From: "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>


Hello Rebecca,

this is beautifully expressed:

But in this particular poem,
> it is not so much that the "object is being said" as it is
> being addressed as if it were a living being to which the
> poet is speaking as a lover would, expressing many of the
> feelings that a lover would, the seeing of the beloved
> in everything, as the origins of everything, that sense
> of knowing where the beloved sleeps or is or dwells in
> some deep interior sense. Which is all why I said that it seems
> erotic. It is basically a love poem to God, in which the
> fountain or spring is that "living water" of which Christ
> spoke somewhere, that he gave "living water" which was
> inexhaustible and which would be the end of thirst. So the
> the fountain or spring is not really a thing, an object,
> but a living being. And so since English as you said
> does have that sense of the thing, the object, perhaps
> it becomes more problematic in translating this particular
> poem, where what's addressed is not a distant, distant
> thing or object separate from human qualities, not
> a fountain in a square or a spring in a mountain.

This said, let me see if I can make clear what crossed my mind for a minute,
and I am trying to get it back.
First, it is the German language which has three genders: masculine,
feminine and neutral; there are some rules to remember them (those words
that end by... are...).
The Italian one is quite similar to Spanish and French, only two genders.

Now about hypocrisy -
I am very interested in your discussions on translations, since I am a
translator - this is my qualification, and I sort of grew up with two
languages, and studied a couple more, and got into them, and tried to
understand the why's and because's, and there are many.
This said, I was trying to understand how -impassioned and erotic- could fit
the spoken Italian language:
with -impassioned- I agree, genders all day long and no one even notices
them, and by following this thought of mine, I also added: hypocritical,
that is the wish of not seeing things as they are expressed. Which connotes
also my evaluation of the Italian society at large, we are all open books
every time we write or speak, anyhow I think this is what I thought.
I hope this answers your question,
and take care,
anny

> <<While for me it works the other way round, I like
> the -impersonal distance- English takes from things. Well more than
> impersonal distance, I would rather say, that an object is an object, and
> as such it has to be "said", which under a distinct aspect qualifies the
> human being. This relationship with gendered objects is anyhow (as you
perfectly
> say) impassioned, and in it I can also see some hypocrisy (I am
> exaggerating but there is some); erotic, well yes, if you want to see it
that way, but
> anyhow distant, distant.>>
>
> Hi Anny,
>
> Thanks for your post. Yes, I think this is true, that English,
> as the Germanic language
> it is, has that quality of "thingness," that the "object is an
> object," a res of materiality, that is distinct from human
> qualities. Which is perhaps why English excels in technical
> and scientific terminology, terms of exactitude of the thingness
> of something, which originate in that impersonal distance that
> can lend itself to exactitudes of differentiation and definition.
> Still, I'm not sure what you mean by the 'hypocrisy' of gendered
> nouns which exist in the other languages that you note, as well
> as others. Is it some 'hypocrisy' in the language itself that makes
> one thing feminine and another masculine, or as in Italian,
> neutral?  Or in the terms of this particular translation and
> my viewing the poem as impassioned and erotic?
>
> As I understand hypocrisy it means basically to advocate
> or stand for one thing while actually practicing another, and
> even though you note you are perhaps somewhat exagerrating,
> I'm not sure how that pertains to this issue of language or
> translating this particular work. So perhaps you could
> unravel your sense of this? since I'm not clear what you mean.
>
> >>But I am with you when you use this particular example about the
> fountain-feminine and the choice given to the translator if s/he should
> respect this -she- which gives the right interpretation to the poem (I can
> remember for example some poems in which it is not made expicit but the
> planets are perceived in between objects and/or deities, where the reader
> can choose as s/he wishes). Yes, I think that as a translator you are
> allowed to prefer the he or she pronoun, but, for the reader you should
> add a note to explain your choice.
>
> Well, my thoughts here were motivated by this particular example.
> I don't as a general practice translate the gender of the thing
> except as into the customary "it." But in this particular poem,
> it is not so much that the "object is being said" as it is
> being addressed as if it were a living being to which the
> poet is speaking as a lover would, expressing many of the
> feelings that a lover would, the seeing of the beloved
> in everything, as the origins of everything, that sense
> of knowing where the beloved sleeps or is or dwells in
> some deep interior sense. Which is all why I said that it seems
> erotic. It is basically a love poem to God, in which the
> fountain or spring is that "living water" of which Christ
> spoke somewhere, that he gave "living water" which was
> inexhaustible and which would be the end of thirst. So the
> the fountain or spring is not really a thing, an object,
> but a living being. And so since English as you said
> does have that sense of the thing, the object, perhaps
> it becomes more problematic in translating this particular
> poem, where what's addressed is not a distant, distant
> thing or object separate from human qualities, not
> a fountain in a square or a spring in a mountain.
>
> Take care,
>
> Rebecca
>
> Rebecca Seiferle
> www.thedrunkenboat.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >         branch
> >                         Lorine Niedecker
> >
>