Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7970Re: [GTh] Emasculating Translations: Criteria and Culprits

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    May 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      S.Rhodes wrote:
      > Good points "guys" --- and thanks. This is a topic I've needed to see,
      > having been trapped in this matter in my own translation work.

      Can you say a little something about your translation work?
      Might make for a good discussion.

      > Just want to ask: do you think the proper tech term might be
      > "hypercorrection"?

      I'm not sure what that means, but one doesn't want to use labels with
      which those so labelled would disagree, since that only diverts attention
      away from substantive matters. Now knowing that Meyer views his
      translation of RWME as being based on a translational principle
      (wrong though it turns out to be) rather than on compensating for gender
      bias, I would no longer use 'over-compensating' as a label. I'm sure that
      he would also disagree with his translation of RWME being called a
      "correction" of any sort.

      You know, one of the implications of proving the "Anthropos principle"
      wrong is that it vindicates the translational choices both of those who
      use 'man' often (e.g., Lambdin and Blatz) and those who use it more
      sparingly (e.g., Layton and DeConick). In the case of those who use it
      often, one can say that they are using 'man' as the Copts used RWME,
      namely, sometimes in the sense of the male gender, sometimes as
      generic (humankind). In the case of those who use it more sparingly,
      one can say that they are compensating for gender bias by using it only
      when the context makes clear that it's the male gender in question, but
      not when the context makes clear that it's being used generically. Both
      of these are, I think, reputable translational positions.

      Mike Grondin
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic