Re: [TIED] Beekes' Translation English.

----- Original Message -----

From: Marc Verhaegen

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:19 PM

Subject: Re: [TIED] Beekes' Translation English.

 

If you already know the subject, you aren't interested in everything but just in nuances of opinion, and particular details. An IEist won't read Beekes to be told what the major PIE declensions were, but rather to see what kind of stand Beekes takes on various moot issues. Such a reader skips a lot of common ground to concentrate on points of difference. Stylistic defects or even minor mistakes don't matter much in this kind of selective reading (but of course nothing justifies faulty translation: a conscientious translator shouldn't touch a text he doesn't understand). If a book is meant also for students and interested lay people, it's the author's duty to smooth the readers' way. The problem is that although some academics know how to translate technicalities into human language, most don't. To write a good popular introduction to a difficult subject you need a special kind of talent -- a literary talent, in fact; being a great scholar is not enough, though it may help. The Feynman Lectures on Physics or Stephen Jay Gould's popular books on evolution spring to mind as positive examples. I wonder what Mark thinks of Szemerényi's Introduction. I disagree with many of Szemerényi's ideas; he was a colourful character and I suppose he relished being controversial. But I think he was a gifted writer -- one of those who don't lose touch with the reader as soon as they get down to discussing anything technical.

 

There is a Latin saying: Qui novit, neque id quod sentit exprimit, perinde est ac si nesciret (which might be interpreted loosely thus: A learned man who cannot express his meaning might just as well be ignorant).

 

Piotr

 

 

Marc: Well, I re-read a few things in Beekes. He's right. It is everyday Dutch. It's not his style that is difficult (to the contrary perhaps -- it gives a false impression that everything is very simple), but rather the stuff. Beekes seems to know what he's talking about & says it in grammatically clear sentences. But his knowledge is so much greater than mine (I know only a bit about Latin & Romance & German languages, & I'm no linguist) that I have difficulties in following his logic. I guess Glen or Piotr have no problems in reading Beekes. At least, if it's tanslated properly. I can't judge that, but I can imagine that Gabriner also had difficulties in translating this difficult stuff (although the sentence you mentioned was not difficult at all in Dutch, and could have been translated better IMO).