Re: [GTh] Emasculating Translations: Criteria and Culprits
- S.Rhodes wrote:
> Good points "guys" --- and thanks. This is a topic I've needed to see,Can you say a little something about your translation work?
> having been trapped in this matter in my own translation work.
Might make for a good discussion.
> Just want to ask: do you think the proper tech term might beI'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.