That is so true to me an what I do.
mando
On Aug 25, 2008, at 7:02 AM, William Conger partly wrote:
One aspect of meaning is imitation. ..............
Except in art where "make-believe" is the most wonderous adventure
possible.
WC
--- On Sun, 8/24/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object.
To: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2008, 5:34 PM
Mike Brady writes:
Or perhaps, "I don't know what it's
supposed to mean." I.e., I
recognize that it has been intentionally devised, but
I do not know how to
access whatever was intended.
What the creator had in mind is one thing (a notional
thing), but it's folly
to figure his intention becomes a property somehow inhering
in the object --
ITS "meaning".
BTW, how does one know whether a translation is
"accurate," "good,"
"reliable," etc.? How can one compare the
quality of two translations
of the same passage?
All those JUDGMENTS are notional, and often a function of
stipulative
criteria, and thus it's wrong to believe they are
qualities that "are" or "are
not"
inherent properties of the translation. Moncrief's
Proust, Garnet's
Dostoievsky
et al, Lowe-Porter's Mann eventually were dismissed as
being inaccurate to
some degree or other. This allowed other translators to
turn a dollar. The
overwhelming current consensus of people of sensibility is
that the original
three
have always been the "best".
**************
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
