That a perfect, instant translation of a well-crafted quote by a talented French Enlightenment philosopher doesn’t just roll off my fingertips in English shouldn’t compromise the message.
Weird. I thought you’d posted it this way to be ironic. Anyway...
It compromises the message for precisely that reason. If you agree with the quote, then if you understand what it means, then it should be easy to express it clearly.
Which are you claiming: a) that I don’t understand the quote, or b) that my rough translation is unclear?
Are you perhaps supposing that “rough” and “clear” are antonyms?
I think the translation is clear enough; what makes it “rough” is that a perfect translation would feel like it was a literal translation, all the while keeping the exact nuance of the original. If you will, it is the fact of its being a translation which makes it rough.
For more on the subtleties of translation, I’ll direct you to Hofstadter’s excellent Le Ton Beau de Marot.
Weird. I thought you’d posted it this way to be ironic. Anyway...
It compromises the message for precisely that reason. If you agree with the quote, then if you understand what it means, then it should be easy to express it clearly.
Which are you claiming: a) that I don’t understand the quote, or b) that my rough translation is unclear?
Are you perhaps supposing that “rough” and “clear” are antonyms?
I think the translation is clear enough; what makes it “rough” is that a perfect translation would feel like it was a literal translation, all the while keeping the exact nuance of the original. If you will, it is the fact of its being a translation which makes it rough.
For more on the subtleties of translation, I’ll direct you to Hofstadter’s excellent Le Ton Beau de Marot.