Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Review Article: ‘Up With Which We Should Not (Necessarily) Put’: Some Thoughts on Literal Translation

Review Article: ‘Up With Which We Should Not (Necessarily) Put’: Some Thoughts on Literal... : `UP WITH WHICH WE SHOULD NOT (NECESSARILY) PUT': SOME THOUGHTS ON LITERAL TRANSLATION Adam Beresford1 Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins (trans.), Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2011), xxi + 339 pp., $35.00. ISBN 9780226026749. Robert Bartlett and Susan Collins (henceforth, B&C) describe their well received translation of the Nicomachean Ethics as literal. I am interested in what they mean by that, and in the wider issues of literal translation, and will construct this review around those interests. In explaining why they favour literal translation B&C appeal to the `meticulousness' with which Aristotle chooses his words (p. xv). This is unexpected, because it has no bearing on syntactical literalism, i.e. the goal of staying as close as possible to the gross grammatical structure of each phrase or clause. That is (traditionally) the defining feature of literal translation, and it is what translators usually mean when they say that a text has been translated `as literally as sound English usage permits' (i.e. they usually mean `we've stuck to the Greek syntax, except when it sounds too strange'). Yet B&C don't mention syntax in their account of literalism. The appeal to Aristotle's precision http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought Brill

Review Article: ‘Up With Which We Should Not (Necessarily) Put’: Some Thoughts on Literal Translation

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/review-article-up-with-which-we-should-not-necessarily-put-some-324cdm0vWv

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0142-257x
eISSN
2051-2996
DOI
10.1163/20512996-90000519
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

: `UP WITH WHICH WE SHOULD NOT (NECESSARILY) PUT': SOME THOUGHTS ON LITERAL TRANSLATION Adam Beresford1 Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins (trans.), Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2011), xxi + 339 pp., $35.00. ISBN 9780226026749. Robert Bartlett and Susan Collins (henceforth, B&C) describe their well received translation of the Nicomachean Ethics as literal. I am interested in what they mean by that, and in the wider issues of literal translation, and will construct this review around those interests. In explaining why they favour literal translation B&C appeal to the `meticulousness' with which Aristotle chooses his words (p. xv). This is unexpected, because it has no bearing on syntactical literalism, i.e. the goal of staying as close as possible to the gross grammatical structure of each phrase or clause. That is (traditionally) the defining feature of literal translation, and it is what translators usually mean when they say that a text has been translated `as literally as sound English usage permits' (i.e. they usually mean `we've stuck to the Greek syntax, except when it sounds too strange'). Yet B&C don't mention syntax in their account of literalism. The appeal to Aristotle's precision

Journal

Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.