[C] [Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein, Translations & "Queer"
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:10:26 -0800 (PST)
In the new 4th edition of Philosophical Investigations, certain changes were
made to the translation of the German text. The reasons why are discussed in
the preface. Although we have discussed this before, there is one that I wanted
to discuss, but was uncertain about. Here it is:
"Anscombe translated seltsam and merkwurdig by 'queer.' We have translated
seltsam by 'odd,' 'strange,' or 'curious,' and merkwurdig by 'remarkable,'
'strange,' 'curious' or 'extraordinary.' " (xiii).
I think the basic idea of the above sentence is to say this: nowhere in the
book is the expression "queer" used. For a while, I had wondered whether the
use of the expression "queer" in Wittgenstein's works was the result of
translations of his German (which the above sentence suggests at least for PI).
But recently, I have found an abundance of evidence that Wittgenstein used the
word in ENGLISH when lecturing (and otherwise speaking). And now comes what in
essence is a small and petty question, even at a theoretical level (I guess):
to what extent is this particular judgment a "translation" or a re-write? I'm
just concerned here that Anscombe translated it the way she heard it presented
to her in 1942-45, which in her eyes overruled anything else.
Here's the issue. You have a strange speaker (Wittgenstein), even in his native
language. He then says "queer" to describe various things. He then uses the
term seltsam and merkwurdig for, presumably, those same sorts of things. One
could take the position that Wittgenstein's relative inexperience with English
caused him to use an expression in a weird way ('queer' was queer, so to
speak). And so the translators, who know English better, and who know the gist
of the idea, change it accordingly.
But the other argument is this. If in the 1930s and 40s people sometimes said
"queer," and if Wittgenstein picked up upon and deployed this language
play, what right or status do scholars claim to have to sanitize and speak for
Wittgenstein under the rubric of "translation." This seems almost to venture
into copy editing or style revision. Aside from the fact that it strips
away some glimpse of Wittgenstein mannerisms -- which I would argue is always a
bad thing to do -- it seems on the merits that one would have to have a rather
lofty perch from which to start rewriting Wittgenstein's words.
Now, the truth is that this is such a small matter. I doubt anyone would really
care (even Wittgenstein). But I do nonetheless wonder whether it is "correct"
for scholars of English, German and Wittgenstein to be telling Wittgenstein, in
effect, not to use "queer" when expressing his points in English, because the
suggestion is that they are the governors of those points. I'm ok with that if
its a school boy. And I might be ok with it for people quite advanced in
English/German. But I'm not ok if its Wittgenstein, and I think Anscombe was
right to translate it the way she heard it. (But I confess to be unsure as I
say it!!!)
Yours arguing over nothing.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
