From: "Yoon Ha Lee"
> >1) "Languages", as such, do not exist. When we say we are speaking
English,
> what we >are really saying is that the kinds of speech we are using are
> similar enough to allow >mutual intelligibility. In fact, we all speak
> slightly differently, with our own forms of >language that themselves are
> different from one point in time to another.
> There seems to be a philosophical/practical schism about translation here
> which is utterly fascinating. Yoon Ha's comments state the philosophical
> dilemma that "direct translations are nearly impossible." You refute with
> Pardon--that wasn't *my* comment, that was the comment of the person
> whose post I forwarded, who was responding to something I had said. Just
> for the record--though I do agree with it in spirit.
This wasn't my intention. *You* said (citing your Russian teacher):
> > My Russian teacher really tried to impress on us that you can't always
> > directly translate words. For an example, she would write Russian words
> > up on the board and give the English "equivalent". *Then* she would tell
> > us what the word *really* means--all the connotations and nuances that
> > come from being a Russian. Direct translations are nearly impossible.
To which Thomas Wier said:
> Well, "usually" only in proportion to the abstraction that the word is
being
> used as a label for. There is, on the contrary, usually no problem in
> translating words like "mother", "sun", "grass", etc., since most language
> groups have similar notions about what those entail.
To which I said:
I find this argument interesting, since you said earlier (citing Thomas,
perhaps before you joined the list? [July 23]):
> > >1) "Languages", as such, do not exist. When we say we are speaking
English,
> > what we >are really saying is that the kinds of speech we are using are
> > similar enough to allow >mutual intelligibility. In fact, we all speak
> > slightly differently, with our own forms of >language that themselves
are
> > different from one point in time to another.
And then I expounded:
> > There seems to be a philosophical/practical schism about translation
here
> > which is utterly fascinating. Yoon Ha's comments state the philosophical
> > dilemma that "direct translations are nearly impossible." You refute
with
blah, blah, blah...
So when I say "Yoon Ha's comment", I refer to the comment about what your
Russian teacher was trying to demonstrate. Whether you agree with her or not
is your business, but that's what I was addressing (and quoting). The number
of >'s seemed to indicate that it was something you were citing directly and
not something you were responding to. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
Kou