From: Wagers, Will (wagers@iglobal.net)
Date: Mon Jul 08 1996 - 18:21:16 EDT
Dear B-whatevers,
There is a rudimentary Hyperliteral page at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2883/Hyperliteral.html
I have attempted a first pass at it, but comments are solicited. As the
page develops, I would like to arrive at a definition of *hyperliteral*,
to devise rules of thumb for a proper hyperliteral text, to offer essays
on hyperliterality, and to showcase a number of hyperliteral translations
for constructive comment. The Hyperliteral Page is an experiment, is
subject to change as we learn and define, is a cooperative effort. Any
sane and civil input is welcome.
Kevin W. Woodruff has gotten us started with his work-in-progress, _An
Exegetical Analysis of Proverbs_.
I have been defending hyperliterality on ANCIEN-L (which surprised me).
In the process, many useful comments and criticisms were made, I think.
1. Hyperliterality is the mark of an amateur translation. I think there is
truth in this, certainly in my own case. I think a novice is far more likely
to be impressed by certain etymologies, turns of phrase, etc. And, it is
certainly a possible source of error. (So, I hope some senior people will
visit the page occasionally to keep the amateurs among us on solid ground.)
On the other hand, once a person is thoroughly "schooled", their
translations tend to become very predictable. I would like to see more
perspectives on the text. My own predilection is a scientific point of view
--that is, the scientific metaphors which are the foundation of many
Biblical notions of divinity-- as opposed (sometimes) to theological
interpretations.
2. Hyperliteral translations are ugly and stupid. Well, they certainly can
be. After all, the first principle of a hyperliteral text is to discover and
preserve after translation something about the original text. I may
be more hyperliteral than most, as I do favor "cruder" translations in
many instances; however, someone with a bit more poetry in their soul
may be able to bring forth the same features of the original in a more
beautiful style. (One fellow complained that translations of hieroglyphs
were already too hyperliteral.)
3. Making ungrammatical translations is idiotic. I received this response
after repeating a suggestion which I made on B-Greek of retaining the
gender of Greek pronouns. (It wasn't very popular on B-Greek either.)
And, even if I must eventually try it myself, I think it is worth an
experiment. I intend to try and collect instances where hyperliteral
versions clarify a passage. At this stage, I think experimentation is
the name of the game.
Something I've discovered with my own hyperliteral translations is that
the narrower the range of verses (the shorter the passage), the easier
it is to provide an alternative translation. Because the passage must
make sense in a smaller context, the range of possibilities is greater.
If you find a one sentence fragment, it could mean just about anything.
So, it occurs to me that in an anthology, like the Bible, in which the
context is taken to be over a thousand pages of text in different
languages over a period of hundreds (thousands?) of years, the
constraints on the contextual approach are unreasonable. In other
words, in assuming these books are related in that they are the words
of God, but in no other way, the meanings of passages and possibly
entire books is subject to distortion from the pressure to make sense
of it in the context of the entire book. So, context is definitely a multi-
edged weapon. Another difficulty of the divine context is that it means
the passages need not make sense in a larger context, e.g. Hellenistic
literature, apocalyptic literature, etc.
So, for the purposes of experiment, I think the hyperliteral translator
must be able to define the context of the translation, whether it be a
section, a book, the Bible, or a genre. For a scientist, it is very important
to try and control the variables. This is done by narrowing the scope to
the necessary degree. Whatever principles emerge in this restricted
context must prove themselves again in a larger context to be applied
there; but, the results in the smaller context are not invalidated. If I
define my context as, say, the first book of Moses, my interpretation
cannot be extended (without further proof) to all the books of Moses.
On the other hand, my intepretation cannot be invalidated by something
outside the specified context, e.g. by something Saul writes (say) a few
hundred years later. Obviously, judgement and experience are required
to make this system work. I expect the experiment to give us that
experience.
So, a beginning has been made. I welcome your comments, and especially
your translations.
Hyperliterally yours,
Will Wagers "Reality is the best metaphor."
ousia: http://www.iglobal.net/pub/wagers/ousia
Web Mechanix: http://www.10mb.com/webmechanix
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT