Showing posts with label rhetorical translation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rhetorical translation. Show all posts

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Sex and Wordplay and Sexism

First, from Rhosa's rhetorical blogora blog, a playful post of sex and religion:

this just in (ha ha):


oooh, baby do you know what that's worth??
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7686
ha ha ha ha h(e)aven is a place on earth
("some poles have been surprised....")

but willie get tenure for his book?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jPb6orr8TUqqiIof81VUGb...
betty won't.

and is the pope infallible? never mind on that one.
none of us is, y'all.

Second, searching into or to find my blog, The WOMBman's Bible, someone has googled this:

"word for playful in greek"

which makes me wonder why there I'd skipped over this:

"ἐγένετο δὲ πολυχρόνιος ἐκεῖ παρακύψας δὲ Αβιμελεχ ὁ βασιλεὺς Γεραρων διὰ τῆς θυρίδος εἶδεν τὸν Ισαακ παίζοντα μετὰ Ρεβεκκας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ

which is the playful Greek wording for this:

וַיְהִי כִּי אָֽרְכוּ־לֹו שָׁם הַיָּמִים וַיַּשְׁקֵף אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ פְּלִשְׁתִּים בְּעַד הַֽחַלֹּון וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה יִצְחָק מְצַחֵק אֵת רִבְקָה אִשְׁתֹּֽו׃

which is also known as Genesis 26:8 -- translated in the King James Bible as this:
"And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac [was] sporting with Rebekah his wife."
The playful word in Greek is παίζοντα [paizonta] which is "sporting" enough - and is sexual too, given the reaction of Abimelech the king towards two supposedly platonic alleged siblings, who were indeed engaged in play, perhaps foreplay.

That makes us think of Gorgias and his rhetorical praise of Helen. But he's not involved in foreplay, because he's investigating the alleged sexism, the supposed rape of Helen by the Trojan man. Why else would she abandon the men of Greece, he asks. Remember, Bettany Hughes reminds:
When, in Ancient Greece, the rhetorician Gorgias stood up and delivered his 'Encomium of Helen' (a defence of Helen of Troy's indefensible character) - this was a great joke. How can you laud the most sluttish femme fatale of all time? But the rhetoric also got people thinking - maybe, just maybe the skilled speaker had a point.
So Gorgias isn't engaging in foreplay the way the Jewish translators of their own histories translate that bit of history of Isaac [Ha! Laughter!]. Gorgias is playing with sexuality and with sexism; but his play comes at the very end, like the punchline to his joke:

ἐβουλήθην γράψαι τὸν λόγον Ἑλένης μὲν ἐγκώμιον, ἐμὸν δὲ παίγνιον.

Notice the final Greek word in Brian Donovan's translation:
I wanted to write the discourse, Helen's encomium and my plaything.
("plaything" or sport or παίγνιον /paignion/.)

Which makes us wonder if Gorgias was trying to get his contemporary readers, thinking about Helen, also to remember the sexism in Homer. Remember? Yes, I'm thinking with you now about "The Homeric Hymn to Demeter."

It begins:

I sing of the revered goddess, rich-haired Demeter,
and her slim-ankled daughter, whom Hades snatched
(far-seeing, thundering Zeus gave her away)
while she and Ocean's deep-breasted daughters played,
far from golden blade Demeter, who bears shining fruit.
She picked lush meadow flowers: roses, crocuses,
lovely violets, irises, hyacinths--and narcissus
Gaia grew as a lure for the blossoming girl,
following Zeus' bidding, to please Lord of the Dead.

You may recognize this as Diane J. Rayor's wonderful translating. And you may remember other translations -- because there have been many -- that have Hades raping the girl instead of merely "snatching" her -- as Rayor renders it.

"In modern usage the word rape emphasizes sexual consummation," a certain 'consume-a-shun', "which is uncertain in this case." This is Helene P. Foley's commentary on her own translating, which says the daughter of Demeter is one "whom Aidoneus seized."

Both Rayor and Foley prefer to leave a little play in the English because of the wordplay in the Homeric Greek. Neither of these translators rapes their reader with a certain anything.

And regardless of whether "rape" or "snatch" or "seize" by "Hades" or [his more Greek sounding name] "Aidoneus" - there is something common for all the many English translators of this Greek text. They all render what the little girl is doing, when interrupted, as "play."

Of course, around all the sex and horrible sexism, that word for play and playful in Greek here in this Hymn is παίζουσαν [paizousan]. And so the sporting continues, sometimes translationally, sometimes sexually, but sometimes as the horrible force of sexism.

Friday, September 5, 2008

The Egalitarianism of John McCain

"We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights."
--John McCain said this with ease.

The white man of substantial means said this with ease to the crowd of wealthy white men at the RNC in Saint Paul last night. Oh, sure, there were some white women there too, and a few people of color, of a certain class. But as he said these words, McCain was talking right at a black person "and his supporters"; I'll review the fuller context of the white man's words below. (And you'll get lines from poems towards the end of the post).

But first I want to note four things:
1) John McCain has translated rhetorically;
2) it has come easy to him because others, mavericks who were outsiders, have paved the way;
3) it has come easy for him because he's always been an insider to the Euro-American-male wealthy class;
4) it sounds unremarkable to the white men of wealth in America who listen because they think he is saying something "dynamically equivalent" to what others, outsiders, have said. It's their very own egalitarianism.

What do you think?

McCain has translated something Martin Luther King, Jr., a black man of humble means, wrote on scraps of paper that he had to sneak past the white male guards of a Birmingham jail, an eventual letter to white men with religious and social power; King said this in part:
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
McCain has translated something a white man wrote as he deeply grieved the position of most other white men relative to most black people in America. McCain has translated what Abraham Lincoln wrote on a scrap of paper, addressing a small crowd of black and white men in a field near Gettysburg where black men and white men have died fighting so that black men and black women and black children can be free from white wealthy men:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But,....
McCain has translated something Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Coffin Mott co-wrote, as women both white, which the former read aloud in Seneca Falls to a convention of women and men, black and white, rich and poor:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer. while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
McCain has translated from 18th century British English something Thomas Jefferson wrote on behalf of wealthy white men whose possessions--women and children and black slaves (men, women, and children)--were threatened by red men and red women; those white men of wealth were declaring with their signature in Philadelphia their independence from their king in London:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
McCain has translated something from the ancient Hebrew scriptures, from the beginning, told by a Jew, most certainly a man, humbled to be created equal to a woman of whatever means and whatever race, in the image of the Creator:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמֹו בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא
אֹתֹו זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
So the question is, What do you think? Have McCain's translations been dynamically equivalent? Can he an insider speak to the other, the outsider, as an equal, as if using equivalently and dynamically the words of others, the maverick outsiders? (Or is his subtext this: "Change Washington so things don't have to change for the white wealthy men anywhere in America" ?)

--- as promised, here's the fuller context of McCain's translation:
Finally, a word to Senator Obama and his supporters. We'll go at it over the next two months. That's the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other. We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. No country ever had a greater cause than that.

And I wouldn't be an American worthy of the name if I didn't honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.

But
let there be no doubt, my friends, we're going to win this election. And after we've won, we're going to reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again, and get this country back on the road to prosperity and peace.
--- and the poetry:

a couple of lines from Larry Norman's "The Great American Novel":
you say all men are equal all men are brothers
then why are the rich more equal than others
and a few more from Jon Foreman's "Politicians":
I pledge allegiance to a country without borders, without politicians
Watching for my sky to get torn apart
We are broken, we are bitter
We're the problem, we're the politicians
Watching for our sky to get torn apart
C'mon and break me
and the fragment of a line from Sappho (translated also by Anne Carson):
Μνάσεσθαί τινά φα<ί>μι καὶ ἕτερον ἀμμέων

someone will remember us
-----I say
-----even in another time
and a bit from Joy Harjo and her "Mercy":
Forget the massacres, proclamations of war
-----rumors of wars.
I won't pour rifle shot through the guts of someone
I'm told is my enemy
-----Hell, my own enemy is right here.
Can you look inside, see past the teeth worn down
by meat and anger,
-----can you see?
and then Audre Lorde shows up on a blog since she wasn't invited to the convention:
The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Our English Hosts Their ελληνικοις

“Broadly defined, the study of translingual practice examines the process by which new words, meanings, discourses, and modes of representation arise circulate, and acquire legitimacy within the host language due to, or in spite of, the latter’s contact/collision with the guest language. Meanings, therefore, are not so much ‘transformed’ when concepts pass from the guest language to the host language as invented within the local environment of the latter.”
--Lydia He Liu,
Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity--China, 1900-1937

Here I offer my translation of two passages and two Greek words some of you have commented on this week. The aim has been to free up the word play sacrificed in previous translations. The goal has been to host ἡμιωβέλια and σταδίους into English, to invent concepts born out of these guest words. I welcome the former as “half pieces of silver” and the latter as “arenas.” Now in the local environment of the English language blogosphere and in the verses below, I’m welcoming the concepts.

What do you think? Could these phrases for concepts work in the various historical and cultural contexts in which we find their counterparts in Aristotle, in Luke, and in their contemporaries and forebears? Are they comprehensible to you in your English? To use some of your language, is it both “accurate” and “believable”? And do we now still need footnotes?


ἀδίκημα δὲ μεῖζον, ὅσῳ ἂν ἀπὸ μείζονος ᾖ ἀδικίας: διὸ τὰ ἐλάχιστα μέγιστα, οἷον ὃ Μελανώπου Καλλίστρατος κατηγόρει, ὅτι παρελογίσατο τρία ἡμιωβέλια ἱερὰ τοὺς ναοποιούς:

An injustice gets big when it’s from an injustice that’s bigger. The smallest thing can get to be the biggest; this happened when Melanopus was indicted by Callistratus for a miscalculation of three half pieces of silver consecrated to the temple makers.

ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνης δὲ τοὐναντίον. ἔστιν δὲ ταῦτα ἐκ τοῦ ἐνυπάρχειν τῇ δυνάμει:

With justice it’s different from that. It is rather out of the original capabilities within.

ὁ γὰρ τρία ἡμιωβέλια ἱερὰ κλέψας κἂν ὁτιοῦν ἀδικήσειεν. ὁτὲ μὲν δὴ οὕτω τὸ μεῖζον, ὁτὲ δ' ἐκ τοῦ βλάβους κρίνεται.

A thief of three half pieces of silver consecrated should be capable of any injustice whatever. What’s bigger really comes out of what’s been judged harmful.

Aristotle, Rhetoric Book Α Chapter XIV Verse 1


Καὶ ἰδοὺ δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἦσαν πορευόμενοι εἰς κώμην ἀπέχουσαν σταδίους ἑξήκοντα ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ, ᾗ ὄνομα Ἐμμαοῦς

Now look at this: two out of the group, on that very day, were going into a village (a distance of sixty arenas from Jerusalem) that’s named Emmaus.

Luke, Narrative Chapter 24 Verse 13


Now that you’ve read in contexts above, what do you think?

What’s the difference in “half pieces of silver” and the previous English attempts: “vessels of small price”; “vessels”; “half-pence of money”; “half farthings of property / money”; “half-obels”?

What’s the distance between “arenas” and “stadia,” “stades,” “kilomètres,” “miles,” and “furlongs”?


“As I have argued elsewhere, one does not translate between equivalents; rather, one creates tropes of equivalence in the middle zone of translation between the host and guest languages. This middle zone of hypothetical equivalence, which is occupied by neologistic imagination, becomes the very ground for change.”
--Lydia He Liu,
Tokens of Exchange: The Problem of Translation in Global Circulation

“It is a commonplace that verbal signs are not stable and can change with time and usage; but as two, three, or multiple languages are involved and implicate one another, can we recapture the foreignness of that which has penetrated the opacity of the indigenous? . . . a hetero-cultural signifying chain . . . always requires more than one linguistic system to complete the process of signification for any given verbal phenomenon. . . .the semiotic operations of translingual speech and writing . . . acting out the verbal unit of one language and simultaneously displacing its signification onto a foreign language or languages, always in what one might call an occulted movement of thrown-togetherness. . . Suppose we transpose Peirce’s hypothesis onto Defoe’s island and imagine a European outcast and a Caribbean ‘savage’ being thrown together in this remote place and cut off from the rest of human society. . . .”
--Lydia He Liu,
The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making