[C] [Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein, Translations & "Queer"
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 20:25:23 -0800 (PST)
(J)
... I think that was an excellent defense. I cannot dispute the the cogency of
its appeal. But let me at least offer another perspective. It isn't necessarily
one I believe, more than it is one I "feel" (as a passion). It goes like this:
1. Wittgenstein knew English well enough. And the test of when one comes to
know a word, generally speaking, is when one can deploy it. And Wittgenstein
had a pattern of using the expression "queer" in English, which presumably
conformed to a usage he picked up in the language culture. None of this is to
deny that he could be using a strange sense of the word. But I think the
general gist of "queer" is "weird." (peculiar?).
2. I do not deny that the translation should be focused on Wittgenstein's
German text rather than his English. But what I might deny is that his German
is free from the similar peculiarities that you see in his English. There are
historical sources for this. Monk and others note that his German expressions
could mean something ordinary and peculiar all at the same time. There are
scores of accounts of him being frustrated with translations of his work. (From
Waisman, to Rhees, to anyone). Wittgenstein had a serious historical problem
with people understanding his philosophy, even in his own language. I want to
suggest this is because of the way he philosophized and the intensity of his
ideas (as well as his personality). His thoughts, in a way, sort of "breached"
language. Monk writes, "Wittgenstein's language has the singularly rare quality
of being both colloquial and painstakingly precise." (414).
3. Note that weird/peculiar is similar to, and in some cases synonymous
with, "odd, strange or curious" (the translations for seltsam), and only cousin
to "remarkable" or "extraordinary" (some of the translations for
merkwurdig). The question seems to boils down in the first instance (seltsam)
to a code of style -- aristocrats don't say "queer" -- and in the second
(merkwurdig) for a more specific sense, for clarity's sake. Or, the question
boils down to this: Wittgenstein's English didn't know the Queen's word for
weird, and he couldn't mind p's and q's when it came to some basic
English expressions.
I must tell you I have trouble with the latter idea. I think Wittgenstein
knowingly deployed "queer" because of its mystical aesthetic. Think of the
intensity of the riddle that is suggested by such an expression. Think of the
intensity of the mind. Odd or curious are words that say something more
cold about the nonconformity. "Queer" in this sense has the connotation of
"bizarre." So I fear that an aesthetic quality may be washed away.
The real questions, it seems, are twofold: (a) what is the German equivalent,
if any, for "bizarre" or "weird" where the same is informal and suggestive of
something mysterious (intensely felt as such); and (b) did Wittgenstein use
such a word in his German? Let us call such a word X. If X exists and
Wittgenstein used it on occasion, I'm inclined to say merkwurdig is interpreted
correctly, and that seltsam MAY be (hard to say). But if W never or barely used
X -- or if X doesn't exist -- I may be more inclined to say that an exceedingly
difficult philosopher has a peculiar way of speaking at times that may affect
seltsam and possibly merkwurdig (harder case here). [Note: I don't speak a word
of German]. I wonder if there is a change from his original notebooks or
typescripts to the final one? Be interesting if X were crossed out for one of
the others. That would be a smoking gun.
4. Consider Plato and "the forms." If you were translating that -- from Greek,
right? -- would you use "essences" as the meaning? And if you would not, is
this similar or different to what is happening here? (It may be different. I'm
not sure)
5. Don't you find the below statement a bit arrogant?
"In the changes we have introduced to the first 107 remarks of the
Investigations, we have paid careful attention to Wittgenstein's responses to
Rush Rhees's translation of 1938-9 (TS 226). Wittgenstein went over Rhees often
imperfect draft carefully, together with Yorick Smythies, and he made numerous
changes and corrections on the typescript by hand. To be sure, he was not a
native English speaker, and not all of his corrections are improvements. But
where he changed a translation that was subsequently used also by Anascombe,
his proposal always merits close attention. ...[And where] he did NOT change
some of Rhees's translation where it differs importantly in meaning from
Anascombe's is always noteworthy." (PI, 4th, xiii)
Compare with Monk. Monk says (414) that Wittgenstein shelved publishing
the parts of PI that he had completed in 38 for two reasons: he came to doubt
the second half of the book dealing with philosophy of mathematics (needed
further work), and he did not like Rhees translation. He writes regarding Rhees
translation, "Wittgenstein, who was never easily pleased with any attempt by
others to represent his thoughts, was horrified at what he saw." (414).
Anyway, I am not really arguing for or against anything. This is all at the
level of "wonder." I don't even have a specific translated expression that I am
disagreeing about. I am just talking out loud. My only "point" is to express a
bad feeling I have that some of the judgments may be in the nature of style and
copy editing. I don't know for sure.
Regards.
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:
