Teacher: A good language must have one and only one meaning for each single word!
Young pupil Kenneth Pike: But, sir, how then could we learn language?
--Ken Pike, recollecting to some of us, his linguistics students
The Stranger: ... ποιήσῃ τῶν στοιχείων ἕκαστον πάντων ἐν πάσαις ταῖς συλλαβαῖς τὸ μὲν ἕτερον ὡς τῶν ἄλλων ἕτερον ὄν, ...
Young Socrates: Παντά-Πασι μὲν οὖν.
--Plato, The Statesman
I like very much the way the philosopher Goodman has stated (1978:x) that "what emerges can perhaps be described as a radical relativism under rigorous restraints" [emphasis mine, KLP].Here I go again, starting a blog post with three epigraphs. So you get what I'm doing by now, don't you? I'm wanting to use language to reflect on language use.
--Kenneth Lee Pike, Talk, Thought, and Thing
In particular, I want to start my post by blurring the lines between poetry and prose (or so called "propositional truth language"). Let me first (1) rather rhetorically listen in on the English language dialog between two bloggers. Then (2) let's consider other English. We might (3) just return to some Greek. And then (4) we'll talk about translation.
Here goes:
(1)
John Hobbins of the blog Ancient Hebrew Poetry makes a brilliant comment at Dannii Willis's Better Bibles Blog post. He starts:
"... my inner poet rebels against the notion that it is possible to translate a phrase like 'all in all' into propositional truth language."
John goes on to show how the phrase "'all in all' is part of a "beautiful song." He's already admitted, nonetheless, and has very clearly stated that it's not just lyrical sung poetry but that "propositional truth is [indeed] communicated" in the original Greek phrase that Dannii is concerned with (i.e., παντα εν πασιν). And yet, John draws attention away from the propositional nature of this Greek phrase and then towards what he calls "the diction of the original." John remarks pointedly that - because of the phrase's vagueness or ambiguity ostensibly - "it could be taken" by Greek readers and listeners alike "in the wrong way." He implies that this problem is overcome by context.
Dannii replies rather curtly that the English phrase "all in all" (i.e., to translate the Greek phrase παντα εν πασιν) is "just a nice sounding Christian catchphrase." And Dannii adds rather syllogistically that "catchphrases have no place in our Bibles." This is his firm conclusion, and so far John has said nothing to rebut it.
My analysis of this conversation:
What I want to draw attention to is that John uses prose or, what he calls "propositional truth language" to make his claim and to build his case. He does not use poetry, even poetry in the limited way he himself so propositionally defines poetry in contemporary English at his prosaic blog he's named Ancient Hebrew Poetry. John himself quotes the lines from a song, but of course he cannot sing it in his written comment.
Dannii then comes back curtly (as I said already), in quick propositions. But notice the nice sounds in his sentence, "It’s just a nice sounding Christian catchphrase." With all that alliteration and all of those sibilants and affricates and voiceless stops, it's almost poetry. Maybe it's song. And it's rather puny because "Christian catchphrase" seems to be a "catchphrase" of "Christians." Here's propositional truth proof, some of it propositional and scientific: Bible Read Through and Christian Catch Phrases and Scientists Warn of Shortage in Christian Catchphrases.
(2) Now this part 2 on considering other English isn't all that clever.
I just remember reading Sir Philip Sidney's piece "The Defense of Posey [i.e., Poetry]" and thinking, Hey, he is using prose here to defend poetry. I think Mary Sidney's one of the best translators of the Bible ever -- just thought I'd through that in to see if you were paying attention. Thank you, then! And click on this link if I've gotten too propositional for you (and if you want an image of something cool). And I also remember watching Dr. Ken Pike do a monolingual demonstration, give a follow up lecture with a bit of Q & A, and then recite poetry.
He told poems
as if
they could not
be
told otherwise
Now, I'm thinking I've just made a capital E out of a bad poem. Don't know what that means, really. Maybe you'll make something of it.
(3) Now Greek. No, not Aristotle's this time. I'm going to show you Plato's Greek (which had some impact on the young Aristotle, I must add). Plato's got this Young Socrates character learning from a Stranger (and neither is the real Socrates, who taught Plato, or the Socrates who shows up as the real Socrates in most of Plato's dialogs). The stranger is teaching his student the Young Socrates about Politics and being a Statesman (and they are all men, you know). His using examples to explain examples to get to the politics stuff. So he starts with the alphabet. Yes, Greek. And he says this:
Ἀνάγειν πρῶτον ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνα ἐν οἷς ταὐτὰ ταῦτα
ὀρθῶς ἐδόξαζον, ἀναγαγόντας δὲ τιθέναι παρὰ τὰ μήπω
γιγνωσκόμενα, καὶ παραβάλλοντας ἐνδεικνύναι τὴν αὐτὴν
ὁμοιότητα καὶ φύσιν ἐν ἀμφοτέραις οὖσαν ταῖς συμπλοκαῖς,
μέχριπερ ἂν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀγνοουμένοις τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀληθῶς
παρατιθέμενα δειχθῇ, δειχθέντα δέ, παραδείγματα οὕτω γιγ‑
νόμενα, ποιήσῃ τῶν στοιχείων ἕκαστον πάντων ἐν πάσαις
ταῖς συλλαβαῖς τὸ μὲν ἕτερον ὡς τῶν ἄλλων ἕτερον ὄν, τὸ
δὲ ταὐτὸν ὡς ταὐτὸν ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἑαυτῷ προσαγορεύεσθαι.
Yes, I hear the It's All Greek to Me catchphrase. What you might see, nonetheless, is how Plato's Stranger is using a favorite Greek catchphrase of the Greek-writing Roman-citizen Christian-Jew Saul-Paul. It's not exactly poetry, but it's not exactly propositional truth, not just yet. This is Plato, remember, not yet Aristotle. So did you see it, right there in the dialog? Or at least in the monolog bit of the Stranger? πάντων ἐν πάσαις
All in all. He's talking (as Plato's writing) about the each and every correspondences of letters to syllables and such. As an example of something like this example and like politics. It's a nice way to learn. Take something similar but different. Stack it up next to something similar but different. See what you can make of that.
And what do you make of the Young Socrates's response. Oh that's right, you need to see it. He "says":
Παντά-Πασι μὲν οὖν.
Now, I'll bet you a few pennies that most English translators have completely missed the Greek wordplay here. You, however, can see it can't you? All those π's and Π's and παν's and πασ's. What's that mean? Well, on the propositional level, the Young Socrates says "Certainly" or "That's altogether so." At least that's what translator Benjamin Jowett and translator Seth Benardete have respectively said he said. What if they'd said something more poetic? More playful? More punny (or is it punier?)?
Truth be told, and all in all, I really haven't seen this Greek catchphrase or the wordplayful response anywhere much at all between Plato and Paul.
(4) Okay. Let's talk. About translation I mean. What do you think?
Yes, I hear the It's All Greek to Me catchphrase. What you might see, nonetheless, is how Plato's Stranger is using a favorite Greek catchphrase of the Greek-writing Roman-citizen Christian-Jew Saul-Paul. It's not exactly poetry, but it's not exactly propositional truth, not just yet. This is Plato, remember, not yet Aristotle. So did you see it, right there in the dialog? Or at least in the monolog bit of the Stranger? πάντων ἐν πάσαις
All in all. He's talking (as Plato's writing) about the each and every correspondences of letters to syllables and such. As an example of something like this example and like politics. It's a nice way to learn. Take something similar but different. Stack it up next to something similar but different. See what you can make of that.
And what do you make of the Young Socrates's response. Oh that's right, you need to see it. He "says":
Παντά-Πασι μὲν οὖν.
Now, I'll bet you a few pennies that most English translators have completely missed the Greek wordplay here. You, however, can see it can't you? All those π's and Π's and παν's and πασ's. What's that mean? Well, on the propositional level, the Young Socrates says "Certainly" or "That's altogether so." At least that's what translator Benjamin Jowett and translator Seth Benardete have respectively said he said. What if they'd said something more poetic? More playful? More punny (or is it punier?)?
Truth be told, and all in all, I really haven't seen this Greek catchphrase or the wordplayful response anywhere much at all between Plato and Paul.
(4) Okay. Let's talk. About translation I mean. What do you think?
