[ 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: 165 KB, 773x1024, nietzsche[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4292316 No.4292316[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/

I've been reading Human, All Too Human and I happened upon an aphorism I don't quite understand.

184:
"It is neither the best nor the worst of a book that is untranslatable."

>> No.4292335

>>4292316
sounds untranslatable

>> No.4292340

>>4292335

Haha, yeah, I was thinking that it was probably something that would make sense in German but not in English.

>> No.4292357

3 possible options

Either he means that only mediocre books are untranslatable, and this probably due a sentiment of indifference rather than the language itself, here Fred would be going his usual route in substituting a criteria for one which might catch the reader by surprise (as he always does), "indifference" rather than "structural problems of translation"

Or that the untranslateability of a book is neither the best nor worst aspect of it. Here he might be saying that untranslateability is not so bad, for even by fully rendering out a book in translation, the product is made awkward by quirks of its original language, which, despite perfect translation cannot help but be sore thumbs in the prose (think of idioms for example).

And ultimately,
he might be making a direct example of the concept through a kind of meta-aphorism


either way its a confusing fucking sentence

>> No.4292368

>>4292357

The third one would imply that he's specifically targeting non german readers of his work, which is a huge stretch and wrong as fuck lol. disregard.

>> No.4292387

>>4292357
It's probably the second one. Thanks.

>> No.4292443

I believe he means that what is lost in translation is not exactly the innermost emotion, the object that is the best and the worst of the work, but, instead, the middle thing, that which brings it all together and thus make you access that best and worst of a book. That is, what is untranslatable is the little thing, the small term, the difference in the syntax between two languages, not the core idea of a book. It could imply that just because you are reading it in a different language doesn't mean that you can't understand its most important points, just that it might be a way more unstable track to get there.

>> No.4292479

>>4292316
What is best of book is largely translatable: prose might become verbose or esoteric; annotation may be necessary for reference; idiom might lose sway to another; what matters most to the translator can be salvaged by falling into other pitfalls in good or bad translations. If the work is inherently flawed, only a bad translator can mask it, and, even then, it would make the best of the book. What is untranslatable is the book in itself, but that is probably true of the book in its original language also.

>> No.4292527

>>4292316

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/the-gay-science/aphorism-354-quote_23012f934.html
Checkout his views on language. Language is what is common and mediocre, not what is rare for either being excellent or terrible. Thus, since language itself never touches these two strata, but only what's common, translating from one language to another won't even have to deal with the best or the worst.
As always, you can never take anything Nietzsche says in isolation. You have to jump around in his books, often between books to clarify his ideas and resolve apparent contradictions. I'm reminded of his discussion of aphorisms and walking from "mountain top to mountain top" in Zarathustra.

>> No.4292562

>>4292316
you can translate words but not meaning, and since meaning is unknowable but to the writer or reader it is not subject to a standard of value