# übersetzt genau



## Löwenfrau

This means that scholastic's translation of _orexis_ as _appetitus_ was "correct and exact", or that it was "exactly" _appetitus_? In the second case there is no mention to the correctness of the translation.


"Aristoteles redet von _orexis_ dem Streben; die Scholastik übersetzt genau _appetitus_, unterscheidet zwischen dem app. _sensitivus_, und _rationalis;_ Eckhart übersetzt ganz anders: gêrunge und der tote Terminus lebt wieder auf. Ebenso ist _betrachtunge_ lebendiger als_consideratio_."


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Scholasticism's Latin is only exact, Eckhart's German is alive.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I see. I think "exact" won't give the idea in Portuguese (one would read as I said in #1). Maybe _literal_?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

No no, that's O.K. Latin is only correct, Eckhart's German is more than that: it brings the ancient Greek to life, it *is *​alive.


----------



## Löwenfrau

yes, but you suggest that I add a "nur": he says "genau", but you read as "nur genau": only correct.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

What I wrote was purely explanatory. I didn't suggest you add _nur. _When I suggest translations, I italicise them. It doesn't matter if the Portuguese cognate of _exact _means _correct. _But you might as well take the cognate of _accurate_, I assume there is one, or of _​precise.


_My remark was in response to yours:





Löwenfrau said:


> In the second case there is no mention to the correctness of the translation.


M. isn't accusing E. of being incorrect; on the contrary he's saying his translation, which is


Löwenfrau said:


> ganz anders


is more than just correct/exact/accurate/precise:


Schimmelreiter said:


> it brings the ancient Greek to life, it *is *​alive.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> What I wrote was purely explanatory. I didn't suggest you add _nur. When I suggest translations, I italicise them. It doesn't matter if the Portuguese cognate of exact means correct. But you might as well take the cognate ofaccurate, I assume there is one, or of ​precise._



yes, yes, yes.



> M. isn't accusing E. of being incorrect



nor did I mean he was. I was explaining that if I chose the adverb "exactly" it wouldn't be clear that M. finds scholastic translation correct (but that would not imply he finds it incorrect either!), which would be clear if I chose the adjective "correct/exact": "the translation X is correct" vs. "the translation is, precisely (I'm not mistaken about it), X" 

_Accurate_ is perfect. 

Thanks again! 
that's all.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> No no, that's O.K. Latin is only correct, Eckhart's German is more than that: it brings the ancient Greek to life, it *is *​alive.


Is Mauthner saying that Eckhart translated Aristotle's Greek? That seems unlikely on historical grounds (Greek scholarship and learning was largely lost to the West following the Germanic overthrow of the western Empire, and not recovered in any great measure, except indirectly, before the Renaissance) and also from Mauthner's earlier remarks, which imply he was translating scholastic teachings from Latin.


> Aristoteles redet von _orexis_ dem Streben; die Scholastik übersetzt genau _appetitus_, unterscheidet zwischen dem _app. sensitivus_, und _rationalis_; Eckhart übersetzt ganz anders: _gêrunge_ und der tote Terminus lebt wieder auf.


The point here seems to be that the schoolmen translated _orexis_ closely (M. says 'exactly', which seems to me an overstatement) as _appetitus_; whereas Eckhart translated _appetitus_ quite differently as _gêrunge_.

Thus the distinction seems to be between the two 'dead terms' _orexis_ and _appetitus_ on the one hand and _gêrunge_ on the other. _Gêrunge_ I understand means 'longing' or 'desire' which is indeed different from the other terms. They are more objective, closer to action; the German is more subjective, confined to feeling.


----------



## Hutschi

Maybe you can use "literally" instead of "exactly" if this does not exist in your language - similar as you proposed in #2 #3 - I think it is an adverb, however. Is "literal" possible as adverb?


----------



## Löwenfrau

You mean as I proposed in #3? 





> Maybe _literal?_






> Is "literal" possible as adverb?


Yes, it would be "literally" or "in a literal way".


----------



## wandle

Why not say 'exactly'? As mentioned, I see that as an overstatement, but still it is what Mauthner says.


----------



## Löwenfrau

wandle said:


> Why not say 'exactly'? As mentioned, I see that as an overstatement, but still it is what Mauthner says.




Only because in Portuguese this would lead to a wrong interpretation. "Exactly" would be read as an adverb referring to the object that is being mentioned as an exact _mentioning _(sorry I cant' explain that better because I don't know how to use the appropriate technical language here).


As if the author were saying:

"... they translated it as - I'm sure about that - X"
_
Exactly_ would be understood as _I'm sure_. And so would _precisely_.


----------



## Hutschi

I try to analyse by translating the German sentence into another German form.

1. die Scholastik (übersetzt genau) _appetitus_
2. (die Scholastik übersetzt) (genau) _appetitus)

Both will work with "literally" because "literally" does not mean itself but "genau, dabei grammatische Form erhaltend.)
"(True "literally" would be using the same word, but this is not meant of course.)

1. Die Scholastik verwendet eine genaue/eine buchstäbliche Übersetzung, nämlich "appetitus". 

2. Die Übersetzung der Scholastik ist nichts anderes als "appetitus".
Here, too, is "buchstäblich" a metaphor. The sentence means in this case that they do not use various synonymes or that they select the word from a couble of synonymes, basically this has the same result.


I tend to 1. (this is the form we discussed above. And here I think "literal" does work.)


_


----------



## Schimmelreiter

What's literal about _orexis > appetitus_? It's accurate, but literal? By a _literal translation _I understand one that renders a multipartite concept by a multipartite concept each part of which corresponds, one-to-one, to one part of the translated concept, respectively. This would be the case if _orexis_ consisted of two parts that correspond directly to _ad-petitus_, which I don't think is the case. Greek is all Greek to me, so could someone look into this please.

Generally, whole phrases are or aren't translated _literally. _Of individual words, this can only be said if they represent multipartite concepts, as I've already pointed out.


PS
I don't think you can sensibly say, _dog - literally: Hund.
_I think you can sensibly say, _underdog - literally: the loser of a dogfight, being under the winning dog_


----------



## Hutschi

I think Löwenfrau will consider this in her translation to Portuguese.

I looked into my babylon dictionary.
I found "exactly, precisely, just, right, absolutely, faithfully, accurately, truly, very"

Separated in groups:

exactly, precisely, accurately - first of my two meanings
 just,  - second of my two meanings

truly - possible (more in the second meaning

right, absolutely, faithfully, very - I do not see a connection to the context.


----------



## sangok

Had to do some research first... (#1 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656a.htm):


> The _appetitus sensitivus_, also called _animalis_, follows sense-cognition. It is an essentially organic faculty; its functions are not functions of the soul alone, but of the body also. It tends primarily "to a concrete object which is useful or pleasurable", not to "the reason itself of its appetibility". The_appetitus rationalis_, or will, is a faculty of the spiritualsoul, following intellectualknowledge, tending to the good as such and not primarily to concrete objects. It tends to these in so far as they are known to participate in the abstract and perfectgoodness conceived by the intellect (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, a. 1).





> This means that scholastic's translation of _orexis as appetitus was "correct and exact", or that it was "exactly" appetitus? In the second case there is no mention to the correctness of the translation._





> "Aristoteles redet von _orexis dem Streben; die Scholastik übersetzt genau appetitus, unterscheidet zwischen dem app. sensitivus, und rationalis;_



appetitus = instinktives Verlangen, Appetit, naturgegebenes Verlangen / instinctive demand, appetite, natural demand
appetitus sensitives = instinktives, durch die Sinne wahrnehmbares Verlangen / instinctive demand which can be perceived (to be exact: with your senses)
appetitus rationalis = rationaler Wille (des Menschen), vernünftige Begierde / rational will of mankind, rational desire

Intuitively I would say that if he was aware that defining and referring to something merely as appetitus isn't enough but a finer differentation has to be made it means that with "_die Scholastik übersetzt genau appetitus" _only the term appetitus has been translated.You can talk about your appetite in a general way, but if you're referring to something specific you must define if you're talking about your instinctive demand or your rational desire.
If you state you feel hunger it basically means you're in need of something, if it's related to instinctive demand it's probably food, if it's related to rational desire it's probably thought-provoking, intellectual conversation or art, something meaningful.

So I guess you could translate it as "Scholastic translated solely/only/merely appetitus" since they're aware only certain (limited) terms can be linked to it, to wide definitions would water down, therefore distort the meaning.

Regarding your first quote, I would go for the second case (in case the terms I picked need to be changed in your opinion).
Why did you state "correct and exact" as the first case? I can't figure out where this is coming from.. "genau" is more likely to be understood as referring to quantity, not quality (I would link "correct/false" to quality, although I can't tell you exactly where this comes from..Informatics?)


----------



## Hutschi

In this case (Intuitively I would say that if he was aware that defining and referring to something merely as appetitus isn't enough but a finer differentation has to be made it means that with "_die Scholastik übersetzt genau appetitus" only the term appetitus has been translated.)_ it is "translates just appetitus (and nothing else)" as far as I see.

If it is this it should be easy for Portuguese.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I think_ faithful_ might work. That is, in the end, what I was thinking by _literal_. But it is faithful specifically to the immediate meaning. Because I don't think Mauthner is by no means implying that Eckhart's translation was on the other hand unfaithful, he just went deeper, beyond the immediate word that one would expect. By this very reason I also find "accurate" inadequate here: Eckhart's translation is not inaccurate. When Mauthner calls the scholastich's translation "genau", he is not thinking of something that is absent in Eckhart's translation. Eckhart's has this _and_ something else: it is _genau und lebendig, nicht nur genau._
I must avoid any solution which might lead to think that Eckhart doesn't have what scholastics have.


----------



## sangok

Reading your postI came up with following words: precise and maybe... univocal? an univocal term has only one possible meaning - an univocal translation would emphasise the correctness and exactness (since it's unique) of the translation.

Edit: Faithful has the right meaning, but for me personally this term has a negative connotation because it's mainly used talking about religion, church, believing (in something greater than us).
A word like this being used in any philosophical text.. I don't know.


----------



## wandle

Löwenfrau said:


> Only because in Portuguese this would lead to a wrong interpretation. ...
> 
> _Exactly_ would be understood as _I'm sure_. And so would _precisely_.


Surely that is a Portuguese problem, though, is it not? It would just mean finding a way in Portuguese to express the idea of an 'exact translation'.

In English, instead of 'the schoolmen translate _orexis_ exactly as _appetitus_', we can say, for example, 'the schoolmen have an exact translation for _orexis_ in _appetitus_', or 'the scholastic translation of _orexis_ as _appetitus_ is exact', etc. Cannot Portuguese deliver similar paraphrases?

As for Mauthner's meaning, I believe he is saying first, that the schoolmen translated _orexis_ exactly (_genau_) as _appetitus_ (meaning that one dead term was replaced with another) and then proceeded in abstract style to subdivide the concept in sense (evidence, apparently, of academic disconnection from real life); and secondly, that Eckhart translated _appetitus_ quite differently (_ganz anders_) as _gêrunge_ (transforming it allegedly at a stroke from something dead and academic into a marvellously vigorous and lively term). He is not so much adding an element to the term used by the schoolmen as taking a new approach.

My initial feeling is that Mauthner is overstating the difference that Eckhart's choice of terms makes: in the first place, _appetitus_ is not an exact equivalent of _orexis_ (though it is very close and therefore in substantive terms a very good translation); and secondly I am not clear what the wonderful life-giving qualities of Eckhart's terminology are supposed to be: apart, that is, from the obvious fact that German is more accessible to the majority of Germans than Latin is.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> In English, instead of 'the schoolmen translate _orexis_ exactly as _appetitus_', we can say, for example, 'the schoolmen have an exact translation for _orexis_ in _appetitus_', or 'the scholastic translation of _orexis_ as _appetitus_ is exact', etc. Cannot Portuguese deliver similar paraphrases?


You beat me to it - I was just thinking the very same thing.
Also the English version with adverb is ambiguous. To lessen the chance of misinterpretation, you can convert it to an adjective.

"...Scholasticism translates it exactly as _appetitus_..." or "...Scholasticism exactly translates it as _appetitus_..." 
but
"...Scholasticism uses the exact/precise/faithful/unembellished translation _appetitus_..." -> little danger of misinterpretation

PS: You might not want to use "unembellished" because it automatically adds a negative connotation to Eckhart's version and that would not fit to Mauthner's excessive (almost besotted) praises for Eckhart.


----------



## Löwenfrau

sangok said:


> Reading your postI came up with following words: precise and maybe... univocal? an univocal term has only one possible meaning - an univocal translation would emphasise the correctness and exactness (since it's unique) of the translation.
> 
> Edit: Faithful has the right meaning, but for me personally this term has a negative connotation because it's mainly used talking about religion, church, believing (in something greater than us).
> A word like this being used in any philosophical text.. I don't know.



Fortunately, this would not be the case in Portuguese.


----------



## Löwenfrau

manfy said:


> You beat me to it - I was just thinking the very same thing.
> Also the English version with adverb is ambiguous. To lessen the chance of misinterpretation, you can convert it to an adjective.
> 
> "...Scholasticism translates it exactly as _appetitus_..." or "...Scholasticism exactly translates it as _appetitus_..."
> but
> "...Scholasticism uses the exact/precise/faithful/unembellished translation _appetitus_..." -> little danger of misinterpretation



Yes, that's a very good idea!

Thanks to you all!


----------



## sangok

Löwenfrau said:


> Fortunately, this would not be the case in Portuguese.



Ah, that's lucky! Well then it could work I guess..



manfy said:


> You beat me to it - I was just thinking the very same thing.
> Also the English version with adverb is ambiguous. To lessen the chance of misinterpretation, you can convert it to an adjective.
> 
> "...Scholasticism translates it exactly as _appetitus_..." or "...Scholasticism exactly translates it as _appetitus_..."
> but
> "...Scholasticism uses the exact/precise/faithful/unembellished translation _appetitus_..." -> little danger of misinterpretation
> 
> PS: You might not want to use "unembellished" because it automatically adds a negative connotation to Eckhart's version and that would not fit to Mauthner's excessive (almost besotted) praises for Eckhart.



Ah, forgot yesterday to reply to that - this idea didn't occur to me; it's brilliant!


----------

