Translation difficulties in the Romanian version of Arthur Schopenhauer's Aphorisms. A contrastive

18 Pages·2016·0.19 MB·English

DIACRONIA article doi:10.17684/i4A52en
ISSN:2393-1140
Impavidi progrediamur! www.diacronia.ro
Translation difficulties in the Romanian version of Arthur
Schopenhauer’s Aphorisms. A contrastive and diachronic analysis
(II)
Cecilia-IulianaVârlan(cid:6)
FacultyofLetters,“Ovidius”University,AleeaUniversității1,900472Constanța,Romania
Articleinfo Abstract
History: ThispapercontinuesthelinguisticanalysisonvariouseditionsoftheRomanian
ReceivedApril21,2016 versionofArthurSchopenhauer’slatephilosophicalworkAphorismsontheWis-
AcceptedMay27,2016 domofLife,ananalysiswhichwasconductedalongtworesearchdirectionsthat
PublishedAugust1,2016 have been here preserved: the contrastive one (a direct comparison between
source-textandtarget-text)andthediachronicone(consideringthetranslator’s
Keywords: interventions on his own text at different points in time). The results of this
translation analysisshallbepresentedherealongtheconclusionsofthelinguisticapproach
diachrony performedinordertoobjectivelyobservethewaythetranslator,TituMaiores-
comparativeanalysis cu, solvedthedifficultiesoftranslatingaGermanphilosophicaltextintoRo-
manian,byrecordingbothhisachievementsandhisimperfections.
Thelinguisticapproachofouranalysisisusefulnotonlytoourdiscussion
onphilosophictranslation,butalsotopossibleforthcomingtranslatorsofthe
Aphorisms,whoseintentionmightbethatofadaptingthediscourseoftheex-
istentRomanianversionwrittenbyTituMaiorescutothepossibilitiesofRo-
manian contemporary language, considering its considerable evolution, espe-
ciallyasfarasphilosophicalterminologyisconcerned.
1. Introduction
This paper resumes the detailed analysis of the Romanian version of the chapter called “Introduction”
(Einleitung)ofArthurSchopenhauer’sAphorismsontheWisdomofLife(AphorismenzurLebensweisheit)1.
The analysis has been started in a previously published article, in which all details regarding working
methodandmaterialhavebeengiven,cf. Vârlan(2016).
At the end of the analysis, results and conclusion shall be presented with the aim of revealing both
thewaytheauthoroftheAphorismsorganisedhisdiscourse—consideringthelexis,thesemanticsandthe
stylistics involved in structuring his text in order to obtain certain cognitive and aesthetic effects—and
theextendtowhichhistexthasbeenpragmaticallyunderstoodbythetranslatorandcorrectlyrendered
intoRomanian.
2. Acontrastive-diachronicanalysisoftheRomanianversionof Aphorisms(cont’d)
The contrastive-diachronic analysis conducted on the text discussed here is, in fact, a pragmalinguistic
analysisanditinvolvedtheexaminationofsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenvarioustranslatingoptions
thetranslatoradoptedinvariousmomentsoveracertainperiodoftime.Thus,theinterventionstheauthor
madeinhisowntextinvariousmomentsofovertheperiodoftimehemadehisRomanianversionofa
Germanphilosophicaltexthavebeenbothcontrastivelyanddiachronicallyanalysed.
(cid:6)Emailaddress:[email protected].
1HereinafterreferredtoasAphorisms.
©2016TheAuthors.PublishingrightsbelongtotheJournal. Diacronia4,August1,2016,A52(1–18)
2 Cecilia-IulianaVârlan
Theworkingmethodthatwasusedforthefirstpartofouranalysishasalsobeenherepreserved,i.e.the
textwasdividedintosentencesnumberedfrom(1)to(14),whilethecorrespondingRomanianeditions
oftranslation,A ,A ,andA ,havebeensuccessivelypositionedundereachofthem.
72/76 90 12
Thefirstpartofouranalysisexaminedthefirstfivesentencesofthetextwediscusshere. Inthenext
sentence,(6),ArthurSchopenhauercontinuedhiscriticalperspectiveoneudemonologybycomparingit
tohisownphilosophicalsystem. Hiscriticalpointofviewtooktheformofjustifyinghisworkingmethod
asitwasrequiredbytheinherentlimitationsofthetheoryhewasworkingwith.
(6) Um eine solche dennoch ausarbeiten zu können, habe ich daher gänzlich abgehn müssen
von dem höheren, metaphyf[s]isch-ethischen Standpunkte, zu welchem meine eigentliche
Philosophiehinleitet.
A Pentruaprelucradartotușioasemeneainvěțătură,amtrebuitsămědepărtezdelapunc-
72/76
tuldevederemaiinalt,sprecareconducefilosofiameainpropriulințelesalmetafisiceiei
etice.
A Pentruascriedaroasemeneacălăuză,amtrebuitsămědepărtezdelapunctuldevedere
90
maiinalt,sprecareconducefilosofiameainadevěratulințelesalmoraleieimetafisice.
A Pentru a scrie dar o asemenea călăuză, a trebuit să mă depărtez de la punctul de vedere
12
maiinalt,sprecareconducefilozofiameaînadevăratulînțelesalmoraleieimetafizice.
Thesentence(6)inthesource-textbeganwithaninfinitivephraseintroducingafinalclause: um…zu….
TheRomaniantranslatorusedthesametypeofconstruction,‘pentru+infinitive’,withaslightposition
changeofitselementsinordertocomplywiththeRomanianlanguagewordorder.
Immediatelyaftertheprepositionum, thereaderoftheoriginaltexthastofindthemeaningofthe
anaphoric demonstrative pronoun eine solche, whose referent may be easily found in the noun Eudä-
monologie. Inordertofacilitatethelogicalunderstandingofthetranslatedtext,TituMaiorescupartially
dismissedtheanaphorbyspecifyingthereferent,using—thus—asynonymforthereferentintheoriginal
text. Nevertheless,theanaphoricintentionoftheoriginalauthorwaspreservedbytheadjectiveasemenea.
Thus,einesolchebecameoasemeneainvěțăturăinA ,andoasemeneacălăuzăinA andinA . We
72/76 90 12
havenoticedthatT.MaiorescuhasinitiallychosenforthenouneudemonologieasynonymofLatinorigin,
invěțătură,butaftertherevisionofhistranslation,hedecidedtouseanothernoun,călăuză,ofTurkish
origin. This choice of words was probably made with the intention of limiting the semantic range of
invěțătură,whichbeside‘sfat,povață’canmoregenerallymean‘instruire’,‘instrucțiune’,‘științădecarte,
erudițiune’(Șăineanu,1908,p.339)2.
TheGermaninfinitivephraseum…zu…isbuiltwithamodalverb: ausarbeitenzukönnen. T.Maio-
rescu chose to under-translate the phrase, by eliminating the modal from the Romanian version. The
infinitive of the notional verb was nevertheless preserved as such, in accordance with the norms of the
standardRomanianlanguage. Theinfinitivewasinitiallytransposedasaprelucra,whileascrieoccurred
inthesubsequenteditionsoftranslation. Again,thetranslator’sintentionwastofacilitatehisreadersthe
understandingofthetextbylimitingthemeaningoftheGermanverbausarbeitentoonlyonepractical
examplefromthelistofactionsimpliedbyitssemantics,whichinthiscasewastheactionofwriting.
Translation difficulties deriving from the insufficient development of Romanian philosophical lan-
guage are especially obvious when considering Romanian equivalents of the following German noun
phrase(inthepresentarticle,‘nounphrase’isusedasasynonymfor‘nominalgroup’):
… [vondem] höheren, metaphysisch-ethischen Standpunkte, zuwelchem meine eigentlichePhilo-
sophiehinleitet.
2Anadditionalmeaningforthenouncălăuz(călăuză)isalsoindicatedbyLazărȘăineanuinthesenseofleadingsomeone
alongaspecificroad,bygivingindicationsandadvice;thus,bothliteralandfigurativemeaningsarehereimplied.
TranslationdifficultiesintheRomanianversionofSchopenhauer’sAphorisms(II) 3
TheinitialRomaniantranslationwas:
[dela]punctuldevederemaiinalt,sprecareconducefilosofiameainpropriulintelesalmetafi-
ziceieietice.
Thenominalgroupinthesource-textincludesacentre(thecompoundnounStandpunkte),twoadjectives,
whichwerepositionedbeforethecompoundnoun, inaccordancewiththesyntaxofGermanlanguage
(höheren and metaphysisch-ethischen), and an attributive relative clause positioned right after the centre
(zuwelchemmeineeigentlichePhilosophiehinleitet).
As a Romanian equivalent for the noun Standpunkte, the Romanian translator used a noun phrase
thatincludesanoun(punctul)andaprepositionalphrase(devedere);thistranslationstrategyisactually
thenormbytranslatingGermancompoundsintoRomanian. AlthoughthenounStandpunktemayseem
asbeingmarkedforplural,bothitsdefinitearticleindativedemandtherelativepronounwelcheminthe
subordinatedclausethatfollowsitclearlyindicatesthattherespectivenounisasingular. Inthiscase,the
ending vowel e is not a mark for plural, but an additional vowel that used to be employed as a specific
ending for masculine or neuter nouns in dative. This phenomenon has been regarded as a rule for the
writtenGermanlanguageuntilapproximatelythehalfofthe20thcentury,whenitbegantodisappear(cf.
Rieger,2006/2007,p.1). Consideringhiseducationalbackground,TituMaiorescuwascertainlyfamiliar
withthenormoftheGermanlanguageofthetimeswhenthesource-texthadbeenwritten,sothathehad
notbeentrickedbytheformofthenoun,asitmayhappentodaytoanyinexperiencedtranslator.
Differenttranslatingstrategieshavebeenusedfortransposingthetwoadjectivesprecedingthecentre
ofthenominalgroup. Thefirstone,höheren,wasliterallytranslatedasmaiînalt,though,inouropinion,
consideringthefactthatitdescribesanabstractnoun,acontextualtranspositionwouldhavebeenmore
appropriate,forexamplesuperior,elevat,evenrafinat.
Inhiseffortoffindinganequivalentforthesecondadjective,thecompoundmetaphysisch-ethisch(en),
T. Maiorescu employed modalisation as a translating strategy by changing the compound word into a
nominalgroup. IntheA edition, thefirstadjectiveofthecompoundwastranslatedasanounthat
72/76
becamethecentreofthenominalgroup, metafizică, whilethesecondadjectivebecameanattributefor
thisnoun,etică. Thesubsequenteditionsoftranslation,whichareidenticalwithoneanotherexceptfor
minororthographicalchanges,displayedareversedattributionofmorphologicalvalues,whereasinstead
ofusingeticăasanoun,thetranslatordecidedtousethesynonymmorala. Thus,metafizicaeticăfromthe
firsteditionbecomesnowmoralametafizică.
The attributive relative clause which was positioned after the centre Standpunkte was translated by
T.Maioresculiterally, all with theexceptionof theadverb eigentlich. Hedecided toextract it fromthe
relativeclauseandattachittothenounphraseresultedfromthetranslationofthecompoundadjective
metaphysisch-ethisch(en). Indoingthis,thetranslatorhadtobuildanadditionalphrasefunctioningasan
adverb: inpropriulintelesalmetafiziceieietice(inA )orînadevăratulînțelesalmoraleieimetafizice
72/76
(in A and A ). When comparing these two options of translation, one could notice that beside the
90 12
morphological changes we discussed above, the translator also introduced an additional noun (înțeles)
intothisphrase. Theadverbeigentilichbecameanadjectiveforit,initiallyaspropriul,and,insubsequent
editions, as adevăratul. So, in this case, the translator decided for both modalizing the source-text and
over-translatingit,byaddingnewmessagetotheoriginalone.
It is extremely obvious that finding an appropriate Romanian equivalent for this sentence implied
great difficulties which the translator tried to overcome by adopting various strategies. T. Maiorescu’s
hesitations and revisions of his text, especially as far as this sentence is concerned, prove the effort and
tenacity of a translator trying to solve the linguistic problems deriving from a certain incapacity of Ro-
manian language of the time the translation was written to cover complex semantic areas of German
lexemes,especiallyofthosebelongingtothespecializedlanguageofphilosophy.
Today, overonecenturyafterthetimeTituMaiorescuwrotehistranslationfromArthurSchopen-
hauer’sAphorisms,whenmorelinguisticresourcesareathandasfarascontemporaryRomanianlanguage
4 Cecilia-IulianaVârlan
isconcerned,wedaretoadvanceanothersolutionfortranslatingthissentence,asfollows:
Deaceea,pentruaputeaconstrui,totuși,oastfeldeteorie,atrebuitsărenunțîntotalitatelaviziunea
elevată,metafizicășietică,lacaresereferă,defapt,filosofiamea.
TheversionweadvancedhereassumedaseriesoftranslatingstrategiesusedbyTituMaiorescuandattemp-
ted,atthesametime,atbothcoveringforsomedeficienciesoftheoriginaltranslationandatsimplifying
thetextmeaningforRomanianreaders. Forinstance,thecausaladverbdaherhadnoequivalentinTitu
Maiorescu’s verstions of translation, while in our version it appears as de aceea. Its occurrence at the
beginningofthetranslatedsentencewasdeterminedbythepragmaticintentoftheoriginalwriter,which
isthatofjustifyinghisscientificapproachandwhichwealsowishedtoemphasize. Also,themodalverb
has been preserved in the equivalent of the infinitive phrase um …. ausarbeiten zu können, whereas for
ausarbeitentheequivalentaconstrui(Eng. tobuild)waschosen. T.Maiorescuusedaprelucra(Eng.: to
elaborate)inA andascrie(Eng.: towrite)inlatereditions. Ononehand,theverbaprelucraisaliteral
72/76
translationofausarbeiten,whosemeaningimpliesthattherealreadyexistedaconcept,whichtheactant
wanted to develop or to elaborate. This may seem in accordance with the real fact that the concept of
eudemonologyhadnotbeencoinedbythewriteroftheoriginaltext. Moreover,ArthurSchopenhauer
himselflistedanumberofforegoerswhohadalreadymadeuseoftheconceptintheirwritings. Onthe
other hand, the verb a scrie does not seem to cover the meaning of conceiving a theory, but only that
of writing it down. Those were the reasons that led us to finding another equivalent for the German
verb. TherearealotofsynonymsforausarbeitenincontemporaryGermanlanguageandfromthislistof
synonymswedecidedfortheRomanianequivalentaconstruibecauseweconsideredatheory—especially
aphilosophicalone—asbeingbuilt, metaphoricallyspeaking, startingfromspecifichypothesesasbasis
forbuildingarationalthoughtand,then,forestablishingcertainconclusions.
TheadverbgänzlichisanotherlexemewhoseequivalentisnottobefoundinanyofTituMaiorescu’s
versions of translation and which we included in our version as în totalitate, because we considered its
presenceintheRomaniantextasextremelynecessarysinceitgivesthemeasureofthedifferencebetween
theconceptsheusedintheworkwearereadingandtheonesheoperatedwithinhisphilosophicalsystem,
mentioned by A. Schopenhauer himself as being his main work. In the same regard, we decided for
viziuneaasaRomanianequivalentforStandpunkte,sinceitisanabstractnounandmoreappropriateto
describeacomplexphilosophicalapproach. Adoptingthesamelogic,wechosetheadjectiveelevatăasits
attribute,inordertobothemphasizethedifferencementionedaboveandpartiallypreserveafractionof
theauthor’sattitude,depreciativeasitwas,towardstheworkwearejustreadingcomparedtohisprevious
philosophicalworks.
Returningtothesource-text,onecannoticethatthenextsentence(7)bringsfurtherinthemostmath-
ematicalwaythereasoningtheauthorstartedintheprevioussentence(6),byshowingtheconsequences
his present approach might have, an approach that include a certain alienation from the philosophical
conceptselaboratedinhispreviousworks.
(7) Folglich beruht die ganze hier zu gebende Auseinandersetzung gewissermaßen auf einer
Ackommodation,sofernsienämlichaufdemgewöhnlichen,empirischenStandpunktebleibt
unddessenIrrthumfesthält.
A Prinurmaretoatăexpunereafăcutăinscriereadefațăprovineoarecumdintr’oacomodare,
72/76
intrucătremăneinmarginileințelegeriiempiriceobicinuiteși-icontinuărátăcirea.
A Prinurmaretoateexplicărilecuprinseinscriereadefațăprovinoare-cumdintr’oacomod-
90
are,intrucâtpornescdinpunctuldevederealexperiențeiobicinuiteșiurmeazădrumul
eicelrătăcit.
A Prinurmare,toateexplicărilecuprinseinscriereadefațăprovinoarecumdintr-oacomod-
12
are,întrucîtpornescdinpunctuldevederealexperiențeiobișnuiteșiurmeazădrumulei
celrătăcit.
TranslationdifficultiesintheRomanianversionofSchopenhauer’sAphorisms(II) 5
ComparingtheA andA editions(A isrelativelyidenticalwithA ,exceptforsomeminorortho-
72/76 90 12 90
graphicchanges),theexistenceoffurthertranslatingdifficultiesisbeingnoticedagain,atthelevelofboth
syntaxandmorphology.
Thesentencestartedwiththeadverbfolglich,forwhichT.Maiorescueasilyfoundanadverbialphrase
inRomanianlanguage,prinurmare. Boththeadverbandtheadverbialphrasesignaltheintroducingofa
consequenceoranoutcomeintherespectivetext.
Thefirstnominalgroupinthesource-textpreserveditsmorphologicalvalueinthetarget-text,though
differenttranslatingoptionsareadoptedinthetwoeditionswediscusshere. So,inA ,theRomanian
72/76
equivalentofAuseinandersetzung,thecentreofthenominalgroup,isexpunerea,whileinA isanounin
90
plural,explicările.Thus,whenrevisinghistranslationforitspublicationin1890,T.Maiorescudecidednot
onlytochangethenoun,butalsoitsgrammaticalcategoryofnumber. Thetranslatorprobablyregarded
thepluralasmoreappropriatetocoveringthesemanticsoftheGermannoun,whichimpliesaprofound
andespeciallycomplexpreoccupationforacertainsubjectortopic.
Thisfirstnominalgroupincludesalsoasyntheticgrammaticalformofthetypezu+PartizipI (also
called Gerundive), which is used as an attribute and acts as an adjective, bearing all markings deriving
fromtheagreementwiththemodifiednoun. ThistypeofgrammaticalformischaracteristictoGerman
language and its meaning is determined by the verb it was derived from, here the German verb geben.
Semanticallyspeaking,theactualstateoffactssuggestedbythisgrammaticalformindicatesarealisticand
attainablegoalinthefuture. Moreover,thepassivisationoftheverbactionisheredetectablebymeansof
replacingtherespectivephrasewitharelative,asintheexamplesbelow(Engeletal.,1993,p.356–357):
Germ. diezulieferndeWare(dieWare, diegeliefertwerdenmuß/soll)–Rom. „marfadelivrat
(marfacaretrebuielivrată/urmeazăsăfielivrată)”[thegoodstobedelivered]
or
Germ. eine kaum zu verstehende Situation (eine Situation, die kaum verstanden werden kann)
–Rom. „osituațiegreudeînțeles(osituațiecarepoatefigreuînțeleasă)”[a situationhardto
understand].
InRomanian,theequivalentofanattributiveGerundivisbuiltwiththeverbitwasderivedfrom,inthe
supinecase,asseenabove(delivrat,ordeînțeles).
TituMaiorescuneglectedthistranslatingruleanduseddirectlyaparticipleasamodifier: făcută in
A ,andcuprinseinA andlatereditions. Here,thetranslator’shesitationsareonlyapparent,sincethe
72/76 90
modifying participle was chosen in direct accordance with the modified noun. In addition, Romanian
syntaxisinnowaysufferinginneithereditionoftranslation: expunereafăcutăîn…orexplicărilecuprinse
în…,respectively. Nevertheless,itistruethatbyusingtheGerundiveformoftheverbgebenasanadjunct
for the noun Auseinandersetzung the author set a semantic ambiguity in the text, in the sense that the
actantoftheverbactionremainedgrammaticallyunnamed,sothatthepassivemeaningwasunavoidable.
Therefore, aquasi-literaltranslationfortheGerundive discussedherewouldinvolvearelativeclause(ce
urmeazăafidată/dateaici),butthistranslatingstrategywouldalsoberesponsibleforapoorstyle,ifnot
even deficient. We regard both versions as instances of Titu Maiorescu’s creativity in finding the most
appropriate equivalent of the verb geben by using what a theoretician of translation studies called “the
compensatoryvirtuesofRomanianlanguage”(Kohn,1983).
OurcontrastiveanalysisfoundanotherpointofinterestinthetranslationoftheGermannounAckom-
modation, which is a neologism originating in the Latin word accommodation. The word is used today
(orthographically slightly modified: Akkommodation) in the field of physiology—where it refers to the
abilityofthehumaneyetoseeclearlyinvariousdistances;itsRomanianequivalentacomodațiebelongs
to the specialized language—and in the field of theology—here it refers to an adaptation / aligning /
harmonizingofareligiontoorwithanotherreligion’svaluesandideas. TituMaiorescuchosetotranslate
thewordliterallyasacomodare,thoughthemeaningofthisRomanianequivalentdidnotcorrespondwith
6 Cecilia-IulianaVârlan
thesemanticrangeofthediscussedneologisminthesource-language. (cf. Șăineanu,1908,p.5). Itisa
knownfactthatArthurSchopenhauermadeuseofGermanlanguagevocabularyinaverypersonalway
and he even invented new words by means of (unexpected) juxtaposition, listed by no dictionaries (cf.
Hochfeld,1912,p.103–104). Here,heborrowedawordbelongingtoaspecializedlanguageotherthan
thephilosophicalone.Bydoingthat,heopenedthereaderofthesource-textnewwaysofunderstanding—
byanalogy—difficultphilosophicalconcepts.
Thus,itwasonlyrationaltoconsiderthatneitherTituMaiorescu’scontemporaryreadersnortheread-
ersofourtimescanexactlyunderstandwhattheGermanphilosophermeantwhenheusedthisspecialized
neologism. Inthiscase,disambiguationcanonlyoriginateinthecontextinwhichthewordisbeingused,
i. e. theonethatimpliesakindofalienationfromcertainphilosophicalconcepts, asmentionedinthe
discussion about the previous sentence (6). Therefore, we consider that what the author meant here—
in both literal and metaphorical sense—is an adjustment (Rom. ajustare) of the eye when looking at a
specific object, an adjustment made in accordance with the distance between the eye and the object of
study.
TheexplanatorypassagethatfollowsthenounAckommodationalsoraisedgreattranslationdifficulties.
Thesource-textincludestwosubordinateclauses,asfollows:
[…],sofernsienämlichaufdemgewöhnlichen,empirischenStandpunktebleibtunddessenIrrthum
festhält.
TheequivalentofthispassageinA isasfollows:
72/76
[…],intrucătremăneinmarginileințelegeriiempiriceobicinuiteși-icontinuărátăcirea.
Inlatereditions,A andA ,whichareidenticalexceptfortheirorthography,theRomaniantranslation
90 12
isasfollows:
[…],întrucîtpornescdinpunctuldevederealexperiențeiobișnuiteșiurmeazădrumuleirătăcit.
As we have already mentioned, this is an explanatory passage, which justifies the presence of the ad-
verbial connector nämlich, whose semantics signals an explanation of the previous assertion and whose
occurrence—whenlinkingtwoclauses—isinamedialpositioninthesecondclause(Engeletal.,1993,
p.938).
Thesubordinateconjunctionsofern,placedatthebeginningofthefirstclause,indicatesalimitationof
thecircumstancesinwhichtheverbalactioninthemainclausecanoccur. ItsequivalentinRomaniancan
beaconditionalconjunctionoraphrasethatindicatesconditionality: dacă,încazcăorînmăsuraîncare.
ThisisthereasonwhyweregardTituMaiorescu’stranslationasinaccurate,sincethecausalconjunction
întrucît,whichwasusedinalleditionsasanequivalentfortheGermanwordsofern,distortedthemessage
fromthesource-text.
The anaphoric pronoun sie, functioning as subject of the conditional clause, introduces a further
semanticambiguityinthesource-text. Arapidevaluationofthepreviouscontextindicatesthefeminine
nouninsingularAckommodationasitsreferentor,inotherwords,asaregentforthesubordinateclausein
whichsieisthegrammaticalsubject. ComparingallRomanianeditionsoftranslationdiscussedhere,one
canrealisethatTituMaiorescudecidedthatthepronounsiehasanotherreferent,whichwas—infact—
the second feminine noun in singular in the previous context Auseinandersetzung. This incorrect attri-
butionofreferencefortheanaphoricpronounsieisnotobviousinthefirsteditionoftranslationA ,
72/76
becausetheverbremăne,whichisaliteralequivalentfortheGermanbleibt,ismarkedforsingularandis
thusinagreementwithbothnounsmentionedbeforeandwiththeirRomanianequivalentsinthetarget-
textwhoarealsofemininesingulars(expunereaandacomodare, respectively). Inlatereditions, though,
TituMaiorescuchoseanotherequivalent,acontextualone,andmodalisedthetranslationbychangingthe
grammaticalcategoryofnumberfortheverbheused.Thus,theRomanianverbpornesc(markedforplural)
TranslationdifficultiesintheRomanianversionofSchopenhauer’sAphorisms(II) 7
clearly indicates that the reference for the anaphoric pronoun sie is explicările (a plural noun), i.e. the
RomanianequivalentofAuseinandersetzung.Onemaysaythat,inthiscase,atruetranslationwouldbethe
onewhichpreserveinthetarget-texttheambiguityfromthesource-text.Thatwouldhavehappenedifthe
equivalentsinthetarget-textforthetwonounsinvolvedintheanaphoricrelationship(Ackommodation
andAuseinandersetzung)wouldhavecarriedthesamegrammaticalinformation(ingenderandnumber)
astheirreferentsinthesource-text.Nevertheless,thetranslatingstrategychosenbyTituMaiorescuhelped
hisreaderstobetterunderstandatextoperatingwithvariousphilosophicalconcepts,anoccupationthey
werenotverymuchaccustomedto.
The nominal group with the centre Standpunkte was another reason for Titu Maiorescu to revise
his translation. In A , the translation is textual, combining free transposition with word-by-word
72/76
equivalents. Thus, the modifiers gewöhnlichen and empirischen have been literally transposed into the
target-textasobicinuiteandempirice,whiletheequivalentofthenominalphrasecentrebecameanominal
phraseitself,marginileînțelegerii. Yet,itsconstituents(centre+modifier)arenowheretobefoundinthe
semanticmeaningofthesource-text. Intheprevioussentence(6)thesamenounStandpunktehadbeen
translatedusingthesemi-calquepunctdevedere.Inthiscase,thetranslationismorethanafreeone.Infact,
itmayberegardedasbothanover-translation,sinceadditionalmeaningsareincludedinthetarget-text
andanunder-translation,sincethemessageinthesource-textwaseluded.
In the subsequent editions, Titu Maiorescu changed his text offering a translation which also com-
binedvariousstrategies: hepreservedtheequivalentforStandpunkteinthesemi-calquedformpunctulde
vedere,buthemadechangesasfarasmodifiersareconcerned. Thesewereregroupedintoanounphrase
functioningaspossessorforthecentre: alexperiențeiobișnuite.
Thefollowingcoordinatingconjunction(und)indicatesthatthenextclause(unddessenIrrthumfes-
thält)iscoordinatedwiththepreviousoneandhasthesamesubordinatingrelationtotheirsharedregent.
Althoughthegrammaticalsubjectishereomitted,itcanbeeasilyinferredfromthecontext. Inaddition,
the noun phrase dessen Irrthum includes the relative pronoun (dessen) functioning as a determiner in
genitive.Thepossessorforthecentreofthenounphrasecentreis—undoubtedly—thenounStandpunkte,
sinceitistheonlymasculinenouninsingularinthepreviouscontextandthusinperfectaccordancewith
theformdessenoftherelativepronoun.
TheRomanianequivalentfortheclausewediscussedhereisasfollows:
A : și-icontinuărătăcirea
72/76
A șiA : șiurmeazădrumuleicelrătăcit.
90 12
Comparingthetwoversionsabove,itisobviousthatthemosttranslationdifficultiesoriginatedinboth
thepolysemyoftheGermanverbfesthaltenandinitscombinationwiththenounIrrthum,functioning
asa directobject forit. The Germanverb festhalten canliterallymean ‘tohold’, ‘tokeep’, ‘tonot letgo’,
butmetaphoricallycanimply‘toestablish’or‘toascertain’. TituMaiorescuunderstoodthenounIrrthum
metaphorically,basedonthesememeIrre,andchosetheRomanianequivalentrătăcire,initiallypreserving
itsmorphologicalvalue(inA ),butchangingitinlatereditions(A andA )byover-translatingit
72/76 90 12
intoanounphrase(drumul[…]celrătăcit).Inconclusion,althoughitmayseemthatthetranslatorchosea
differenttranslationoptioninthelatereditions,heonlychoseanotherstrategyoftransposingthemessage
intoRomanianwhilepreservingitsmeaning.Inouropinion,theauthoroftheoriginaltextdidnotintend
toaddametaphoricalmeaningtothewordIrrthum, butreferredtothe‘error’impliedbyanapproach
liketheonedescribedinhistext.
Consideringalltheabove,weadvancehereanewtranslationsolution,asfollows:
Prinurmare,întreagaabordareceurmeazăafirealizatăaicisebazează—într-oanumitămăsură—
peoajustare,înmăsuraîncareaceastapresupune,așadar,păstrareaunuiviziuniempiricecomune,
asumându-și[totodată]eroarea-i.
8 Cecilia-IulianaVârlan
The two following sentences, (8) and (9), provide a logical conclusion of all the reasoning previously
presented. This is indicated by the presence of the adverb demnach (Rom. conform celor spuse înainte,
așadar,înconcuzie,astfel [consideringalloftheabove,therefore,inconclusion,thus]).
(8) DemnachkannauchihrWerthnureinbedingterseyn,daselbstdasWortEudämonologie
einEuphemismusist.
A Astfel și valoarea unei asemene scrieri nu poate fi decăt relativă, fiindcă insuși cuvěntul
72/76
Eudaemonologieesteuneufemism.
A Astfelșivaloareauneiasemeneascrierinupoatefidecâtrelativă, fiindcăinsușcuvěntul
90
eudemonologieesteuneufemism.
A Astfelșivaloareauneiasemeneascrierinupoatefidecîtrelativă,fiindcăînsușicuvântul
12
eudemonologieesteuneufemism.
Thetranslationofsentence(8)intoRomanianwasmadealmostliterally,withallnecessarytranspositions
accordingtothedifferentwordorderrequiredbythetwolanguagesinvolvedintranslation. Weshould
notetheexcellentsolutionfoundbyTituMaiorescuasfarastheparticipialadjectivebedingtisconcerned.
Byusingtheadjectiverelativă,whichdoesnotappearasadirectequivalentoftheGermanword(cf. dgr,
s.v.bedingt),thetranslatorsucceededinpreservingboththeentiremeaningofthelexemefromthesource-
textanditsmorphologicandsyntacticvalues.
Theconclusionproceededinsentence(9),whichstartedwiththeconnectorferner(Rom.maideparte
[furthermore,moreover]).
(9) FernermachtauchdieselbekeinenAnspruchaufVollständigkeit;theilsweildasThemauner-
schöpflichist;theilsweilichsonstdasvonAndernbereitsGesagtehättewiederholenmüssen.
A Șiniciinaltáprivințănufacpretențiauneiexpunericomplecte,partefiindcătemanuse
72/76
poatesfirșìniciodată,partefiindcăatunciașfitrebuitsărepetceeaceauzisșialții.
A Darșicuaceastăreservănuampretențiauneiexpunericomplete,partefiindcătemanu
90
sepoatesfirșìniciodată,partefiindcăatunciașfitrebuitsărepetceeaceauzisșialții.
A Darșicuaceastărezervănuampretențiauneiexpunericomplete,partefiindcătemanu
12
sepoatesfirșìniciodată,partefiindcăatunciarfitrebuitsărepetceeaceauzisșialții.
Thesyntacticstructureofthissentenceincludesamainclauseandtwosubordinateclauses.Thosetwosub-
ordinatesarecausalclausesandinarelationofco-ordinationwithoneanotherviaacorrelativedisjunctive
conjunction teils… teils…. Causality is indicated by the presence of the subordinating conjunction weil,
whichistypicalforthiskindofsubordinatingsyntacticrelation,andwhichoccurshereincombination
witheachofthetwocorrelativesoftheabove-mentioneddisjunctive.
All editions of the Romanian version of this sentence preserved its syntactic structure. There are,
though, differences between editions, but they are set, on one hand, at lexical and semantic levels, and
onanotherhand,atthediscursivelevel. Forinstance,thegrammaticalsubjectofthemainclauseinthe
source-text is the anaphoric pronoun dieselbe. Its semantic referent should be searched in the previous
context,andthisoperationtookusbacktosentence(7),wherewefoundthenounAuseinandersetzung.
ThediscourseintheRomanianversionwaspersonalisedandthusmodifiedintoafirst-personnarration
bychangingthegrammaticalsubjectofthemainclause. TituMaiorescu’stranslationsolutionmaynotat
allbeunreasonedasitmayseem,sincetheactionimpliedbytheabstractnounAuseinandersetzungisthe
writerofthetexthimself.
Theequivalentoftheadverbfernerwasanadverbialphrasefunctioningasapragmaticconnector,yet
therearedifferentsolutionsinvariouseditions:inaltáprivințăinA ,andcuaceastărezervăinA and
72/76 90
TranslationdifficultiesintheRomanianversionofSchopenhauer’sAphorisms(II) 9
A .
12
The German idiom keinen Anspruch machen has initially been translated by using a calque: nu fac
pretenția. Afterrevisinghistextforthe1980publication,TituMaiorescuadaptedtheidiomtotherules
ofRomanianlanguageandusedthecorrectphrase: nuampretenția.
ArthurSchopenhauercontinuedhisIntroductionbypresentingotherworksthathadthesametopicas
his. Thefollowingsentence(10)offeredanexampleinthisregard,bynamingoneofthegreatrepresentat-
ivesofRenaissancespirit,GerolanoCardano,whomArthurSchopenhauermentionedbyhisLatinname.
Thesubsequentsentence(11)includesthenameofAristotle,whoseparticularwritingoneudemonology
got,however,boldlycriticisedbyArthurSchopenhauer.
(10) Als in ähnlicher Absicht, wie gegenwärtige Aphorismen, abgefaßt, ist mir nur das sehr le-
senswertheBuchdesCardanusdeutilitadeexadversiscapiendaerinnerlich,durchwelches
manalsodashierGegebenevervollständigenkann.
A Dintrealtecărți,caresăfiescriseinaceeașiintențiecuaforismeledefață,imiaducaminte
72/76
numaidescrierealuiCardanusdeutilitateexadversiscapienda,caremerităfoartemulta
ficetitășiprincaresepotdarcomplectaceleziseaici.
A Dintre alte cărți, care să fi fost scrise in aceeaș intenție ca aforismele de față, imi aduc
90
amintenumaidescrierealuiCardanusdeutilitateexadversiscapienda,caremerităfoarte
multsăfiecetitășiprincaresepotcompletàceleziseaici.
A Dintre alte cărți, care să fi fost scrise in aceeaș intenție ca aforismele de față, imi aduc
12
amintenumaidescrierealuiCardanusDeutilitateexadversiscapienda,caremerităfoarte
multsăfiecititășiprincaresepotcompletaceleziseaici.
Amorphologicandsemanticanalysisofthefirstsequenceofthissentence(AlsinähnlicherAbsicht,wie
gegenwärtige Aphorismen, abgefaßt, …) solves the problem raised by the polysemic conjunction als, re-
vealing its modal value. The sequence in question does not contain a finite verb in the past tense, so
thatthetemporalvalueoftheconjunctionmayeasilybediscarded. Moreover,fromthelistofmeanings
includedinanydictionaryfortheconnectorals,themostappropriateonethatcanbeeasilyselectedisthe
onethatindicatesthatthisconjunctionwasusedtointroduceadditionalinformationregardingacertain
referent. Thisreferentcanbeidentified,ononehand,asthecentreBuchofthenounphrasefunctioningas
grammaticalsubjectwithinthemainclause,or,ontheotherhand,astheadjectiveerinnerlichfunctioning
aspredicativeinsidethefiniteverbofthesameclause. Thisdoublesemanticsubordinationgeneratesthe
conclusionthattheabove-mentionedsequenceisanattributivestructure,whichsemanticallybelongsto
thenounphrasefunctioningasgrammaticalsubjectofthemainclause. Theverycomplexstructureofthis
nominalphraseisillustratedinthetablebelow:
Constituentsofthenounphrasefunction- Functionandfeatures
ing as grammatical subject of the main
clause-sentence(10)
Als in ähnlicher Absicht, wie gegenwärtige attributive structure (built with the conjunction
Aphorismen,abgefaßt, als+verbalphrase);prepositive;isolatedbycom-
masfromtherestofthesentence;introducesad-
ditionalinformation(Engeletal.,1993,p.762).
das determiner(definitearticle)
sehrlesenswerthe determiner for modifier (intensifying adverb) +
modifier(verbaladjective)
Buch centreofnounphrase(commonnoun)
10 Cecilia-IulianaVârlan
desCardanus possessor(propernoun, ingenitive, proclitically
markedwiththecorrespondingarticle)
deutilitadeexadversiscapienda apposition; separated not by commas, but by
graphicappearance
Thetableabovereflectsthefactthat,besidethenominalnucleus(thenounBuch)accompaniedbyitsusual
constituents(determiner,modifier,possessor,apposition),thenounphrasefunctioningasagrammatical
subject within the main clause includes a further and more complex attributive structure adding new
informationaboutthelexeme-centreBuch. Theattributivestructureincorporatesaverbalphrasewhose
centreisthenon-finiteabgefaßt. Asanequivalentforthisparticiple,theRomanianversionselectedone
ofitsmostgeneralsynonyms(‘towrite’)andtranslateditasaconjunctiveinthepresenttense(săfiescrise
inA )orinthepasttenseinsubsequenteditions(săfifostscrise,inA andA ).
72/76 90 12
Inordertohelphisreadersunderstandthemeaningwithinthispassage,thetranslatorwasboundto
change theattributivestructurefroma dominantly verbal one(since it included a verbal phrase) intoa
nounphraseintroducedbythepartitiveprepositiondintre:
Dintrealtecărți,caresăfie/săfifostscriseinaceeașintențiecaaforismeledefață.
Thenouncărțiisthecentreofthenominalgroupintroducedbythepartitivedintreandisthesemantic
equivalentoftheGermannounBuch,whichoccursonlylaterinthesource-text,whenitistranslatedas
scriere. So, byintroducinganadditionalattributetoindicatetheselectionofanobjectfromagroupof
similarones,TituMaiorescuwasboundtochangetheverbalphrasefromthesource-textintoanominal
one,whosecentre(inexistentinthesource-text)hadtosemanticallycorrespondtothenounfunctioning
asasubjectwithinthemainclause;inotherwords,heneededasynonymforit.
The predicate of the main clause, ist [mir] … erinnerlich, is built with the copula ist (cid:209) sein and the
predicativeerinnerlich(Rom.:(cid:19)careseaflăînmemorie,carepoatefiapelabildinmemorie,careîmivineîn
minte,decareîmiamintesc). TheinexistenceinRomanianofanequivalentforthispredicativecompelled
thetranslatortouseaverbphrasewiththesamemeaningastheabovementionedpredicate(Rom. [îmi]
aducaminte),whichrequiredanothergrammaticalsubjectthantheonepresentinthesource-text. This
subject,eventhoughremainedunexpressedintheRomanianversion,istotallyrecoveredfromtheformof
thereflexivepronounîmi. Inouropinion,inthiscase,TituMaiorescufoundthebesttranslatingsolution.
Thesamehappenedinthecaseoftheadjectivelesenswert,aderivativebysuffixationwith–wert(Rom.
demn de a fi …) from the verb lesen (Rom. a citi). A literal translation for this adjective would have
burdenedthesyntaxoftheRomaniansentence,thereforeTituMaiorescuchosetoextractitfromthenoun
phraseinwhichitwasincludedinthesource-textandtranslateitseparatelyasarelativeclausefunctioning
asattribute: caremerită…aficetităinA ,andcaremerită…săfiecetităinA andA .
72/76 90 12
Thesyntacticstructureofthesentenceinthesource-textincludesamainclauseandarelativeclause
introducedbythesequence[durch(preposition)+welches(relativepronoun)]. Thelatterpreservedits
valueofrelativeclauseinthetarget-text. Therefore,andbecausetheequivalentoftheadjectivelesenswert
isalsoarelativeclause,thetranslatorchosetoco-ordinatethemwiththeconjunctionși,althoughthatwas
notpresentinthesource-text.
Theadverbalso,placedinmiddlepositioninarelativeclause,mayseemasfunctioningasaconsecutive
connector,butitmayalsobeaparticlecharacteristicforspokenGerman(Abtönungspartikel),thuswith
noclear-cutmeaning,signallingherearelativisationofthemessage. InA ,thetranslatorchoseforit
72/76
theequivalentdar,whichisinfactanolderformforașadar;inotherwords,heconsidereditasbeinga
consecutiveadverb. Insubsequenteditions,T.Maiorescutotallyavoideditstranslation,probablybecause
itseemedredundanttohim. Indeed,ifwereadthetwoversions,wecouldeasilyadmitthatthisworddoes
notreallycarryanymeaninganditsomissionwithinthetarget-textdoesnotalterthemeaningfromthe
source-text.
GreaterdifficultiesoftranslationoccurwhenaGermanconceptdoesnothaveadirectequivalentin
Romanian,especiallywhenphilosophicaltextsareinvolved. Thisisthecaseoftheverbalnoundas(hier)