View Single Post
Old 07-03-2015, 02:00 AM   #11
doubleshuffle
Unicycle Daredevil
doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doubleshuffle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
doubleshuffle's Avatar
 
Posts: 13,944
Karma: 185432100
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Planet of the Pudding Brains
Device: Aura HD (R.I.P. After six years the USB socket died.) tolino shine 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz View Post
I think there are really two issues here:
  • bowdlerization, e.g. Politically Correct modification of the author's intent by removing objectionable material.
  • modernization, e.g. what is essentially a translation from old to new English. The author's intended meaning is preserved, even if the words themselves are different.


For some reason virtually everyone as near as I can make out conflate the two concepts.
These are two different concepts, but your "modernization = translation" simply doesn't apply to texts written in Modern English, not even Early Modern English. Chaucer is Middle English and does indeed need translation for people who don't want to seriously study Middle English. Shakespeare is Early Modern English (as is Spenser, and Panda's examples above are perfectly readable) and doesn't call for translation but for annotation. And the same goes for everything written since.

Last edited by doubleshuffle; 07-03-2015 at 02:03 AM.
doubleshuffle is offline   Reply With Quote