On Jun 5, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Birgit Kellner via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
_______________________________________________I find the positive reasons adduced by Alex also convincing. I am wondering sometimes whether instead of the "translation without brackets" approach it might not be better to begin devising a new genre, one that does not announce itself as "translation", but more of a paraphrase or interpretive rendering which somehow makes transparent (1) that someone renders a Sanskrit text in another language (English or German or ...) and thus follows the logic / narrative and terminology of the text and (2) that interpretative work has gone into this rendering that makes it expressing one among several perhaps equally possible interpretations. Perhaps the problem is not one of how to translate, but that translation is overcharged with too many different and divergent functions, and expectations.
I don't find Dominik's argument to the effect that using brackets in a translation is premised on the assumption that the Sanskrit text is incoherent particularly convincing. Authors of texts make assumptions about what their audience knows, and expect them to fill in gaps. We are at a historical distance from these authors, and which gaps to fill, and how, is interpretative work we have to do, and (now going back to Alex' points about intellectual honesty) it may be advisable to signal where more of this work has been required, for instance, by brackets. This isn't a question of incoherence, it is perhaps a question of recognizing a legitimate multiplicity of different renderings.
Best regards, Birgit Kellner
Am 2018-06-05 um 21:19 schrieb Johannes Bronkhorst via INDOLOGY:
I tend to agree with Alex. Much depends on what readers the translation is for. Since even professional Sanskritists may use translations to inform themselves about texts that are not the focus of their research, these texts better not misinform their readers.
A concrete example may clarify this. Cowell and Gough’s translation of the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha ends with the words:
“The system of Śaṅkara, which comes next in succession, and which is the crest-gem of all systems, has been explained by us elsewhere; it is therefore left untouched here.”
Editions of the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha that were made after this translation added a chapter on the “system of Śaṅkara” found in some manuscripts. Subsequently, and perhaps partly because of this translation, most scholars accepted that this final chapter had been composed by the same author.
However, the Sanskrit translated by Cowell and Gough has nothing corresponding to by us. It reads: itaḥ paraṃ sarvadarśanaśiromaṇibhūtaṃ śāṃkaradarśanam anyatra nirūpitam (or: likhitam) ity atropekṣitaṃ. And the question as to the authorship of this chapter remains open. Cowell and Gough might have done their readers, and scholarship, a favour by putting [by us] in brackets.
Johannes Bronkhorst
On 5 Jun 2018, at 20:16, Alex Watson via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
_______________________________________________I found Dominik's list of reasons for using brackets incomplete / one-sided.I would include at least the two following positive reasons.
1. While brackets may disrupt the flow for readers who are not also looking at the Sanskrit, they are helpful for those who are comparing your translation with the Sanskrit. (Since translations of most Sanskrit philosophical texts, especially the more technical ones, are extremely difficult to understand without simultaneously looking at the Sanskrit, I find the use of brackets in the translation of philosophical texts more desirable than undesirable.)
2. Intellectual honesty. Use of brackets signals what follows straightforwardly from the Sanskrit, and what is the result of addition or interpretation on your part – which English etc. words correspond to Sanskrit words, and what you have chosen to add in to complete the sense, to disambiguate, or to make explicit to the reader what would have remained obscure if you had just stuck to rendering the Sanskrit words.
BestAlex
--
Alex WatsonProfessor of Indian PhilosophyHead of Philosophy DepartmentAshoka University
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@gmail.com>
To: Harry Spier <hspier.muktabodha@gmail.com>
Cc: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Bcc:
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 20:23:19 -0600
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Brackets in modern sanskrit translations
Your question presses a big red button for me :-) My thoughts are here.
--
Professor Dominik Wujastyk,
Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity,
University of Alberta, Canada.
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@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@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
-- ---- Prof. Dr. Birgit Kellner Director Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia Austrian Academy of Sciences Hollandstrasse 11-13/2 A-1020 Vienna Austria Phone: +43-(0)1-51581-6420 Fax: +43-(0)1-51581-6410 http://ikga.oeaw.ac.at
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistinfo.indology.info&data=02%7C01%7C%7C792c011ed1ea42154edc08d5cb25c1da%7Ce285d438dbba4a4c941c593ba422deac%7C0%7C0%7C636638285386269930&sdata=sEVmWZ0AGeBt1%2FaceVOZ99dYkOFldY29TUSJhqcPl4g%3D&reserved=0 (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
