RE: [Authentic_SCA] documentation for A&S?
- View SourceOn Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:31 AM, andrea@...
> This question is for people who do research on cultures in whic theyAs long as you acknowlegde that it is no longer a primary source (unless
> don't speak the language. Is it normally acceptable to use published
> English translations of primary sources written in another langauge?
you include the original).
It is now secondary.
Translation requires interpretation, and early languages in particular may
have mutated such that translations may not convey the original intent of
Studium doscendi volutate quae cogi non potest constat.
- View Source
"Amy L. Hornburg Heilveil" wrote:
At 12:30 PM 9/29/2001 +0000, you wrote:I admire you for doing this and I still want a Tibetan English dictionary so that
This question is for people who do research on cultures in whic they
don't speak the language. Is it normally acceptable to use published
English translations of primary sources written in another langauge?
I do this, but I don't like to. I prefer to get a dictionary and do a translation of the materials myself.
I could do the same, but (very big but) wouldn't this just create a literal translation that likely lacks the subtlety of meaning that familiarity with the language brings? I mean, if you had to translate English, you would prabably run into a lot of trouble trying to translate the meaning of idioms such as "hole in one" or "bad apple" or.... well, you get the idea. I would think that a translation or two a long side the original language would be a necessity for doing this kind of primary research unless you are familiar enough with the language that you dont need a dictionary.
- View SourceAt 06:33 PM 10/1/01 -0700, you wrote:
> I do this, but I don't like to. I prefer to get a dictionary and do aI gotta agree with Dorje here :-)
> translation of the materials myself.
>I admire you for doing this and I still want a Tibetan English dictionary
>I could do the same, but (very big but) wouldn't this just create a
>literal translation that likely lacks the subtlety of meaning that
>familiarity with the language brings?
Idioms can certainly be difficult to translate, but keep in mind also that
not all dictionaries give explanations of grammar and syntax. (Most good
ones do, but many also presuppose some knowledge about noun declensions and
verb conjugations; ie, they may simply give the forms for genitive and
dative without explaining what they mean.)
I'm a language geek, but I still don't always trust the dictionary by
itself if I don't know the grammar of a language. German, for example; I
know a few words, but I usually have to make a wild guess at
syntax. Having the German original, a dictionary, AND an English
translation means I can double-check on word definitions, and that I don't
have to worry about figuring out the sentence structure. (This is a real
example, btw; last year I was in a production of "The Magic Flute," all in
German, but the only translation our director provided us was this silly
rhyming business stuffed with "thees" and "thous"...it had *nothing* to do
with what the characters were really saying!!)
Producing your own translation is a great idea, but unless it's a language
you know well, I would still recommend having a published translation (as
modern a one as possible), or a translation by a friend fluent in the
language in question, alongside the original just to double-check everything.
And speaking of translations, my Latin homework is calling me...