Commentatorial style

[Guest guest]

> >>> lmfosse 05/12/01 06:57AM >>>

> Hello,

>

> I am looking for a good English rendition of two expressions in Skt.

> commentatorial style:

 

I have to agree with Tim Lubin --no need to *slavishly* translate such

phrases when trying to make ancient texts accessible to a wider audience.

The 'stilted' nature of some Skt-Eng translations has been called

"Indologese" by H. Heifetz. For examples see his dissertation

(Berkeley, 1984?).

 

But perhaps the translations of these phrases in 'technical' literature

should be consistent. These texts weren't meant for entertainment, and

strictly speaking 'calques' are not available. (A useful list of about 75

"Standard Expressions" found in commentarial literature is found in App.

III of J.A.F. Roodbergen's meticulous translation of Mallinatha's

*GhaNTApatha* on the KirAtArjunIya. For 'ity arthah' Roodbergen has two

entries:

 

'that is to say'. Indicates a word-explanation with the help of a synonym.

The difference with iti bhaavah is clearly shown in the comm. on Kir. 3.33

and 3.42.

 

'this is the meaning (of the passage)'. This rendering is chosen when the

translation 'that is to say' can be used with difficulty only, due to

requirements of idiom.

 

For 'ity anvayah' Roodbergen suggests:

 

'this is how we should construe (grammatically)'.

 

[i like: "this is the (syntactic) relation" --but I think I used yet

another rendering in my dissertation.]

 

Perhaps modern Indology has no need of developing such a commentarial

shorthand. Yet I'm wondering if translations from Greek and Latin flow

better because discussion of such stock expressions *did* produce a

consensus --if not of a single all-purpose phrase, at least a set of

alternatives from which to choose under established conditions. (NB: When

you find the word 'established' in a Skt trans., you might be reading

"Indologese"!)

 

best,

Tim Cahill