[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.99 MB, 3543x2362, Hobbs026.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10465938 No.10465938 [Reply] [Original]

I want to read Ulysses but my english is meh so I'll probably read a french traduction. Am I losing a lot by not reading it in english?

>> No.10465975

>>10465938
Honestly I would say its not a big deal.
Joyce's writing is the kind where the content is the be all end all rather than flamboyantly poetic. It should take well to translation in general

>> No.10465979

>>10465938
"a lot" is putting it optimistically. This is one of the only English novels that has music in the language.

>> No.10466087

>>10465938
>traduction

frérot get your shit together

>> No.10466101

>reading a translation of a prose stylist
what

>> No.10466194
File: 240 KB, 1066x600, 1514378471442.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10466194

>B-but the prose

Where do these retards come from.
Please provide me with one single sentence in Ulysses that would be difficult to translate to French. Just a single one

>> No.10466526

>>10466194
Well there's that entire chapter where each paragraph has different subtle anachronisms to capture the transformation of English from vulgar Latin mixed with English to Chaucer's style to Shakespeare's through two dozen other eras, authors, and parodies of works to reach his own modernism and then a stream of untranslatable Irish slang. You can't reproduce Chaucer's style of English in French or the subtle tip-offs that show you he's moved into making fun of specific authors like Dickens or the imitation of the KJV translation. Even a native English speaker who was fairly well-read would miss a good half of the meaning in that chapter. Stop calling others retards when you're making retarded assumptions yourself about a book you've never read.

>> No.10466531

>>10466194
Her antiquity in preceding and surviving succeeding tellurian generations: her nocturnal predominance: her satellitic dependence: her luminary reflection: her constancy under all her phases, rising and setting by her appointed times, waxing and waning: the forced invariability of her aspect: her indeterminate response to inaffirmative interrogation: her potency over effluent and refluent waters: her power to enamour, to mortify, to invest with beauty, to render insane, to incite to and aid delinquency: the tranquil inscrutability of her visage: the terribility of her isolated dominant resplendent propinquity: her omens of tempest and of calm: the stimulation of her light, her motion and her presence: the admonition of her craters, her arid seas, her silence: her splendour, when visible: her attraction, when invisible.

>> No.10466535

>>10465938
There are translations?
I imagine they lose all the styling of the prose so no, not worth reading outside of the english language.

>> No.10466573

>>10466526
French is also derived from vulgar latin has its own anachronistic antecedents. Try again

>> No.10466579

>>10466531
Literally most of these words are French. Translating this would be a sinch

>> No.10466600

>>10466573
I know. I speak French, you daft fuck. Like you said yourself, it has its OWN anachronisms that evoke wildly different periods and connotations. The ones Joyce writes with in English are untranslatable. The innumerable puns and language games are not translatable. Why are you trying so hard to argue this?

>> No.10466611

>>10466600
Certain puns would be translatable.
I simply think its a vast overstatement of how much would be lost in the process, especially to a language with as sophisticated a literary tradition and so shortly removed from English as French. There would be some sacrifices of course but the notion that the novel would be in any way lost is absurd nonsense

>> No.10466617

>>10465938
Don't read it.

>> No.10466673

>>10465938
You'll get a great deal out of it regardless.

>>10466573
>>10466611
You're an idiot though that probably has never taken a translation studies class in his life and might even be (gasp) monolingual

>> No.10466770

>>10465938
Pour avoir feuilleté la dernière traduction française, je ne peux pas dire qu'elle est "mauvaise" mise en parallèle avec l'original (elle a des choix de traduction intéressants) mais le résultat n'est pas une oeuvre qui vaut d'être lue en soi.

>> No.10466846

Is there any Irish slang or shit in the book?

>> No.10466901

>>10466579
>a sinch
>claims to know English and French well enough to know Ulysses would translates well
My sides

>> No.10466964

>>10465938
>Am I losing a lot by not reading it in english?

Yes.

Still worth reading though. Really there are very, very few writers of merit in any language not worth reading in translation. Usually it's writers whose content is predominately direct, literal images and lacking in narrative or ideas. Baudelaire and Rimbaud are two, I'd say. I'm not sure of any esteemed novelist or long-form poet I would put into this category, to be honest---'long-form poetry' to include Lautréamont, even though his work mostly matches the qualifier I pointed out earlier.