/lit/ - Literature

Avsey (although I don't like the title)

Read it in the original Russian. Start here:
>Иcтиннo, иcтиннo гoвopю вaм: ecли пшeничнoe зepнo,
>пaдши в зeмлю, нe yмpeт, тo ocтaнeтcя oднo; a
>ecли yмpeт, тo пpинeceт мнoгo плoдa.

>>6286527

The one you posted

>>6286566
Google translate is much better. And here's the original text:
http://az.lib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0100.shtml

>>6286533
>Avsey
>title
At first I was like 'What were you thinking, Ignat?'
But later I did have to ponder the question, 'What were you thinking, Constance?'

>>6286566
>P&V
>best translation of anything
Heehee always a troll

>>6286527
Either Avsey or McDuff. It's a shame their work has been outmarketed.

>>6286558
Indeed, indeed, I spoke: (esli=if?) a grain of wheat falls to the ground, it won't die (?), it will remain a part of it (?); and if (?) it does die, it will bear much crop.

r8 my translation, m8.
someone brush this up a little.
am I better than P&V yet?

>>6288988
That's not Dostoyevsky of course but rather the Gospel of John (12:24), so the source material you really want to work on there is
>ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ kόkkος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἀποθάνῃ, αὐτὸς μόνος μένει· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ, πολὺν kαρπὸν φέρει.
Also
>esli=if?
The ecли is really ἐὰν μὴ, so you want to translate it as 'unless'.
>am I better than P&V yet?
Who isn't better than them?

Be cautious with Garnett. Her phrasing is quite nice, but she took liberties with the text. She would omit parts she didn't like or didn't understand. Also, in this book she added something short but rather significant, i.e., the very last line in her translation, '"Hurrah for Karamazov!'," isn't present in the original.

>>6286723
>>6286533
>>6290314
I have the Garnett translation and have never read Dostoevsky before, am I in for a less than great time?

>>6286592
Why don't people like P&V?
Ever since I read their War and Peace I've been sold.

>>6290564
They're the most popular translators, so /lit/ dislikes them. /lit/ is better than most boards about hating what's popular, but they still do it.

>>6290571
Ah.
I come here a lot and never bothered to ask so I thought maybe people had a legitimate grievance with them.

>>6290564
>>6290571

Here we go again...

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>6290571
This only happened recently, as well. Last year this time they were the only acceptable translators especially regarding Dosty

>>6290704
You can be as cheeky as you want but I actually read this article, as a P&V advocate, and thought it was interesting. I'll be sure to check out a different standard (non Garnett) version of War and Peace next time I read it.
I'm doing P&V Anna Karenina right now and it seems alright, but I will never know Russian so there is an element of acceptance with my ignorance of poetic prose.

>>6290834
You're actually the second anon to whom I've linked this article and both of you responded the same way.

Just saying, /lit/ is comprised of people from all over the world and, yes, some are even Russian who know a word or two of Englando.

>>6290571
Their TBK is legitimately bad in spots. Not enough to ruin your experience of the book, but why not opt for someone better if you have a choice? I thought their C&P was better, though.

>>6290853
Well I wouldn't have asked in the first place if I wasn't looking to benefit from the experience of someone different from me. The only Russian novel I've read multiple versions of is C&P (P&V and McDuff?) and I vastly preferred P&V. What mostly sold me was when I was comparing W&P translations and found that they were one of the only ones in sight that left the French intact (and I know a bit of French) so that was a major draw for me.

>>6290857
I didn't notice it ever being bad, care to mention a specific spot?

>>6290483
fwiw I read Garnett's translation of Crime and Punishment, and I loved the book.

I read P&Vs version of Master and Margarita and it was not good.