In case it might be helpful, here is Wittgenstein's
Philosophical Investigations section 43 in the original German along with Anscombe's translation, the new Hacker/Schulte/Anscombe translation, and my own atte
mpt at it.
Man kann für eine große Klasse von Fällen der Benützung des Wortes "Bedeutung" - wenn auch nicht für alle Fälle seiner Benützung - dieses Wort so erklären: Die Bedeutung eines Wortes ist sein Gebrauch in der Sprache.
Und die Bedeutung eines Namens erklärt man manchmal dadurch, dass man auf seine Träger zeigt.
Anscombe:
For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer.
Hacker et al:
For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word 'meaning' it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer.
My more word-for-word translation:
For a large class of cases of the use of the word 'meaning' [Bedeutung] -- albeit not for all cases of its use -- one can explain this word thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
And one sometimes explains the meaning of a name by pointing out its bearer.
Two things strike me about translating this passage.
One is that the German has far more words than the English. Is this just the nature of the two languages, or is Wittgenstein being wordy, either to slow the reader down or because he is choosing his words to say exactly what he means and needs this many to do so? [I was just wrong about this. See comments below.] Secondly, both Anscombe and Hacker & co. switch from 'defined' to 'explained' despite the German verb
erklären being the same in each case. It's understandable but potentially misleading, I think.
One is that the German has far more words than the English.
ReplyDeleteUmmm, no it doesn't. It has 50 words. Anscombe's translation has 47 words, your translation has 53.
Is this just the nature of the two languages, or is Wittgenstein being wordy, either to slow the reader down or because he is choosing his words to say exactly what he means and needs this many to do so?
Even when there are nonnegligible differences in wordiness, they are very much more likely to be caused by innocent differences in syntactical structure than by stylistic choices on the part of the author. (As a professional translator who gets paid by the word, I have developed an eye for these things.)
For instance, Heikki Nyman's canonical Finnish translation of this passage has just 30 words, without coming across as terse or compressed at all. It's just that there are no prepositions or articles in the language: what they express is expressed by inflection instead.
Secondly, both Anscombe and Hacker & co. switch from 'defined' to 'explained' despite the German verb erklären being the same in each case. It's understandable but potentially misleading, I think.
If that bothers you, then neither can Benützung and Gebrauch both be glossed as 'use', as you do. The former has a tint of utility, of "making-good-use-of" (remember Nietzsche's Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben).
I feel like chiming in with:
"For a large class of cases where the word 'meaning' is utilised – but not for all such cases – this word can be explained thus: The meaning of a word is its use in the language.
And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer."
But there is also a tacit pun on deuten (which could be used interchangeably for zeigen here) and Bedeutung, which is difficult to convey in English. One could translate: "What the name points to is sometimes explained by pointing at its bearer." But such an extreme hands-on translation would probably add little of value.
Thanks, Tommi.
DeleteUmmm, no it doesn't.
I should have counted! The German seems much more wordy to me, but that is probably because I have to think more about each word as I read it.
Even when there are nonnegligible differences in wordiness, they are very much more likely to be caused by innocent differences in syntactical structure than by stylistic choices on the part of the author.
I'm sure this is true.