tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post7204199036632025383..comments2024-02-12T23:25:09.583-08:00Comments on Overweening Generalist: More On Translations (NOT: "Moron Translations")michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13526042582094867513noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-54548845565176828242012-06-28T12:33:33.239-07:002012-06-28T12:33:33.239-07:00I do not remember where I read that story about Ku...I do not remember where I read that story about Kubrick. I used to read a lot about him, and the books have blended together in my mind.Eric Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04312033917401203598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-11124579053220974272012-06-27T13:52:07.331-07:002012-06-27T13:52:07.331-07:00I didn't know that about Kubrick. I wonder why...I didn't know that about Kubrick. I wonder why he did that. If you remember where you read it I'd be much obliged.<br /><br />Today in the shower I was wondering about The Great Books of the Western World set, and what it would be like to read all those that were originally written not in English in our best machine translation. (I understand Google Translate is better than Babel Fish, for example.)<br /><br />The semantic meaning of a word within its own language, over a mere 200 years, can drift..."significantly"? (Ha!)...much less a word closer to 2000 years old. So a machine translator that would do a passing job for Dante (800 or so years of Italian) would have to be programmed by humans with databases for 800 year old Italian words before the Italian-to-English button would be pushed. (Then, no matter how "good" the translation, if you listened or watched Lera Boroditsky, depending on the language, there might STILL be some big gaps...)<br /><br />Otherwise, the trans wd probably read as fairly absurd...which might still yield interesting results?<br /><br />The idea of a large enough group of programmers who'd concentrated on historical linguistics and archaic lexicography seems doable. I can foresee an edition of Lucretius that sombunall classical scholars might accept as a passable and legit and an at-times intriguing version, come out.<br /><br />Then again, even if The Machine comes up with a duplicate of some Adept (say, a 21st century version in English of Cervantes that matches word for word the latest published translation "for modern readers")), then is it still a novelty? Borges's story about Pierre Menard suggests that, yes, it is novel. But because Menard was a human, and decided to rediscover the Catholic faith, fight the Moors, forget European history - not to forget knowing Spanish VERY WELL...he writes an exact copy of Don Quixote...without knowing the original?<br /><br />Wha? It's more complicated. The latter text is somehow RICHER than Cervantes's.<br /><br />Borges, in that piece: "The text of Cervantes and that of Menard are verbally identical, but the second is almost infinitely richer." Why? As Andre Maurois writes, "The Quixote that we read is not that of Cervantes, any more than our Madame Bovary is that of Flaubert. Every twentieth century reader involuntarily re-writes in his own way the masterpieces of past centuries."<br /><br />I hope I'm not destabilizing any of my Readers' cherished notions of the "sanctity of the text." If so, I apologize for any damages caused, and hope to make it up to you in "the future."<br /><br />This idea, when extrapolated, renders all translations - machine or human - as Something Else, eh?michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526042582094867513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-5320436238102076412012-06-27T10:19:58.694-07:002012-06-27T10:19:58.694-07:00Great stuff, as usual. It reminds me of the story...Great stuff, as usual. It reminds me of the story that Stanley Kubrick would have translations of his films translated back into English before he would approve their release.Eric Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04312033917401203598noreply@blogger.com