MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode02_radio.mp3

Not an editorially verified transcript. This text was generated automatically from the preserved recording and may contain recognition, language-detection, spelling, segmentation or name errors. Consult the source recording for authoritative content.

Collection: Part 10 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 10
Status: asr-draft
Human verified: No
Editorial review: not-reviewed
ASR model: small
Detected language: en (0.757632)
Duration: 18:28
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:04–0:143. In the light of Indian politics. 3.1 discussion of Rasa, Natha as the dominant Rasa, with Vara
0:14–0:22and Hsya as subsidiary Rasa. Abhinva Gupta, linking Natha Rasa with liberation as a human
0:22–0:30goal, described it as the ground of all Rasa. The enduring emotion of Tima Tattvavi Vekha
0:30–0:37is an inquiry into reality rooted in detachment, the work begins with the desire for final
0:37–0:44release from suffering and ends with non-conceptual knowledge of the self, the crowning stone of
0:44–0:50the city of liberation. From this perspective, the entire journey of reasoning provides the
0:50–0:57determinants of Natarasa, every refutation and defense in the argument functions like
0:57–1:02a transitory emotion leading toward that supreme tranquility.
1:02–1:08This effective arc is preserved in the Mathili translation because, in the section discussing
1:08–1:14liberation, the translator deliberately makes the language gentle, flowing, and suited
1:14–1:16to meditation.
1:16–1:23In a sentence such as, suffering is not always joined to the means of pleasure, but pleasure
1:23–1:29is generally surrounded by the means of suffering, reasoning and the poetry of dispassion become
1:29–1:38one. Within the dominance of Natha, an intellectual form of Vararasa constantly pulses, one that
1:38–1:45may be classified not as martial heroism but as the heroism of reasoning, compassion and
1:45–1:51knowledge. Energy is the enduring emotion here, the systematic destruction of every
1:51–1:58alternative, the firm monosyllabic stroke of no, and the deployment of the weapon of
1:58–2:02reversal of the consequence fill the text with vigor.
2:02–2:07Humor and satire are also far from negligible.
2:07–2:13A satirical rejoinder beginning with an address such as, Dear Brother.
2:13–2:19Does this mean that, or the description of accepting an incoherent cognition as
2:19–2:26giving birth to a demon that itself destroys those cognitions exemplify a wit rarely found
2:26–2:33in scholastic prose. The translator has localized this wave of satire through Mathele's native
2:33–2:41form of address, Dear Brother. From the standpoint of Rasa theory, this is a sound decision,
2:41–2:48because the realization of Rasa depends on a communion of hearts among sensitive readers,
2:48–2:54And for a Mathil reader this mode of address produces immediate universalization.
2:54–2:593. To discussion of Dhvani, beyond the literal meaning.
2:59–3:06By Nandavardhanayas criterion, a scholastic treatise would ordinarily fall into the category
3:06–3:14of mere verbal ornament, yet several levels of Vastudvani are active in Timatha Tvavivika.
3:14–3:17The first suggestion concerns the dignity of the self.
3:17–3:24The implied meaning of the entire tradition of refutation is that human recognition, memory,
3:24–3:31agency, and moral responsibility all rest upon the permanence of the self, to accept
3:31–3:36momentariness is to deny every experience of one's own life.
3:36–3:42The second suggestion concerns the relation between language and reality, the underlying
3:42–3:49Resonance of the refutation of the theory of exclusion is that words are connected not
3:49–3:52with negation but with being.
3:52–3:58It is the positive cognition, this is a pot that moves a person to fetch water.
3:58–4:04The third is the cultural suggestion generated by the act of translation itself.
4:04–4:10When the most intricate discourse of Navyaanya begins to flow naturally in Mathili, it
4:10–4:17It silently resounds that Mathili is not merely a language of songs, lullabies and folk tales,
4:17–4:22but also a vehicle of mature philosophical thought.
4:22–4:26This third Dhvani has been added by the translator.
4:26–4:33It was not in the original, it arises from the translator's very presence, and this
4:33–4:36is the work's most far-reaching significance.
4:36–4:423.3 vākrokti and the scheme of figures of speech.
4:42–4:49In the language of Kuntaka's theory of vākrokti, the principle obliqueness of this text lies
4:49–4:54in the organization of episodes and in sentence formation.
4:54–4:59The question and answer sequence, should it then be accepted that?
4:59–5:01No.
5:01–5:05Does not allow the reader to remain a passive listener.
5:05–5:12After every should, the reader thinks of an answer for a moment and then Ujjana's know
5:12–5:17brings that answer into collision with the reader's own inference.
5:17–5:23This dialogic obliqueness becomes still more effective in Mathili because the natural rhythm
5:23–5:30of Mathili prose is interrogative, whether in village councils, scholastic debate,
5:30–5:32or domestic argument.
5:32–5:40The text abounds in illustrative examples, the seed and sprout, rope and snake, the elephant
5:40–5:47at the gate, the impossible aggregate of donkey and camel, its metaphors are especially concentrated
5:47–5:54at the end, in expressions such as the crowning stone of the city of liberation and the
5:54–6:01arrow that strikes its target, and the concluding verse glimmers with ironic praise, a painter's
6:01–6:08glory is not increased by the praise of the blind. Instead of self praise, the worst
6:08–6:15demands competence from the reader. The translation preserves all these figures intact at the
6:15–6:23level of imagery, nowhere does it destroy their wonder by explaining them away. This testifies
6:23–6:32to the translator's literary restraint. 3.4 Gua, RTI, and Ossetir. In terms of Gua, the
6:32–6:39translator's principal achievement is lucidity. He breaks the long chains of compounds in
6:39–6:46the Sanskrit original into short sentences and places every stage of the argument under
6:46–6:52a separate sectional heading, thereby creating clear prose with few compounds in accordance
6:52–6:55with the Vaderbstein.
6:55–6:59Vigar remains intact in the passages of refutation.
6:59–7:06The repeated no falls like a thunderbolt and sweetness appears in the discussion of liberation
7:06–7:09and in the verses of praise.
7:09–7:15By Kimendra's criterion of propriety, the terminological choices are especially commendable
7:15–7:22terms such as invariable concomitance, exclusion, co-apprehension, reversal of the consequence
7:22–7:29consequence, material cause, conceptual and non-conceptual cognition, mutual dependence
7:29–7:36and inexplicability otherwise are retained as technical terms, yet at their first occurrence
7:36–7:42their meaning emerges through the structure of the sentence. Thus the definition of reversal
7:42–7:48of the consequence is naturally woven into the translation. In Buddhist reasoning, the
7:48–7:55The first conditional proposition of a negative inference, this to level strategy, for in
7:55–8:01turn, native sentence, is an exemplary fulfillment of propriety.
8:01–8:07The few places where propriety is disturbed will be discussed in the section on linguistic
8:07–8:08evaluation.
8:08–8:094.
8:09–8:13In the light of the Indian translation tradition.
8:13–8:21The etymology of the word Anuvda, Anuplasvada, speaking after or restating what is already
8:21–8:27known indicates that the Indian tradition understands translation not as imitation but
8:27–8:29as following.
8:29–8:36In the Sanskrit-scholastic world, an original text continued to live through commentary,
8:36–8:41supplementary exposition, gloss, paraphrase and vernacular explanation.
8:41–8:46The age restated the treatise in its own language.
8:46–8:53From this perspective, Gajendra Thakur's work belongs to the tradition of vernacular commentary.
8:53–9:00It is not a word-forward translation, but a translation of intention aiming not merely
9:00–9:06at the sentence meaning of the original but at its intended import.
9:06–9:13The sectional headings added in the translation, such as partial mutual inclusion and partial
9:13–9:21mutual exclusion are impossible among exclusions, are modern forms of the topic indication and
9:21–9:25introductory note used in the commentary tradition.
9:25–9:32Just as a Sanskrit commentator would precede each section with now he expounds this,
9:32–9:37These headings divide the continuous original crows into readable units.
9:37–9:45This is certainly a departure from the original, but it is a departure sanctioned by tradition.
9:45–9:52Its usefulness for researchers is immeasurable, for more than 405 headings together form a
9:52–9:55complete logical map of the work.
9:55–10:02Two concepts in modern Indian thinking on translation are relevant here, P. Lal's
10:02–10:08Transcreation and Ganesh Devi's proposition that translation is retrieval.
10:08–10:15Devi's claim that, for Indian languages, translation is an act of release from amnesia
10:15–10:21and of bringing one's heritage back home applies literally to this book.
10:21–10:28In Mithila's intellectual memory, Udyana had survived merely as a name, not as a text,
10:28–10:33this translation turns the name back into a text.
10:33–10:39The element of Transcreation appears wherever the translator places a Mathili idiom in the
10:39–10:45service of the original, the council to separate pleasure from suffering and enjoy pleasure
10:45–10:54alone as one separates grain from husk is impossible in practice. Here the maxim of grain and husk
10:54–10:59has been transformed into the lived experience of Mithilas Threshing Floor.
11:00–11:095. In the light of Western translation theory. 5.1 Schlaermatures to Pards and Venutis for
11:09–11:11for organization.
11:11–11:18Friedrich Schleermacher, in 1813, said to parts before the translator, either take the
11:18–11:24reader toward the author or bring the author toward the reader.
11:24–11:30Lawrence Venuti described the same duality as for organization and domestication, warning
11:30–11:36that excessive domestication erases the otherness of the original.
11:36–11:42The distinctive feature of the present translation is that it travels both parts at once, but
11:42–11:49with a carefully considered division of labour, for organization at the terminological level
11:49–11:56a poha, invariable concomitance, and co-apprehension remain intact, and the reader must enter
11:56–12:02Ujjana's conceptual world, and domestication at the level of sentence and illustration,
12:02–12:09The donkey and camel, the threshing floor, and dear brother, allow Udhya to speak in
12:09–12:11a mathil courtyard.
12:11–12:17In Venuti's terms, this translation does not seek to become invisible.
12:17–12:23The text repeatedly reminds the reader that one stands before something ancient, other,
12:23–12:30and difficult, yet its difficulty now lies not in the language but in the thought.
12:30–12:35It is hard to imagine a better fulfillment of the ethics of translation than removing
12:35–12:40the linguistic barrier while leaving the intellectual challenge intact.
12:40–12:455. To NIDA, NEWMARK, and SCOPOS
12:45–12:52By Eugene NIDA's criterion of formal versus dynamic equivalence, this translation belongs
12:52–12:57to a hybrid category, and that is precisely its strength.
12:57–13:05In the structure of the argument it maintains formal fidelity, the sequence of divided alternatives,
13:05–13:11the succession of objection and answer, and the two-proposition structure of reversal of
13:11–13:18the consequence are nowhere simplified. At the sentence level, however, it employs
13:18–13:23dynamic equivalence, attempting to produce in a Mathilde reader the same effect that
13:23–13:31the original produced in a reader of Sanskrit. In Peter Newmark's terminology, it balances
13:31–13:38semantic and communicative translation, semantic in the philosophical passages and communicative
13:38–13:41in the examples and satire.
13:41–13:50Scopo's theory associated with Rhys and Vermeer asks, what is the purpose of the translation?
13:50–13:56Here the purpose is clearly to fold, to equip Mathili with the capacity for philosophical
13:56–14:02prose and to give Mathil researchers an entrance into their own tradition.
14:02–14:09The work fulfills both purposes, especially the second, because the sectional headings,
14:09–14:15introductory essay, and well-shaped division into units together make it a self-teaching
14:15–14:16text.
14:16–14:225.3 Stynars Fourfold Movement and Benjamin's Afterlife.
14:22–14:33George Stynar describes translation as a hermeneutic movement in four stages, trust, aggression, incorporation, and restitution.
14:33–14:37All four stages may be observed in the present work.
14:37–14:44Trust, the translator assumes that this thousand-year-old text contains something meaningful for a mathily
14:44–14:46reader.
14:46–14:53This is no small act of faith, for the finest web of alternatives in the refutation of momentariness
14:53–14:58appears forbidding to a modern reader at first sight.
14:58–15:04Aggression, the translator breaks through the unbroken wall of the original prose,
15:04–15:11divides it into 405 sections and dissolves its long compounds.
15:11–15:17Incorporation, the technical lexicon is absorbed into Mathili's syntax.
15:17–15:23Restitution, according to Steiner, translation must return to the original what it has taken
15:23–15:24from it.
15:24–15:32Here the restitution is that, after translation, Timatha Tvaviveka is more alive than before
15:32–15:38its readership, geography, and future have all expanded.
15:38–15:43This is Walter Benjamin's Afterlife, Fortalben.
15:43–15:49Benjamin's celebrated proposition that translation extends the life of an original after its
15:49–15:55death and that the finest translation moves both original and target language toward the
15:55–16:01The pure language that is complete in no single tongue is visibly realized in the present
16:01–16:03work.
16:03–16:07The Sanskrit-Mathili pair is ideal in the Benjaminian sense.
16:07–16:13The cultural proximity of the two languages is such that Mathili can carry the intention
16:13–16:20of Sanskrit almost without friction, while their grammatical natures are different enough
16:20–16:24to prevent translation from becoming imitation.
16:24–16:315.4 Le Fevier's Rewriting, Poli System Theory and the Question of Patronage.
16:31–16:38Andrei Lefevier calls translation Rewriting and shows that every Rewriting operates under
16:38–16:46some system of patronage, ideology and politics. The patronage context of the present book
16:46–16:54is exceptional. It is not a project of an Academy, University or State institution
16:54–17:00It is an autonomous, extranstitutional publication of the Vidyeh e-Journal.
17:00–17:06Seen within the wider context of Vidyeh's parallel literary movement, this act of translation
17:06–17:12is itself a literary and political statement, the repossession of Mathili's classical
17:12–17:17heritage will not wait for institutional approval.
17:17–17:23Itamar E. Vinjo Har's polysystem theory further clarifies its importance.
17:23–17:30When the place of a genre or function remains empty in a literary system, translation fills
17:30–17:34that vacancy and assumes a central position.
17:34–17:40The place of philosophical prose in the Mathili Poly system was almost empty by entering
17:40–17:48that vacant space, this translation establishes not merely a single book but an entire prose
17:48–17:49register.
17:49–17:56Future philosophical writing in Mathili will begin from its Sintac, Terminological Policy,
17:56–17:59and mode of sectional organization.
17:59–18:06In the language of Gideon Turi's theory of norms, the initial norm chosen by this translation
18:06–18:12between acceptability in the target culture and adequacy to the source has the potential
18:12–18:18to become the norm for future Mathili translations of scholastic works.
18:18–18:22What is the highest historical role a translation can fulfill?

Plain text

3. In the light of Indian politics. 3.1 discussion of Rasa, Natha as the dominant Rasa, with Vara and Hsya as subsidiary Rasa. Abhinva Gupta, linking Natha Rasa with liberation as a human goal, described it as the ground of all Rasa. The enduring emotion of Tima Tattvavi Vekha is an inquiry into reality rooted in detachment, the work begins with the desire for final release from suffering and ends with non-conceptual knowledge of the self, the crowning stone of the city of liberation. From this perspective, the entire journey of reasoning provides the determinants of Natarasa, every refutation and defense in the argument functions like a transitory emotion leading toward that supreme tranquility. This effective arc is preserved in the Mathili translation because, in the section discussing liberation, the translator deliberately makes the language gentle, flowing, and suited to meditation. In a sentence such as, suffering is not always joined to the means of pleasure, but pleasure is generally surrounded by the means of suffering, reasoning and the poetry of dispassion become one. Within the dominance of Natha, an intellectual form of Vararasa constantly pulses, one that may be classified not as martial heroism but as the heroism of reasoning, compassion and knowledge. Energy is the enduring emotion here, the systematic destruction of every alternative, the firm monosyllabic stroke of no, and the deployment of the weapon of reversal of the consequence fill the text with vigor. Humor and satire are also far from negligible. A satirical rejoinder beginning with an address such as, Dear Brother. Does this mean that, or the description of accepting an incoherent cognition as giving birth to a demon that itself destroys those cognitions exemplify a wit rarely found in scholastic prose. The translator has localized this wave of satire through Mathele's native form of address, Dear Brother. From the standpoint of Rasa theory, this is a sound decision, because the realization of Rasa depends on a communion of hearts among sensitive readers, And for a Mathil reader this mode of address produces immediate universalization. 3. To discussion of Dhvani, beyond the literal meaning. By Nandavardhanayas criterion, a scholastic treatise would ordinarily fall into the category of mere verbal ornament, yet several levels of Vastudvani are active in Timatha Tvavivika. The first suggestion concerns the dignity of the self. The implied meaning of the entire tradition of refutation is that human recognition, memory, agency, and moral responsibility all rest upon the permanence of the self, to accept momentariness is to deny every experience of one's own life. The second suggestion concerns the relation between language and reality, the underlying Resonance of the refutation of the theory of exclusion is that words are connected not with negation but with being. It is the positive cognition, this is a pot that moves a person to fetch water. The third is the cultural suggestion generated by the act of translation itself. When the most intricate discourse of Navyaanya begins to flow naturally in Mathili, it It silently resounds that Mathili is not merely a language of songs, lullabies and folk tales, but also a vehicle of mature philosophical thought. This third Dhvani has been added by the translator. It was not in the original, it arises from the translator's very presence, and this is the work's most far-reaching significance. 3.3 vākrokti and the scheme of figures of speech. In the language of Kuntaka's theory of vākrokti, the principle obliqueness of this text lies in the organization of episodes and in sentence formation. The question and answer sequence, should it then be accepted that? No. Does not allow the reader to remain a passive listener. After every should, the reader thinks of an answer for a moment and then Ujjana's know brings that answer into collision with the reader's own inference. This dialogic obliqueness becomes still more effective in Mathili because the natural rhythm of Mathili prose is interrogative, whether in village councils, scholastic debate, or domestic argument. The text abounds in illustrative examples, the seed and sprout, rope and snake, the elephant at the gate, the impossible aggregate of donkey and camel, its metaphors are especially concentrated at the end, in expressions such as the crowning stone of the city of liberation and the arrow that strikes its target, and the concluding verse glimmers with ironic praise, a painter's glory is not increased by the praise of the blind. Instead of self praise, the worst demands competence from the reader. The translation preserves all these figures intact at the level of imagery, nowhere does it destroy their wonder by explaining them away. This testifies to the translator's literary restraint. 3.4 Gua, RTI, and Ossetir. In terms of Gua, the translator's principal achievement is lucidity. He breaks the long chains of compounds in the Sanskrit original into short sentences and places every stage of the argument under a separate sectional heading, thereby creating clear prose with few compounds in accordance with the Vaderbstein. Vigar remains intact in the passages of refutation. The repeated no falls like a thunderbolt and sweetness appears in the discussion of liberation and in the verses of praise. By Kimendra's criterion of propriety, the terminological choices are especially commendable terms such as invariable concomitance, exclusion, co-apprehension, reversal of the consequence consequence, material cause, conceptual and non-conceptual cognition, mutual dependence and inexplicability otherwise are retained as technical terms, yet at their first occurrence their meaning emerges through the structure of the sentence. Thus the definition of reversal of the consequence is naturally woven into the translation. In Buddhist reasoning, the The first conditional proposition of a negative inference, this to level strategy, for in turn, native sentence, is an exemplary fulfillment of propriety. The few places where propriety is disturbed will be discussed in the section on linguistic evaluation. 4. In the light of the Indian translation tradition. The etymology of the word Anuvda, Anuplasvada, speaking after or restating what is already known indicates that the Indian tradition understands translation not as imitation but as following. In the Sanskrit-scholastic world, an original text continued to live through commentary, supplementary exposition, gloss, paraphrase and vernacular explanation. The age restated the treatise in its own language. From this perspective, Gajendra Thakur's work belongs to the tradition of vernacular commentary. It is not a word-forward translation, but a translation of intention aiming not merely at the sentence meaning of the original but at its intended import. The sectional headings added in the translation, such as partial mutual inclusion and partial mutual exclusion are impossible among exclusions, are modern forms of the topic indication and introductory note used in the commentary tradition. Just as a Sanskrit commentator would precede each section with now he expounds this, These headings divide the continuous original crows into readable units. This is certainly a departure from the original, but it is a departure sanctioned by tradition. Its usefulness for researchers is immeasurable, for more than 405 headings together form a complete logical map of the work. Two concepts in modern Indian thinking on translation are relevant here, P. Lal's Transcreation and Ganesh Devi's proposition that translation is retrieval. Devi's claim that, for Indian languages, translation is an act of release from amnesia and of bringing one's heritage back home applies literally to this book. In Mithila's intellectual memory, Udyana had survived merely as a name, not as a text, this translation turns the name back into a text. The element of Transcreation appears wherever the translator places a Mathili idiom in the service of the original, the council to separate pleasure from suffering and enjoy pleasure alone as one separates grain from husk is impossible in practice. Here the maxim of grain and husk has been transformed into the lived experience of Mithilas Threshing Floor. 5. In the light of Western translation theory. 5.1 Schlaermatures to Pards and Venutis for for organization. Friedrich Schleermacher, in 1813, said to parts before the translator, either take the reader toward the author or bring the author toward the reader. Lawrence Venuti described the same duality as for organization and domestication, warning that excessive domestication erases the otherness of the original. The distinctive feature of the present translation is that it travels both parts at once, but with a carefully considered division of labour, for organization at the terminological level a poha, invariable concomitance, and co-apprehension remain intact, and the reader must enter Ujjana's conceptual world, and domestication at the level of sentence and illustration, The donkey and camel, the threshing floor, and dear brother, allow Udhya to speak in a mathil courtyard. In Venuti's terms, this translation does not seek to become invisible. The text repeatedly reminds the reader that one stands before something ancient, other, and difficult, yet its difficulty now lies not in the language but in the thought. It is hard to imagine a better fulfillment of the ethics of translation than removing the linguistic barrier while leaving the intellectual challenge intact. 5. To NIDA, NEWMARK, and SCOPOS By Eugene NIDA's criterion of formal versus dynamic equivalence, this translation belongs to a hybrid category, and that is precisely its strength. In the structure of the argument it maintains formal fidelity, the sequence of divided alternatives, the succession of objection and answer, and the two-proposition structure of reversal of the consequence are nowhere simplified. At the sentence level, however, it employs dynamic equivalence, attempting to produce in a Mathilde reader the same effect that the original produced in a reader of Sanskrit. In Peter Newmark's terminology, it balances semantic and communicative translation, semantic in the philosophical passages and communicative in the examples and satire. Scopo's theory associated with Rhys and Vermeer asks, what is the purpose of the translation? Here the purpose is clearly to fold, to equip Mathili with the capacity for philosophical prose and to give Mathil researchers an entrance into their own tradition. The work fulfills both purposes, especially the second, because the sectional headings, introductory essay, and well-shaped division into units together make it a self-teaching text. 5.3 Stynars Fourfold Movement and Benjamin's Afterlife. George Stynar describes translation as a hermeneutic movement in four stages, trust, aggression, incorporation, and restitution. All four stages may be observed in the present work. Trust, the translator assumes that this thousand-year-old text contains something meaningful for a mathily reader. This is no small act of faith, for the finest web of alternatives in the refutation of momentariness appears forbidding to a modern reader at first sight. Aggression, the translator breaks through the unbroken wall of the original prose, divides it into 405 sections and dissolves its long compounds. Incorporation, the technical lexicon is absorbed into Mathili's syntax. Restitution, according to Steiner, translation must return to the original what it has taken from it. Here the restitution is that, after translation, Timatha Tvaviveka is more alive than before its readership, geography, and future have all expanded. This is Walter Benjamin's Afterlife, Fortalben. Benjamin's celebrated proposition that translation extends the life of an original after its death and that the finest translation moves both original and target language toward the The pure language that is complete in no single tongue is visibly realized in the present work. The Sanskrit-Mathili pair is ideal in the Benjaminian sense. The cultural proximity of the two languages is such that Mathili can carry the intention of Sanskrit almost without friction, while their grammatical natures are different enough to prevent translation from becoming imitation. 5.4 Le Fevier's Rewriting, Poli System Theory and the Question of Patronage. Andrei Lefevier calls translation Rewriting and shows that every Rewriting operates under some system of patronage, ideology and politics. The patronage context of the present book is exceptional. It is not a project of an Academy, University or State institution It is an autonomous, extranstitutional publication of the Vidyeh e-Journal. Seen within the wider context of Vidyeh's parallel literary movement, this act of translation is itself a literary and political statement, the repossession of Mathili's classical heritage will not wait for institutional approval. Itamar E. Vinjo Har's polysystem theory further clarifies its importance. When the place of a genre or function remains empty in a literary system, translation fills that vacancy and assumes a central position. The place of philosophical prose in the Mathili Poly system was almost empty by entering that vacant space, this translation establishes not merely a single book but an entire prose register. Future philosophical writing in Mathili will begin from its Sintac, Terminological Policy, and mode of sectional organization. In the language of Gideon Turi's theory of norms, the initial norm chosen by this translation between acceptability in the target culture and adequacy to the source has the potential to become the norm for future Mathili translations of scholastic works. What is the highest historical role a translation can fulfill?

← Transcript index