Jul 2006, at 16:10, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: >> Once a translation has been made, it is >> usually easy to improve it (e.g. the Pelican translation of Capital is >> superior to previous ones), and personally, if I would do that (which >> I am >> not about to), I would try to make the Grundrisse text more readable >> using >> the information we now have about the totality of his project, and >> add an >> analytical index. > > Hi Jurriaan: > > The _Collected Works_ edition of the manuscripts has an analytical > index. It can take some time, but if a passage is sufficiently > interesting, I like to compare the Penguin/Vintage edition with the > CW edition. But, is the CW edition a _better_ translation? I don't > know. It is also organized differently and seeks in this to be > more in keeping with the order of the manuscripts. Were they > successful in that endeavor and is this an improvement? > > Of course, the Penguin edition is cheaper and more available and is the > one which most English readers are most familiar with. But, is the CW > qualitatively better and should we get into the practice of citing > that rather than the Penguin edition? > > In solidarity, Jerry >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT