From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Fri Jul 28 2006 - 23:37:51 EDT
Hi Jurriaan, Yes, the devilish puzzle of this simple sentence evidences exactly what you say about the intersection of science and art in translation. I think 'defined' doesn't work because that is not what's happening. It's hard for me to see how the real appropriation of the surplus product through labor generates a corresponding legal definition -- that seems to me (1) not what's being talked about and (2) pretty automatic sounding. That's why 'owing to' seemed to work better than 'in consequence of' -- in other words, without a surplus product, nothing to crank up the machinery of a legal definition or determination for. But if, owing to the actual production of a surplus product, one exists, then we can talk about legal determination or definition, about, in short, who it belongs to. I appreciate your use of 'defined' and will begin to look more carefully at passages translated as 'determined.' Sometimes I think the context can bear the weight of real definition. Thanks, Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <adsl675281@TISCALI.NL> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: [OPE-L] Grundrisse. Help > Howard, > > I think I'd prefer to translate as follows: > > The surplus product - which, by the way, becomes legally defined in > consequence of the real appropriation by labour - therewith spontaneously > belongs to this highest unity." > > The basic principle I have myself in written translation is that it should > make sense, and read well in another language - which is why I don't really > like Nicolaus's version all that much for practical purposes, because he's > often rather vague and sloppy. Admittedly the Grundrisse is a difficult > text, and sometimes obscure, but if you translate so that it could intend to > mean all sorts of things or nothing at all, then we're not much further > ahead. > > Nicolaus tried to show Marx's thought process literally, "warts and all", > but the presumption is, that he somehow follows Marx's thought process > completely, and from the textual evidence, I doubt that quite a bit. As I > mentioned, I believe that once a text has been translated one or more times, > it's easier to improve the translation, because a lot of the simpler > problems have been solved already, and you can then concentrate on getting > the meaning good and sharp, paying attention to nuances. > > As regards Paul Bullock, I studied his corrected manuscript of Prof. Makoto > Itoh's "The Basic Theory of Capitalism", and really I cannot have a very > high opinion of Paul's demonstrated editorial/linguistic skills, since the > published text (Barnes & Noble 1988) is littered with straightforward errors > and poor styling. > > You can of course object to the Pelican library translation of Marx's > Capital on the ground that (1) it is published by Penguin/NLR, (2) it is > introduced by the dreaded Ernest Mandel, (3) it is a paperback, and so on. > However, it is definitely a better translation overall than previous ones, > Ben Fowkes and David Fernbach are very good translators, and people who deny > all that don't know what they are talking about. > > Translation is often regarded as low-status monkey work, but in reality it > involves a science and art of communication, and a considerable amount of > inventiveness and creativity as well as the ability to think clearly. > Translation can make or break a text, and consequently make or break a > communication; it can also twist the meaning of a message around, so that it > is critically a bit different from what is intended. We are used to having > the propaganda networks spout news at us in English, but behind that English > is a lot of translation, something which is often forgotten. The more > "globalised" we become, the more translation occurs. > > Jurriaan >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT