Steiner describes translation as a fourfold process where damage to the original text is inevitable either by overcompensating or under-compensating. It is also described that the reciprocal nature of translation ultimately benefits the original text in some way: a bad translation would highlight the good points of the text, and a translation that surpasses the original would reveal unrealized "potentialities". Which of the 2 would be preferable? Do you think it is in fact inevitable that certain translations cannot be perfect?
Friday, November 27, 2020
Hermeneutic Motion (Q)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment