> I couldn't say if any of them get the "primary
>content" of the poem across. Since scholars are still thugging out the
>"primary content" of Briggflatts" it's unlikely there'll be one answer to
>that. Anyway, it's a long way from any of these problems to "can't be
>done".
Yes, Ric, agreed: I'm in some puzzlement as to what the "it" might be
that can/can't be done, given we're not assuming some Platonic idea of
the poem that sublunary language can only dimly approximate. Briggflats
strikes me, in fact, as quite a good candidate for translation along the
criteria I was mentioning - it's certainly not that he's without
linguistic nuance and torque (I'm flailing wildly here), just that
there's plenty else going on that can act as a sort of a ground base
while those fine points sort themselves out. Am I inching here towards
Peter's 'primary content'? Dunno, though I don't think translators need
wait on the answers of scholars - isn't translation it's own kind of
scholarship?
Anyway, that's enough metaphors mixed for one day. Back to my muttons . .
.
**************************************************************************
Trevor Joyce
Apple Cork IS&T
Phone : +353-21-284405
EMail : [log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|