# wurden dann auf die Richtung übertragen



## Löwenfrau

Hallo.
Das klingt mir nicht ganz klar:

"Es gibt in der Grammatik keine Form, welche das Kausalverhältnis eindeutig ausdrücken könnte. Alle die Flickwörter, um die es sich handelt, beziehen sich ursprünglich auf den Raum, wurden dann auf die Richtung übertragen, bildlich auch auf die Relation der Zeit, und konnten so als Bilder von Bildern zu Bezeichnungen des Kausalverhältnisses werden." Mauthner

1) Mit "Richtung" denkt er an Raum? "Direction"? I also don't understand why "die Richtung", and why not only "Richtung"...

2)wurden übertragen auf = were imported into?


----------



## perpend

Well, you know me, LF, I'm just here for brainstorming ... I understand "übertragen" more as "transferred" and "Richtung" more as "sense".

So, this won't make sense, because you'd have to know more about your context, but just from reading it, it sounds like these words originally referred to the "space", then were transferred into the/their sense, ...

Ugh. That sounds weird.

EDIT: There a saying in German something like "so in der Richtung" (dative in this case) that means something like "somewhat in that sense". Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Löwenfrau

So, "auf der Richtung" would actually be "auf _dieser_ Richtung"... ?

There still is something about this Satzbau which is not very clear to me. 

"All these patchwords whatsoever are related, originally, to the space, and were then (in a subsequent stage) symbolically transferred to the relation of time, and so they could, as images of images, turn into signs of the causal relation". 

I feel like I might be missing, or twisting, something here...


----------



## perpend

I'm just saying that "auf/in die Richtung" (accusative in that case) could refer to the sense of something being transferred.


----------



## bearded

Sorry, I do not agree with perpend. In my opinion, it all depends on the Flickwörter M. is talking about. I think he means that at first, in an (empty) space, the words _post_ and _propter_ (context in previous threads) contained no indication of direction: _e.g. post_ means ''behind, after'', but if you are in space, where is before and where is behind?  At a later point, to those words a direction was assigned, ''their meaning was transferred to direction'' (English can help without article in this case of indetermination, German cannot: auf *die *Richtung),so that - having a direction - you know what is before and what is behind,   then a time direction appeared (Relation der Zeit: what comes first and what  afterwards), and finally people believed this to be a Kausalverhältnis.  It is a procedure that M.disapproves of as a whole, based on the fact that the words used for the Kausalverhältnis (post/propter) originally meant no causal relation at all.
EDIT: the example is even clearer with the second Flickwort _propter_ (in Latin = because of), which originally meant ''nearer to'' (from 'prope'= near, and -ter comparative suffix).  In space you can say ''x is near y'', but you cannot determined in what direction it is near. This can only be done after the preposition has been referred/transferred to a meaning of direction.


----------



## Löwenfrau

bm, there's one thing in the text that I'm not sure if completely matches your interpretation; Mauthner affirms:  "hier will ich nur auf die Hilflosigkeit der Sprachen hinweisen, die alle das Kausalverhältnis durch ein Zeitverhältnis ausdrücken wollen und das Zeitverhältnis durch ein Raumverhältnis ausdrücken müssen."
We want (our languages want) to express causal relation by means of a time-relation but we cannot do so, we _have to _express it by means of spacial relation. Does it also mean that we can only express time relations by means of spacial relations? (as Henri Bergson maintains). Any time relation that we express would therefore be symbolical. Perhaps he means that, once we do that, we are this close to understand those originally spacial Flickwörter as expressing a causal relation. I just don't see why are spacial prepositions more likely to lead to the illusion of a causal relation, more than an originally time-expressing preposition would?

(Here follows a fuller context):

"Auf die Zusammenhänge zwischen Zeit und Ursache habe ich schon bei mancher Gelegenheit hingewiesen; hier will ich nur auf die Hilflosigkeit der Sprachen hinweisen, die alle das Kausalverhältnis durch ein Zeitverhältnis ausdrücken wollen und das Zeitverhältnis durch ein Raumverhältnis ausdrücken müssen. Das gilt ebensowohl für die Konjunktionen des zusammengesetzten Satzes wie für die Präpositionen des einfachen Satzes. Es gibt in der Grammatik keine Form, welche das Kausalverhältnis eindeutig ausdrücken könnte. Alle die Flickwörter, um die es sich handelt, beziehen sich ursprünglich auf den Raum, wurden dann auf die Richtung übertragen, bildlich auch auf die Relation der Zeit, und konnten so als Bilder von Bildern zu Bezeichnungen des Kausalverhältnisses werden."


----------



## Frieder

My attempt:_

All those patch-words, which they actually are, originally defined space, then they were assigned to direction, also figuratively to the relation of time, and thus evolved to indications of causal relation as images of images._


----------



## Löwenfrau

Thanks for the attempt, Frieder. Mine is a bit different:
"All those patch-words were originally referred to space, then they were transferred to [the representation of/ a sense of] direction, and [only] thus/then, as images of images, they could evolve to indications of causal relation". I think there is a difference in emphasis, specially concerning "as images of images".


----------



## bearded

I find Frieder's translation very elegant and precise, except for the part ''which they actually are'', because I think that ''um die es sich handelt'' simply means ''which we are talking about'' or  just ''the patchwords in question''.


----------



## perpend

Löwenfrau said:


> Thanks for the attempt, Frieder. Mine is a bit different:
> "All those patch-words were originally referred to space, then they were transferred to [the representation of/ a sense of] direction, and [only] thus/then, as images of images, they could evolve to indications of causal relation". I think there is a difference in emphasis, specially concerning "as images of images".



I consider that closer, for what it's worth. Frieder's translation (sorry!) doesn't capture it, for me, and I get lost in the English of Frieder's version (sorry again!).


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> I find Frieder's translation very elegant and precise, except for the part ''which they actually are'', because I think that ''um die es sich handelt'' simply means ''which we are talking about'' or just ''the patchwords in question''.


No, here I have to clearly side with Frieder! This phrase seems to be an intentional interjection in order to emphasize the fact and to hint Mauthner's disapproval, otherwise he would have used just something like "Alle *diese* Flickwörter..." or "Alle *betroffenen* Flickwörter..."
I might rephrase it to "_All those patch-words, such as they are, originally..._" - but that's just a style question and doesn't change the meaning.


----------



## bearded

But isn't ''um die es sich handelt'' synonym of ''um die es geht'', i.e. jene...Wörter, um die es geht = ,von denen hier die Rede ist ?  Someone please explain to me how it can be translated ''which they actually are'' or ''such as they are''.


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> But isn't ''um die es sich handelt'' synonym of ''um die es geht'', i.e. jene...Wörter, um die es geht = ,von denen hier die Rede ist ?


Yes, it can be! But ''um die es sich handelt'' can also mean "welche sie sind".
The more I think about it the more I have to agree that your interpretation is possible and plausible. Nevertheless, in this specific case I have a strong feeling that Mauthner wants to express "welche sie sind". Maybe because "Flickwörter" has a derogatory undertone, especially for a proclaimed linguist, which cannot easily stand on its own without having an additional opinion/comment attached to it!?!

PS: If he had written "Alle Flickwörter, um die es sich hier dreht, ..." I would have been much more inclined to go in your direction of interpretation (even though it is still ambiguous)!


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> But isn't ''um die es sich handelt'' synonym of ''um die es geht'', i.e. jene...Wörter, um die es geht = ,von denen hier die Rede ist ?  Someone please explain to me how it can be translated ''which they actually are'' or ''such as they are''.


Both readings are possible. _Sich um etwas handeln _can express class inclusion (_bei Buchen handelt es sich um Bäume_ = _beeches are trees_) or identity (_bei dieser Person handelt es sich um Hans Meier _=_ this person is Hans Meier_). This gives rise to Frieder's interpretation (_the class of words use to express causality is a sub class of the class of patch words_, i.e._ all words used to expressed causality are patch words_). 

My initial understanding was similar to yours but when I read Frieder's translation it immediately made sense to me; more sense than my own reading. A more idiomatic (to the modern reader at least) wording of this parenthesis (in Frieder's interpretation)  would be _und darum/um solche handelt es sich_.


----------



## berndf

perpend said:


> I consider that closer, for what it's worth. Frieder's translation (sorry!) doesn't capture it, for me


No, Frieder's translation captures the gist of Mautner's intricate thoughts and language quite well. 


perpend said:


> ..., and I get lost in the English of Frieder's version (sorry again!).


QED.


----------



## perpend

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, bernd, but I'm am trying to convey that Frieder's translation just doesn't add up and/or flow well in English.


----------



## berndf

perpend said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, bernd, but I'm am trying to convey that Frieder's translation *just doesn't add up and/or flow well in English*.


And exactly this proves that his translation is faithful to the original.


----------



## bearded

I would say that 1. perpend is an English native speaker, so he is in his full right to judge what is or is not 'well-flowing' in his language , 2. on the other hand, the final translation will be into Portuguese, therefore what matters is the final style in that language, provided it contains all the meaning of the German text (and Fr.'s translation does).


----------



## manfy

berndf said:


> And exactly this proves that his translation is faithful to the original.


 Meaning, Mauthner is not an easy read, even in German! Not that he uses overly complex grammar or incomprehensible content, but he's got a habit of packing ambiguous messages in between the lines which forces you to reread the text several times if you're interested in his thoughts!
Trying to turn this into any other languages is understandably difficult and you cannot expect 'easy reading' as a result!


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> I would say that 1. perpend is an English native speaker, so he is in his full right to judge what is or is not 'well-flowing' in his language , 2. on the other hand, the final translation will be into Portuguese, therefore what matters is the final style in that language, provided it contains all the meaning of the German text (and Fr.'s translation does).


Good gracious! Is my (somewhat sarcastic) point really so difficult to understand? The text does not flow well in German either. If a translation flows well than it can't be faithful to the original.


----------



## bearded

@ berndf
By taking your sarcasm seriously (and it was not so difficult to understand) I precisely tried to 'dismantle' it.  Anyhow, in my opinion there are beautiful translations which (not very often) are both faithful to the text and idiomatic in the new language. They _sozusagen _improve the original text, if you see what I mean. I am pretty sure that this is what our corageous Löwenfrau is trying to do, and to me it is a pity that I cannot understand Portuguese in order that I could appreciate the result of her work.


----------



## berndf

The serious core to my sarcastic comment was that it is not the translator's job to improve on the original text. If you translate a text full of ambiguities and open to interpretation into a pleasant, smooth, well flowing and stringent text you end up reading the opinion of the translator and not of the author. And one is not normally interested in the opinion of the translator.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I think we are somehow losing the focus here... 

The point is not which translation is more beautiful, this comes altogether in the end, and regarding clarity and accuracy sometimes the best solution is to _combine_ both possibilities! I am concern about one particular point in frieder's translation: 


> _All those patch-words, which they actually are, originally defined space, then they were assigned to direction, also figuratively to the relation of time, and thus evolved to indications of causal relation as images of images._


My version was:
"... and [only] thus/then, as images of images, they could evolve to indications of causal relation"
In my first reading I had a strong feeling that Mauthner was emphasizing that _only from the moment_ that those words were turned into images of images could they evolved to indications of causal relation. I think frieder's version doesn't capture it very well, that's all. As to the sentence as a whole and its stylistic beauty, I fully prefer his translation to mine.
I'd like to hear what you think about the emphasis I'm reading in these lines.

As to "um die es sich handelt" - I didn't know it could mean "which they are" either! Had no idea. But there is no definite clue in the passage we can assume to dismiss any of the interpretations...


----------



## Löwenfrau

> @ berndf
> By taking your sarcasm seriously (and it was not so difficult to understand) I precisely tried to 'dismantle' it. Anyhow, in my opinion there are beautiful translations which (not very often) are both faithful to the text and idiomatic in the new language. They _sozusagen improve the original text, if you see what I mean. I am pretty sure that this is what our corageous Löwenfrau is trying to do, and to me it is a pity that I cannot understand Portuguese in order that I could appreciate the result of her work._





berndf said:


> The serious core to my sarcastic comment was that it is not the translator's job to improve on the original text. If you translate a text full of ambiguities and open to interpretation into a pleasant, smooth, well flowing and stringent text you end up reading the opinion of the translator and not of the author. And one is not normally interested in the opinion of the translator.



Sometimes the result is not so beautiful because, in order not to determine the reading in one direction when Mauthner is ambiguous (which indeed frequently happens), I have to stay with a more literal translation, even if doesn't flow very well in Portuguese. Philosophy, language criticism, requires that. It would be a very different story if this was poetry.


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> As to "um die es sich handelt" - I didn't know it could mean "which they are" either! Had no idea. But there is no definite clue in the passage we can assume to dismiss any of the interpretations...


I just read the whole article on post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and I still stick to my previous opinion. But you're right, there's no definitive grammatical clue that excludes either interpretation.
If in doubt, you can simply drop "um die es sich handelt" without introducing a significant change in meaning. In an earlier paragraph Mauthner used the term "armselige Flickwörter" which clearly indicates his disapproval and which resonates into the current paragraph use of "Flickwörter".



Löwenfrau said:


> My version was:
> "... and [only] thus/then, as images of images, they could evolve to indications of causal relation"
> In my first reading I had a strong feeling that Mauthner was emphasizing that _only from the moment_ that those words were turned into images of images could they evolved to indications of causal relation. I think frieder's version doesn't capture it very well, that's all. As to the sentence as a whole and its stylistic beauty, I fully prefer his translation to mine.
> I'd like to hear what you think about the emphasis I'm reading in these lines.


I just read through the original and through both translations. Yes, there's a slight difference in emphasis between you and Frieder, but I cannot sense a substantial change in meaning. (But maybe I just fail to see the big importance of the images-of-images-idea!)
If I were you, I'd use the version that sounds better in Portuguese!


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> The serious core to my sarcastic comment was that it is not the translator's job to improve on the original text. If you translate a text full of ambiguities and open to interpretation into a pleasant, smooth, well flowing and stringent text you end up reading the opinion of the translator and not of the author. And one is not normally interested in the opinion of the translator.


I understand your point, berndf, but please note that I had mentioned  translations which would be both* faithful to the text* and idiomatic in the new language, and I added that you find them ''not very often''.  Wouldn't such translations  be masterpieces, and would they not represent every translator's dream? (The opinions of the translator would be totally out of the question).


----------



## berndf

Well, Löwenfrau explained it already but maybe I should rephrase it in more drastic words and maybe slightly exaggerated but only slightly: German philosophy of that era elevated playing dirty tricks with unidiomatic and obscure yet correct formulations to the canon of philosophical methodology. Everyone who has ever read Heidegger knows what I mean. Destroying the unidiomaticity in translation means destroying essential content.


----------

