Subject
Re: [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
From
Date
Body
Dear Stan,
Wonderful to hear from you - it's been a while. Your mathematical mind (i.e. tray tray logical mind) comprehends Nabokovian subtleties and ambiguities better than I can ever hope to. Now what the hell does "post-fired" mean?
By the way, I'm as befuddled as before. I didn't know there were rules for translating, let alone perfect rules and perfection and translation strike me as oxymoronic. I recall the first time I was confronted with translating "bread" into "du pain" - clearly that is the translation, but what on earth do a baguette and wonder bread (the bread of that time) have in common? Translating water into wine is nothing in comparison (just add grapes and a little time). Now that recalls to mind the day I realized that the French don't have a word comparable to the English word "food." Il y a bien sur "de la nouriture" but it's not the same thing. You do not eat de la nouriture. I happened to meet an educated Frog that day and asked him what he thought about it. He thought about it for a while then said I made his day.
Carolyn
________________________________
From: "stan@bootle.biz" <stan@BOOTLE.BIZ>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
Re: [NABOKV-L] [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
On 13/11/2013 00:31, "Carolyn KUNIN" <chaiselongue@ATT.NET> wrote:
p.s. I find most of what VN writes here incomprehensible, but I am not a native Russian speaker. Still I don't know what to make of this last sentence:
"I did translate it at last; but to give my version at this point might lead the reader to doubt that perfection be attainable by merely following a few perfect rules."
>What the hell does that mean??
>------
Dear Carolyn: your question is a timely reminder that ‘fluency’ in English does not guarantee that one can always readily understand something written in English by a ‘fluent-in-English’ writer. We’ve all been agonizing over ‘translating’ between different languages, but it’s helpful to ponder those often equally vexing problems facing communications between two ‘natively-fluent’ speakers in the same tongue.
Here’s my exegesis of
"I did translate it at last; but to give my version at this point might lead the reader to doubt that perfection be attainable by merely following a few perfect rules."
I (VN) have offered a few rules for better translations which I dub ‘perfect.’ Brighter re-readers will recognize my teasing act of superiority. However, even if the rules were perfect, following them blindly would not guarantee a perfect translation. In fact, if I showed you my version now, you would probably agree!’
Unsaid but IMPLIED: Either
(i) Sensible Nabokovians will find my translation perfect although it clearly took more than just following my rules
&/Or (ii) others, who find imperfections, have missed the whole point, and will blame the rules as ‘imperfect.’
Summary: I think VN is in superb form throughout this essay, especially since it dates back to his earliest exposures to ‘advanced’ English, as he over-modestly admits. The final sentence does have subtle ambiguities but they are interesting, under control and typically Nabokovian.
Post-fired warnings:
‘Ambiguous’ does not equate to ‘meaningless’ or ‘incomprehensible.’ The classic example (Time flies like an arrow) has many different but ‘valid’ meanings.
it’s damned-near impossible (some linguists/philosophers go further and declare it totally impossible) to avoid unintended ambiguities in Natural Language discourse. Right away, I’m exposed to this very risk! Have I used words upon which we fully share all their historically-shifting semantics, their technical jargons, and lurking resonances (irony etc)? Am I being DELIBERATELY ambiguous (e.g., poetic!)? Will you face the same problem answering these questions, and extracting clarification? But life is too short for endless digressions, and we must accept that with tolerance and practice, we can formulate close-enough approximations — let’s call them useful ‘gists.’
Stan Kelly-Bootle.
On 13/11/2013 00:31, "Carolyn KUNIN" <chaiselongue@ATT.NET> wrote:
>Dear Jansy,
>
>I read through what VN says of the Pushkin poem - but in actuality he only speaks of the first line and only of the aural beauty of the Russian, and a very personal reaction. Well, but now I have forgotten your original question. By the way, I think that VN exaggerates the beauty of the line in itself. For me it is the poem as a whole that is so wondrous - the first line in itself doesn't strike me as so miraculous.
>
>Carolyn
>
>p.s. I find most of what VN writes here incomprehensible, but I am not a native Russian speaker. Still I don't know what to make of this last sentence: "I did translate it at last; but to give my version at this point might lead the reader to doubt that perfection be attainable by merely following a few perfect rules."
>
>What the hell does that mean??
>
> From: Jansy Mello <jansy.nabokv-L@AETERN.US>
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
>
>Carolyn Kunin: I can't explain Nabokov's explanations since I don't have access to "The Art of Translation" - the wickedness of wikipedia is something you'll have to look up for yourself. I have been looking through Eric Naiman's book on "Nabokov, Perversely" and I should re-name it "Nabokov, Smuttily."
>
>Jansy Mello: Unfortunately I cannot forward this link to you "off-list" but you can find it directly in the VN-L archives:
>Access digital text of VN's "Art of Translation” [August 4, 1941: archives from New Republic http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113310/vladimir-nabokov-art-translation ] Cf. [NABOKV-L] internet access to digital "The Art of Translation" by V.Nabokov; 3 Oct. 2013
>
>I found no wickedness reading about Pushkin and his poem on wikipedia. However, I agree with you about an excess of zeal, on E.Naiman's part, concerning the distortions of sexual symbolism as they're to be found in world literature (malicious verbal games are omnipresent since BC years, no need of Freud to understand them, the same applies to the abundant euphemisms used everywhere* ) .
>
>
>................................................
>* intelligent smuttiness is often delightful to my ears, like Mae West's famous quip:“Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?”
>
Google Search
the archive Contact
the Editors NOJ Zembla Nabokv-L
Policies Subscription options AdaOnline NSJ Ada Annotations L-Soft Search the archive VN Bibliography Blog
All private editorial communications are read by both co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
Wonderful to hear from you - it's been a while. Your mathematical mind (i.e. tray tray logical mind) comprehends Nabokovian subtleties and ambiguities better than I can ever hope to. Now what the hell does "post-fired" mean?
By the way, I'm as befuddled as before. I didn't know there were rules for translating, let alone perfect rules and perfection and translation strike me as oxymoronic. I recall the first time I was confronted with translating "bread" into "du pain" - clearly that is the translation, but what on earth do a baguette and wonder bread (the bread of that time) have in common? Translating water into wine is nothing in comparison (just add grapes and a little time). Now that recalls to mind the day I realized that the French don't have a word comparable to the English word "food." Il y a bien sur "de la nouriture" but it's not the same thing. You do not eat de la nouriture. I happened to meet an educated Frog that day and asked him what he thought about it. He thought about it for a while then said I made his day.
Carolyn
________________________________
From: "stan@bootle.biz" <stan@BOOTLE.BIZ>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
Re: [NABOKV-L] [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
On 13/11/2013 00:31, "Carolyn KUNIN" <chaiselongue@ATT.NET> wrote:
p.s. I find most of what VN writes here incomprehensible, but I am not a native Russian speaker. Still I don't know what to make of this last sentence:
"I did translate it at last; but to give my version at this point might lead the reader to doubt that perfection be attainable by merely following a few perfect rules."
>What the hell does that mean??
>------
Dear Carolyn: your question is a timely reminder that ‘fluency’ in English does not guarantee that one can always readily understand something written in English by a ‘fluent-in-English’ writer. We’ve all been agonizing over ‘translating’ between different languages, but it’s helpful to ponder those often equally vexing problems facing communications between two ‘natively-fluent’ speakers in the same tongue.
Here’s my exegesis of
"I did translate it at last; but to give my version at this point might lead the reader to doubt that perfection be attainable by merely following a few perfect rules."
I (VN) have offered a few rules for better translations which I dub ‘perfect.’ Brighter re-readers will recognize my teasing act of superiority. However, even if the rules were perfect, following them blindly would not guarantee a perfect translation. In fact, if I showed you my version now, you would probably agree!’
Unsaid but IMPLIED: Either
(i) Sensible Nabokovians will find my translation perfect although it clearly took more than just following my rules
&/Or (ii) others, who find imperfections, have missed the whole point, and will blame the rules as ‘imperfect.’
Summary: I think VN is in superb form throughout this essay, especially since it dates back to his earliest exposures to ‘advanced’ English, as he over-modestly admits. The final sentence does have subtle ambiguities but they are interesting, under control and typically Nabokovian.
Post-fired warnings:
‘Ambiguous’ does not equate to ‘meaningless’ or ‘incomprehensible.’ The classic example (Time flies like an arrow) has many different but ‘valid’ meanings.
it’s damned-near impossible (some linguists/philosophers go further and declare it totally impossible) to avoid unintended ambiguities in Natural Language discourse. Right away, I’m exposed to this very risk! Have I used words upon which we fully share all their historically-shifting semantics, their technical jargons, and lurking resonances (irony etc)? Am I being DELIBERATELY ambiguous (e.g., poetic!)? Will you face the same problem answering these questions, and extracting clarification? But life is too short for endless digressions, and we must accept that with tolerance and practice, we can formulate close-enough approximations — let’s call them useful ‘gists.’
Stan Kelly-Bootle.
On 13/11/2013 00:31, "Carolyn KUNIN" <chaiselongue@ATT.NET> wrote:
>Dear Jansy,
>
>I read through what VN says of the Pushkin poem - but in actuality he only speaks of the first line and only of the aural beauty of the Russian, and a very personal reaction. Well, but now I have forgotten your original question. By the way, I think that VN exaggerates the beauty of the line in itself. For me it is the poem as a whole that is so wondrous - the first line in itself doesn't strike me as so miraculous.
>
>Carolyn
>
>p.s. I find most of what VN writes here incomprehensible, but I am not a native Russian speaker. Still I don't know what to make of this last sentence: "I did translate it at last; but to give my version at this point might lead the reader to doubt that perfection be attainable by merely following a few perfect rules."
>
>What the hell does that mean??
>
> From: Jansy Mello <jansy.nabokv-L@AETERN.US>
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
>
>Carolyn Kunin: I can't explain Nabokov's explanations since I don't have access to "The Art of Translation" - the wickedness of wikipedia is something you'll have to look up for yourself. I have been looking through Eric Naiman's book on "Nabokov, Perversely" and I should re-name it "Nabokov, Smuttily."
>
>Jansy Mello: Unfortunately I cannot forward this link to you "off-list" but you can find it directly in the VN-L archives:
>Access digital text of VN's "Art of Translation” [August 4, 1941: archives from New Republic http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113310/vladimir-nabokov-art-translation ] Cf. [NABOKV-L] internet access to digital "The Art of Translation" by V.Nabokov; 3 Oct. 2013
>
>I found no wickedness reading about Pushkin and his poem on wikipedia. However, I agree with you about an excess of zeal, on E.Naiman's part, concerning the distortions of sexual symbolism as they're to be found in world literature (malicious verbal games are omnipresent since BC years, no need of Freud to understand them, the same applies to the abundant euphemisms used everywhere* ) .
>
>
>................................................
>* intelligent smuttiness is often delightful to my ears, like Mae West's famous quip:“Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?”
>
Google Search
the archive Contact
the Editors NOJ Zembla Nabokv-L
Policies Subscription options AdaOnline NSJ Ada Annotations L-Soft Search the archive VN Bibliography Blog
All private editorial communications are read by both co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/