Subject
Re: [QUERY] Pushkin in LRL
From
Date
Body
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 fluency¹ in English
does not guarantee that one can always readily understand something written
in English by a fluent-in-English¹ writer. We¹ve all been agonizing over
translating¹ between different languages, but it¹s helpful to ponder those
often equally vexing problems facing communications between two
natively-fluent¹ speakers in the same tongue.
Here¹s 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.¹ 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!¹
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.¹
Summary: I think VN is in superb form throughout this essay, especially
since it dates back to his earliest exposures to advanced¹ 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:
Ambiguous¹ does not equate to meaningless¹ or incomprehensible.¹ The
classic example (Time flies like an arrow) has many different but valid¹
meanings.
it¹s damned-near impossible (some linguists/philosophers go further and
declare it totally impossible) to avoid unintended ambiguities in Natural
Language discourse. Right away, I¹m 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 let¹s call them
useful gists.¹
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 Translation² [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:³Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?²
>
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/
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 fluency¹ in English
does not guarantee that one can always readily understand something written
in English by a fluent-in-English¹ writer. We¹ve all been agonizing over
translating¹ between different languages, but it¹s helpful to ponder those
often equally vexing problems facing communications between two
natively-fluent¹ speakers in the same tongue.
Here¹s 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.¹ 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!¹
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.¹
Summary: I think VN is in superb form throughout this essay, especially
since it dates back to his earliest exposures to advanced¹ 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:
Ambiguous¹ does not equate to meaningless¹ or incomprehensible.¹ The
classic example (Time flies like an arrow) has many different but valid¹
meanings.
it¹s damned-near impossible (some linguists/philosophers go further and
declare it totally impossible) to avoid unintended ambiguities in Natural
Language discourse. Right away, I¹m 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 let¹s call them
useful gists.¹
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 Translation² [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:³Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?²
>
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/