Languages ( was : Yiddish translation of Gita

[Lars Martin Fosse]

>>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 ).

In my opinion, this is a slightly different discussion. Language corresponds
to culture and is able to express the feelings and attitudes you find in a
given culture at any given time. Yet I would claim that a modern Norwegian
could communicate without serious linguistic problems with a Norwegian
living 100 years ago (in terms of being understood semantically) in spite of
the fact that values and attitudes have changed tremendously since 1898. But
of course there would be some problems caused by a number of underlying
assumptions (pragmatics). The question is: is this "language", or is it
something else? 

However, to follow the thread you suggest, an interesting phenomenon is the
elaborate "respect" categories that some languages have (Japanese, some
Indic languages). To express similar things in e.g. a Scandinavian language
would be very difficult, since these languages do not have such elaborate
expressions of hierarchy built into the language, not for that matter into
the culture. A popular parody of such language in Norway is the story of the
Japanese business man who had insufficient knowledge of English business
culture, and ended a business letter by saying "I remain your abjectly
humble servant and kiss the dust in front of your feet". Which should be
"yours sincerely". But again, is this simply language?

>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.

Obviously. Poetry is particularly difficult to translate. But I am not sure
if this has to do with values. 

>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 ).

This is definitely a different problem. I would claim that you could
translate correctly from Chinese if you have concepts available to match the
Chinese, but in practical life, you would have to use footnotes to explain
the Chinese concepts (which is a way of introducing new concepts into a
language). As for Chinese classics and the Christian values, that is not a
translation - or a language - problem, but a question of prudery or
prejudice. A number of texts that were incorrectly translated before, can
now be translated correctly because ethics and atttitudes have changed. They
could have been translated correctly 50 or 100 years ago, too, but this was
impossible for cultural reasons. The language was there, but not the
tolerance for what the texts actually had to say.

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.

I am not sure how to interpret this remark. Any translation of the Gita is
necessarily aimed at an audience of intellectuals or people with special
religious interests. But this is true of any book: they are all aimed at a
more or less precisely defined audiences, such as soccer fans, angling
enthousiasts or outdoor freaks. Or some kind of intellectuals. You seem to
be surprised that Yiddish speakers should have other interests than what
goes on in their shtetl, but given that Yiddish was spoken by a very large
group of people, there should theoretically be at least a small group with
unconventional interests.

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse


Dr.art. Lars Martin Fosse
Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
0674 Oslo

Tel: +47 22 32 12 19
Fax: +47 22 32 12 19
Email: lmfosse at online.no
Mobile phone: 90 91 91 45