Hei, Christian --

 

When you read something in your native language, do you translate it?  No, of course not. 

 

If one wishes to learn ONLY to read literature in a foreign language that is no longer spoken or written, one should focus as much as possible on developing the skills of reading.  Initially, of course, one will read from the "bottom up," that is, will look "at" the language, i.e., focus on the grammar and the vocabulary that one is learning.  However, as one progresses in reading ability, one will look "at" the language less and less and will begin to read from "top down," that is, will look "through" the words to the meaning and thus will not have to translate.  (My "look at" and "look through" analogy comes from the act of looking either at or through the screen of a screen door.) 

 

I seldom translate now into English when I read French.  I simply read and understand what I am reading without having to translate it into English first.  When I come to a word that I don't understand, I use a French dictionary, one that gives the meanings in French.  It is seldom that I have to resort to a French-English dictionary.  So, you see, translation is only an initial activity in learning an archaic language (one that is no longer spoken or written), an activity from which the helpful teacher will wean the student away as soon as possible.

 

Remember that I am talking about students who wish to learn only the skill of reading the archaic language.  Others, whose goal may be the linguistic study of the language itself or a comparative linguistic study, will focus on linguistic matters, with reading ability a secondary goal.  Still others, who wish to learn to translate from the source language into a target language, will focus on activities that help them develop that goal -- although it is probably best for them to learn to read the language as fluently as possible before they focus on translating.  The ability to read fluently in both languages is the foundation for sound translation.

 

As for translating from one's native tongue into the archaic language -- well, that is a very inefficient use of time for those students who wish to learn only to read the language.  Far better to spend that time on exercises that help one improve one's reading ability.  However, if one enjoys such a pastime, far be it from me to deny them that pleasure!  Some people enjoy doing crossword puzzles; others, translating into languages that are no longer spoken or written.

 

You mention "producing a text."  I assume you mean "writing" in the archaic language.  My question is Why on earth would you want to write (what?  letters?  short stories?  critical articles?  a novel?) in an archaic language?  Who would your audience be?  Certainly a very limited one.  If your goal is to learn to read, you certainly don't need to learn to write, as well.  If I have a choice of spending a half-hour doing an exercise that helps improve my ability to read Old Icelandic or doing an exercise that helps improve my ability to write in Old Icelandic, I will certainly choose the former.  Remember that we are not talking about modern languages here, but about archaic ones, languages produced by cultures that no longer exist.  The culture that produced Old Icelandic texts is "gone with the wind."  The Vikings are no more.  So why, except for kicks, would you, or anyone, wish to write to them, e.g., letters, or for them, e.g., stories?  Much more productive and interesting to learn to write in modern Icelandic and to modern Icelanders, no?  And to do this as efficiently as possible, one would need to study the grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and culture of modern Icelandic rather than Old Icelandic.

 

I hope that this has clarified the issue somewhat.

 

Gordon