Languages ( was : Yiddish translation of Gita

[winnie]

----

>Languages, by the way, do not have values. They transmit values. A
>language is just a neutral agent.

>>I disagree with this statement. Not seldom the words of a language
>>which served as tool for transmitting concepts belonging to the
>>Weltanschauung of a culture may become the very substance,
>>the very abstract object conceived.So the words and consequently
>>the language incorporate values.Not even metalanguages as that of, say,
>>Pânini in his Ashtâdhyayî, are that neutral.
>
>I would still claim that any language, in terms of grammar and morphology,
>is capable of transmitting any value system.
>
>The problem is, of course, the vocabulary and concepts connected with the

>> There you are.

>However, if you convinced the British upper class to use Yiddish
>instead of the Queen's English, it could equally well be manipulated to
>express English upper class values. The same argument applies to any other
>language.

>Consequently, I will still maintain that a language is a neutral agent.
>
This question could lead  us to the indian speculations about language. The
spotha theory, for example. The ancient philosophy of grammar treated this
highly important topic in connection with the theory of eternal sounds, etc.
But just to remain more close to modern western paradigm I would like to
point out that the values to be transmitted by any language- neutral as you
say- are not always very well transmitted. Values are also underlying
intentions or constitutents ( to use Adorno's aesthetic terminology ).
Thus Joyces Ulysses translated into German lost terribly in its underlying
values ( rythm, richness of images, interplay of sounds, etc ). The same is
valid for the Japanese translations of the Finnegans Wake ( there are three
of them ). That's a heroic tour de force and quite a linguistic chalenge.
Great merit, but perhaps dangerous in the case of certain classical texts if
there is not a reservoir of similar concepts capable to match. Not a few of
the early ( and even  later ) translations of  Chinese classics into
European languages were disastrous, to say the least.Those  translators
didn't have living matching concepts to do a proper job ( they didn't have
often also the intention, since if they did it  would mean to contest and
put at stake their own christian values ).I do believe the Gîtâ must have
been translated into Yiddish by highly intellectual people ( although I
didn't check it yet :-) ) and all the efforts were for sure done in order to
bring as close as possible such a universe of  different philosophical
concepts as that of the Hindu civilization aiming at specific audience of
readers. But still it sounds exotic to me and that's the reason for my
initial remark.

Best regards