It is currently Fri 20 May 2022 4:11 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 20 Apr 2022 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 295
Hi, the English version is as follows (and my Irish below). Are there any obvious errors in my Irish?
Quote:
SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. The philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in still earlier times, in the service of which probably more labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its “super-terrestrial” pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kind—for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE—the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: “How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock?” But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the “people”—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE “PEOPLE”), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic enlightenment—which, with the aid of liberty of the press and newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would not so easily find itself in “distress”! (The Germans invented gunpowder—all credit to them! but they again made things square—they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT....
Sils Maria Upper Engadine, JUNE, 1885.

My Irish:
Quote:
CUIR I gCÁS gur bean gurb ea an Fhírinne—cad é féin ansan? Ná fuil bunús ann chun droch‑amhrais a bheith againn gur theip ar na hollúnaibh go léir, chómh fada agus dob an‑údarásach na daoine iad, na mná do thuiscint? Agus an dáiríreacht uathásach agus an éilitheacht thuathalach lena dtugaid siad aghaidh de ghnáth ar an bhFírinne, nách neamh‑oilthe mí‑oiriúnach an treó é sin chun mná do mhealladh leó? Go deimhin, níor leog sise riamh d’éinne í ’ thógaint; agus i láthair na huaire seo tá gach sórd smaoinimh an-údarásaigh ’na seasamh fé ghnúis ghruama gan mhisneach—MÁS rud go bhfuilid siad ’na seasamh in ao’ chor! Óir tá lucht magaidh ann, agus is é ’ mhaíd siad ná go bhfuilid na smaointe seo t’réis titithe, go luíonn gach smaoineamh an-údárasach ar lár—ní hea, ach i ndeireadh an anama. Ach chun labhairt dáiríribh, mar leis an uile smaointeóireacht an-údarásach ollúnachta, dá sholmantacht, dá chríochnaitheacht agus dá chínnteacht é an t-éirí in áirde atáid siad t’réis glacadh, tá bunús láidir ann chun dóchais a bheith againn ná fuil iontu ach leanbaíocht uasal agus núíosacht; agus is dócha go bhfuil an t-am buailthe linn ’na dtuigfar arís agus arís eile CAD IS EA is bun a dhóthain lena léithéidí de chóraisíbh taibhseacha absalóideacha ollúnachta agus a dh’oileadh lucht an‑údarásach go nuige seo: ar uairibh, saobh‑chreideamh éigint i mbéal na ndaoine ó chian aimsire (leithéid saobh‑chreidimh an anama, rud nár stad fós den díobháil a dhéanamh i bhfuirm an tsaobh‑chreidimh i dtaobh “duine mar dhuine gníomhach” agus an tsaobh‑chreidimh i dtaobh “duine mar dhuine ann féin”): ar uairibh eile, cleas focal, nú cluain ghramadaí, nú ginearálú ró‑thoghail ar fhírinníbh, ar fhírinníbh atá ró‑chúngaithe, ró‑phearsanta, ró‑dhaonna—ró‑dhaonna ar fad. Ní raibh, tá súil againn, in ollúnacht lucht an-údarásach ach geallúint i gcómhair na mílthe blian do bhí le teacht, go díreach amhail an asarlaíocht in aimsiribh níos ársa arís, go gcaitheadh, mar a mheasfá, níos mó saothair ’na seirbhís, agus níos mó óir, agus níos mó géarchúisí agus níos mó foighne, ná le haon fhíor‑eólaíocht go dtí so: an mhór‑stíl ailthireachta, is ar an asarlaíocht atá sí amu’ againn, agus ar a mór‑chúis “uas‑talúnta” in Ásia agus san Éigipt. Chun iad féin d’inscrí ar chroí na cine daonna le héilithibh buana, is mór, do dheallródh sé, do gach mór‑smaoineamh imeacht ar fán ar druím an domhain ar dtúis i bhfuirm ainimhealach annspianta scannrúil—mar sin don ollúnacht an-údarásach, cuir i gcás an teagasc Vedanta in Ásia nú an teagasc Platónach san Iúróip. Ní cóir gan bheith baoch di, cé go gcaithimíd a dh’admháil gur earráid smaointeóireachta an-údarásaí gurb ea an earráid is measa, is leadránaí, is cúntúrthaí go dtí so, ’sé sin, mar a cheap Platón an Fíor-Sprid agus an Mhaith-ann-féin. Ach anois agus atá sé sáraithe, anois agus is féidir don Iúróip, saor ón mbroinglóid seo, a cuid anála do tharrac saor ó bhuaireamh arís agus, an chuid is lú dhe, codladh níos sá’ do bheith aici, is sinn—sinne GO bhFUIL SÉ DE DHUALGAS ORAINN BHEITH MÚISCILTHEACH—is sinn is oidhrí ar an neart go léir atá oilthe ag an gcoímheascar so i gcoinnibh na hearráide seo. Labhairt ar an Sprid agus ar an Maith mar a labhradh Platón orthu, is ionann san agus iompáil síos suas dáiríribh do dhéanamh ar an bhfírinne, agus séanadh do dhéanamh ar RADHARC COTHROMAITHE ar an mbeatha, rud is bun-choiníoll léi. Go deimhin, do féadfí a dh’fhiafraí, mar liag, “Conas a thárla gur ghoíll a leithéid seo de ghalar ar Phlatón, agus é ar an rud is breátha dár tháinig as na haimsiribh ársa? An amhlaidh gur thruaill an Socratés mallaithe úd é? An fíor, t’réis an tsaeil, gur truaillaitheóir aos óg gurbh ea Socratés, agus, mar sin, go raibh an táthabha tuíllthe aige?” Ach an coímheascar i gcoinnibh Phlatóin, nú—chun labhairt níos soiléire, an coímheascar i bhfabhar don “phobal”—an coímheascar úd i gcoinnibh annsmachta na heagailse i gcaitheamh na mílthe blian den Chríostaíocht (ÓIR SAGHAS TEAGAISC PLATÓNAIGH DON “PHOBAL” IS EA AN CHRÍOSTAÍOCHT), ’sé rud do ghein sé san Iúróip ná teannas oirirc an anama, rud ná raibh in aon áit roimis sin; lena leithéid sin de bhogha teannaithe is féidir anois aimsiú ’ dhéanamh ar na toisceannaibh is sia uainn. Chun na fírinne a rá, mothaíonn an tIúróipeach an teannas so mar staid géibhinne, agus do deineadh iarrachtaí árd-nósacha dhá uair ar an mbogha so do scaoileadh, uair éigint trí bhíthinn teagaisc Cuallachta Íosa, agus an tarna huair trí bhíthinn soílsithe daonlathaigh—rud d’fhéadfadh dul i bhfeidhm, le cúnamh saoirse an chló-phreasa agus léitheóireachta na nuachtán, chun ná titeadh an sprid chómh héasca san i “ngéibhinn”! (Is iad na hAlmáinneacha do chéad-cheap púdar gunna—a chreidiúint sin dóibh mar gheall air!, ach, rud eile do dheineadar arís, d’iompaíodar nithe chun ceárnach—do chéad-cheapadar cló-bhualadh.) Ach sinne ná baineann le Cuallacht Íosa ná leis na daonlathaithe, sinne nách Almáinneacha i gceart, sinne is DEA-IÚRÓIPEACHA, agus is spridí saor, ANA-shaor—tá sé fós ionainn, an ghéibhinn go léir na spride agus teannas a bogha! Agus b’fhéidir an saíghead, an dualgas chómh maith, agus, ca bhfios?, AN TOISC LE CAITHEAMH UIRTHI...

Sils Maria, Engadine Árd, MEITHEAMH an FHÓMHAIR, 1885.

I had numerous problems. How to translate "what then?" I came up with "cad é féin ansan?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 24 Apr 2022 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat 03 May 2014 4:01 pm
Posts: 1566
Féin is called a retrospective pronoun by grammarians - so I think it should not be used prospective. I'd wonder who sa diabhal is "é féin".
I'd use ad hoc "Cad ansin?" for "What then?" (cad ann sin, there's no need for another pronoun.)
EID recommends "Agus ansin?" or "Agus ina dhiaidh sin?"

In the German original, there is "wie" (how): Vorausgesetzt, daß die Wahrheit ein Weib ist –, wie?, i.e. conas in Irish.

Upper Engadine = Oberengadin (German) = Engiadin’Ota (Rhaeto-Romance)
Ota means probably "high", but I'd use Engadin Uachtarach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 24 Apr 2022 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 295
Labhrás wrote:
Féin is called a retrospective pronoun by grammarians - so I think it should not be used prospective. I'd wonder who sa diabhal is "é féin".
I'd use ad hoc "Cad ansin?" for "What then?" (cad ann sin, there's no need for another pronoun.)
EID recommends "Agus ansin?" or "Agus ina dhiaidh sin?"

In the German original, there is "wie" (how): Vorausgesetzt, daß die Wahrheit ein Weib ist –, wie?, i.e. conas in Irish.

Upper Engadine = Oberengadin (German) = Engiadin’Ota (Rhaeto-Romance)
Ota means probably "high", but I'd use Engadin Uachtarach.


Thank you. I suspect you're right on both points!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group