From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2006 - 14:31:37 EDT
Hi Michael P: Well, that raises more questions than it answers -- The word that Smith used was "previous": [see footnote at the bottom of p. 873, Penguin ed.: "'The accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour' (Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, Bk II, Introduction.")]. Marx refers in parenthesis in the 1st para of Ch. 26 to "the 'previous accumulation' of Adam Smith" (Ibid). Since Marx was aware of the original wording, why did he choose the word "ursprunglichen" to denote "previous"? Note that this was a decision which Marx himself, rather than a translator, made. In solidarity, Jerry Michael P write: > Smith's Original becomes Ursprunlich becomes primitive. I think that it > improves with each mistranslation. Jerry asked: > Should "ursprunglichen" be translated as "primitive" or "original"? > To what extent does the translation have any import in terms of the debate > of the contemporary relevance or irrelevance of this process?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT