tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post64276759158530279..comments2024-02-20T12:26:24.682-05:00Comments on language goes on holiday: PI 43Duncan Richterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-43986490772430161062014-02-24T17:35:26.578-05:002014-02-24T17:35:26.578-05:00Thanks, Tommi.
Ummm, no it doesn't.
I should...Thanks, Tommi.<br /><br /><i>Ummm, no it doesn't.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />I'm sure this is true.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-69462561445761778502014-02-24T11:53:58.921-05:002014-02-24T11:53:58.921-05:00One is that the German has far more words than the...<i>One is that the German has far more words than the English.</i><br /><br />Ummm, no it doesn't. It has 50 words. Anscombe's translation has 47 words, your translation has 53.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>Secondly, both Anscombe and Hacker & co. switch from 'defined' to 'explained' despite the German verb</i> erklären <i>being the same in each case. It's understandable but potentially misleading, I think.</i><br /><br />If that bothers you, then neither can <i>Benützung</i> and <i>Gebrauch</i> both be glossed as 'use', as you do. The former has a tint of utility, of "making-good-use-of" (remember Nietzsche's <i>Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben</i>).<br /><br />I feel like chiming in with:<br /><br />"For a <i>large</i> class of cases where the word 'meaning' is utilised – but not for <i>all</i> such cases – this word can be explained thus: The meaning of a word is its use in the language.<br /><br />And the <i>meaning</i> of a name is sometimes explained by <i>pointing</i> to its bearer."<br /><br />But there is also a tacit pun on <i>deuten</i> (which could be used interchangeably for <i>zeigen</i> here) and <i>Bedeutung</i>, which is difficult to convey in English. One could translate: "What the name points <i>to</i> is sometimes explained by pointing <i>at</i> its bearer." But such an extreme hands-on translation would probably add little of value.<br />Tommi Uschanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02852865209279310471noreply@blogger.com