[INDOLOGY] Accuracy in translations

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Dominik,



Your cautionary note about the idea of a universal right way to translate
is well taken. Sorry I forgot to qualify what I wrote. It is only for those
who wish to somehow emulate what the Tibetan translations did, with their
unified and unifying translation terminology, that I think the only
possible or realistic answer in our time is to use the Sanskrit terminology.


Best regards,


David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.



On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> I am concerned that the conversation seems to have turned to the idea of a
> universal right way to translate.  Isn't this a mistake?  Several people in
> this conversation have noted the point about translating differently for
> different audiences.  And of course, we're all individuals ("I'm not!" :-)
> So there can't possibly be uniformity across translations of the same
> text.  Nor should we seek it, any more than we would require that a room
> full of painters should produce the same painting of a bowl of fruit.
>
> There is such a thing as error, and sometimes that accounts for very
> different translations.  But setting that trivial case aside, there can
> still be many good yet different translations that are appropriate to
> different audiences and that are done by translators with different
> backgrounds and propensities.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
> --
> Professor Dominik Wujastyk <http://ualberta.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk>
> ,
>
> Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity
> ,
>
> Department of History and Classics
> <http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/>
> ,
> University of Alberta, Canada
> .
>
> South Asia at the U of A:
>
> sas.ualberta.ca
> ​​
>
>
>
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 at 15:34, David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear Camillo,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you have provided the only possible answer in our time: for a
>> unified and unifying terminology use the Sanskrit terminology. It was long
>> ago possible to have standardized translation terminology adopted in
>> Tibetan by royal decree; this is not possible today in our highly
>> individualistic age. Today we may use Sanskrit terms directly, as you
>> suggest, or we may place them in parentheses after the translation term of
>> our choice. It is even possible to put them in comprehensive glossaries.
>> One way or the other, the Sanskrit terms themselves provide the only
>> realistic option for a unifying terminology.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> David Reigle
>> Colorado, U.S.A.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Camillo Formigatti <
>> camillo.formigatti at bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This was an utterly fascinating discussion to read, I’ve learned a lot,
>>> thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I may, I’d like to add my mustard to the discussion, pardon my two
>>> cents, even if the discussion seems to have run out of steam. If I remember
>>> correctly, no question was raised about the need to always try and
>>> translate for instance Sanskrit philosophical terms, which seems to be a
>>> given for all of us. The example from Chinese translations provided by
>>> David Reigle is very interesting in this respect, because it is a much
>>> needed call for a unified and unifying terminology. I believe that to a
>>> certain extent we already have a unifying terminology, the Sanskrit
>>> terminology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, if I remember correctly from my times in high school and as an
>>> undergraduate, no scholar of Classics or Theology has problems using the
>>> term logos, for instance, to distinguish it from mythos, or physis to
>>> distinguish from nomos, or even to use doxa. If we think of more recent
>>> philosophical terms, the Cartesian res cogitans is even included in the
>>> Merriam Webster dictionary—pretty much as Dharma. Why shouldn’t we then use
>>> Sanskrit terms directly, and obviously provide them with explanations
>>> either in the introduction or in notes? Sometimes I think we all suffer
>>> from a strange syndrome, namely that we always have to justify our choices,
>>> alas sometimes even our right to research, by trying to match specific
>>> expectations that other colleagues in similar fields actually disregard. If
>>> we always stay on the defensive, I fear that we will lose authority even in
>>> our own field.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Camillo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>> committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>> unsubscribe)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20180611/3c13b6bf/attachment.htm>