I have seen brackets used for lots of different things:

1. elements of meaning that are *presupposed* by the Sanskrit expression and wouldn't otherwise make sense to English readers, e.g. "contact [with the sense-faculties]" for saṁnikarṣa. "Contact" on its own won't convey a specific enough meaning, unless the phrase "contact with the sense-faculties" has been used in the same context. There are three types of presupposition, as far as I can see:
 - 1a. lexical (saṁnikarṣa- basically means indriyasaṁnikarṣa-)
 - 1b. syntactic (a word syntactically requires another word that is not expressed, e.g., the agent/patient of an absolute participle)
 - 1c. pragmatic (if "Manu" has been mentioned four verses previously, and the word smr̥ti shows up, we can assume it's Manu's); most cases of anaphoric parentheses (where the scholar replaces an "it" or a "that" with its antecedent in parentheses) fall into this category.
2. elements of meaning that the Sanskrit language just does not encode in the same way as European languages, e.g., instances where no agent is expressed in the Sanskrit, but English either requires or prefers one.
 - 2a. brackets are often used to introduce specificity or individuation that Sanskrit doesn't generally express, hence "their [own]," "every [individual] word," etc.
3. expansions of a thought that has been expressed in an extremely compressed way (e.g., a comparison is made between two things, but the common property is omitted); cases of parenthetical paraphrase probably fall into this category as well.
4. discursive and pragmatic shifts that are conventionalized in certain genres (e.g., rendering nanu as "[One might object as follows:]")
5. bitextuality (the parentheses offer an alternative set of meanings for the same text)

Others can probably add to this list. Case (3) is probably what Alex has in mind, where texts like the Ślōkavārttika or Pramāṇavārttika just seem like nonsense without such expansions, although my guess is that many such expansions probably do "follow straightforwardly from the Sanskrit," and probably belong more to case (1) or (2) than to case (3). Sanskrit drops subject and object arguments all the time, and if we're not totally certain of what the implicit argument is, we might as well be honest about it. But whether that honesty has to involve parentheses is another question. The use of parentheses for case (3) is completely arbitrary, in the sense that one could use "speakers," or marginal notes, or some similar contrivance (ditto for 5). In case (2), which is on reflection pretty similar to case (1), I don't quite understand why parentheses are used for some cases of an English element of meaning being merely "implicit" in the Sanskrit (e.g., particularity, contrast, sequence) and not others (e.g., definiteness or indefiniteness), and overuse of these kinds of parentheses creates the impression that one is reading first-year Sanskrit exams.

Most of the specific examples that have come up in this discussion don't seem to require parentheses at all. I wonder if Professor Bronkhorst, for instance, would have been happier if Cowell and Gough had simply omitted "by us" than if they had put it in brackets. By the way, Indologists are not the only people on earth to appreciate that texts are difficult, subtle, allusive, that they have multiple interpretations, etc. But we do seem to be the only people who communicate our knowledge and appreciation of these facts by this particular typographic tick.

2018-06-06 0:33 GMT+02:00 Herman Tull via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:
Birgit's point is one I have mulled over for several years now. To "translate" is to bring something from one language (place, context) into another. And, yes, that may require quite a lot of interpreting, "paraphrasing," etc. It is a unique art.

But, underlying this is that, at least in my case (and I suspect this is true for many of us on this list), I was never trained in the art of translation. Language and linguistics, even history...yes, but not translation per se. When I "translate," I try to capture the original in my "translation," but is that "translating,"? Or, just an attempt to represent my historical-linguistic inquiries? 

An interesting (and fun) read that looks at some of these issues is O'Flaherty's (Doniger's) essay, "On Translating Sanskrit Myths" in Radice and Reynolds, The Translator's art: essays in honour of Betty Radice. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1987.

Herman Tull

On Tue, 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.

Best
Alex

-- 
Alex Watson
Professor of Indian Philosophy
Head of Philosophy Department
Ashoka 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
​.​

South Asia at the U of A:
 
​sas.ualberta.ca​
​​

_______________________________________________
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)
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)