The German ârulesâ and âexceptionsâ have no bearing on English, which has its own rules. âWill toâ must be followed by a verb, and only a verb. Whether German Wille zu follows that pattern is irrelevant. The translation must conform to English norms or else it is not a translation.
I didnât mean that âsupermanâ was actually a contraction, but it is contained within âsuper[hu]manâ. Itâs an excellent translation.
George Bernard Shaw coined the term. Some academics have objected to it because of the associations with the comic book character. But the comic book character in its original form was based on Nietzscheâs superman. Again, academics donât know their shit.
You did not read my posts carefully. As I said several times: it was the same rule that lead to a change in both languages - in German earlier, in English later. It was the same rule that was involved. Why are you not capable of understanding that? The grammatical rules are like physical rules. There is no language without grammatical rules. A language without grammatical rules is no language. A nature without physical (natural) rules is no nature. It does not matter whether you call them ârulesâ: they do their work.
P.S.: I am still waiting for your âtranslationsâ.
âWill toâ must be followed by a verb, and only a verb. This is still true. Whether German Wille zu follows that pattern is irrelevant. The English translation must conform to English norms or else it is not a translation. You posts are incoherent.
There is no âwill to cerealâ, âwill to peanut butterâ, âwill to crackersâ, âwill to white-wall tiresâ, âwill to sliced breadâ. Itâs impossible. So is âwill to powerâ.
Der Wille has a broad ranged of meanings, including intention, volition, desire, wish, âwhat one wantsâ, etcâŠ
The question is not what âwill toâ must be followed by, but what âwillâ must be followed by. When âwillâ is followed by the âtoâ which is not a preposition but a particle indicating that what follows is an infinitive, of course it must be followed by an infinitive. But the question is if âwillâ cannot be followed by a preposition. Now you say that it can be followed by the preposition âforâ, but not by the preposition âtoâ. Why? Your reason must be comparable to the reason why, say, âdesireâ must be followed by âforâ (or âafterâ!).
No, you are wrong. The translation of Wille is the least constrained. You are mistaken in your belief that the English word âwillâ is the best or only choice. It isnât! Idiomatically there are many possibilities. The key word here is âpowerâ, because the range of options for Die Macht is very small. It corresponds closely to âpowerâ in most applications. Der Wille does not correspond so closely to âwillâ, so you have lots of freedom there. You work from there. The preposition zu here means âforâ with most preceding nouns that fit the context (âdesireâ, âwishâ, âdemandâ, âcravingâ, âlustâ, etc.). The collocation âwill toâ must be followed by a verb, because the âtoâ is part of the infinitive form of the verb (âto winâ, âto fightâ, âto liveâ, etc.).
If you knew anything about how translation is actually done you would know that there are various degrees of constraint. Some words give you few options, so you work around those.
No. Your posts are incoherent, because you have no idea how language works and changes, you are confusing e.g. a preposition with an infinitive. That is absolutely ridiculous.
The source language is German, and the German philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche meant two nouns and a preposition between them: âWille zur Machtâ - not âWille Macht zu habenâ (âzu habenâ <=> âto haveâ) - both are possible in German (and b.t.w.: in English too), one with a following noun and one with a following verb; and Nietzsche decided to write âWille zur Machtâ, because he had the will to do that, and it was no problem, because it does not violate the German language.
The rules and the exceptions are the same in German and English. The term âwill to powerâ is accepted in English.
P.S.: I am still waiting for your âtranslationsâ, Ornello.
The source language syntax has nothing to do with that of the target language. Nothing! If you are a native speaker I am not surprised that you want to distort the English to conform to the German. This is typical of Germans, and part of the reason that one should never translate into a foreign language. One must always translate into oneâs native tongue. No exceptions! The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!
Worthy of note that âwill toâ + noun can be used in English when the noun is the noun for of an adjective. As von rivers indicated, not a person or a place or a thing, but a noun that indicates a state. Like saying âice is solidâ.
will to power - will to be powerful
will to beauty - will to be beautiful
will to wisdom - will to be wise
So it isnât used for just any noun like âwill to cheese and crackersâ, which indeed does not make sense, though that sounds pretty good right about now.
Whether or not N meant to be powerful, to wish to be powerful, to exercise power, to feel power, that I do not know.
This may be correct in general, but weâre talking about a highly specific use of the word Wille, in a key philosophical term. You have yet to show any understanding of Nietzscheâs philosophy.
True.
The collocation must, yes. But what if we made a new combination: not of the noun âwillâ followed by the particle âtoâ, but of the noun âwillâ followed by the preposition âtoâ? Then it need not, and indeed cannot, be followed by a verb.
There is no such construction and you cannot just create it. âWill toâ is used only with the âtoâ as part of an infinitive. I have translated four of Nietzscheâs books, including Der Wille zur Macht.
Donât forget the usage of zu as âonâ, as in the title Zur Genealogie der Moral.
âTheâ native speaker? As if native speakers of the same language always agree! (In fact, Iâve often found that non-native speakers speak the language more properly than many natives, because they care about it more.) Your utterances are becoming increasingly more absurd.
As Iâve pointed out, this hasnât been true for more than a century, and even if it had been, do you think Shakespeare would care if there was no such construction? Youâre just a linguistic conservative.
No, it is true. This is a mistake that has been overlooked. Many philosophy professors and other academics are idiots. They see Wille and think it must be âwillâ. They see zur and think it must be âtoâ. Neither is true.
Excuse me, but you really have absolutely no idea. Now you are even confusing syntax with grammar and word history. Nobody was talking about syntax, because the example we are talking about has nearly nothing to do with syntax. Obviously you do also not know what syntax is.
All humans who are capable of speaking are native speakers.
You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. This time it is the scapegoat ideology again. You are wrong.
That is nonsense, Ornello. It matters which native speaker Nietzsche was, and Nietzsche was German, thus a German native speaker, and wrote in German as his native language. So German is the source language. The translation has to start with the source language. ALWAYS!!!
I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator.
Syntax is the structure of a language, word order, etc. Go back to school. I shanât reply to any more of your inane posts. You havenât the ghost of a notion whereof you speak. It does have to do with syntax, because âwill to (noun)â violates syntax! A verb is required after âtoâ! âToâ here is and can only be part of an infinitive!
Look here, to see the variety of translations of Wille:
There is an announcer in the background of this song, who says:
In den letzten Monaten ist die Zahl der vermissten Personen dramatisch angestiegen. Die jĂŒngste Veröffentlichung der lokalen Polizeibehörde berichtet von einem weiteren tragischen Fall. Es handelt sich um ein neunzehnjĂ€hriges MĂ€dchen, das zuletzt vor vierzehn Tagen gesehen wurde. Die Polizei schlieĂt die Möglichkeit nicht aus, dass es sich hier um ein Verbrechen handelt.
My translation
âIn recent months the number of missing persons has dramatically increased. Yet another tragic case has been reported by local police. It concerns a 19-year old girl who was last seen a fortnight ago. The police have not ruled out [the possibility of] foul play.â
Again: You do not read my posts carefully. I did not say that syntax had nothing to do with the structure of language. I said that syntax has nearly nothing to do with what we were talking about. You are confusing syntax with grammar. But grammar and syntax are not the same. Grammar is more than syntax, and syntax is more than morphology.
You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. You are wrong.
Thatâs just a somewhat free translation. Literally it means âTowards the Genealogy of Morals (or Morality, in the sense of âmoralsâ, not âmoralnessâ)â.
If the primary aim is to make the translation as proper an English text as possible, then I agree that the translator should probably be a native English-speaker. But a good translation is not just a proper native-language text, but also an accurate rendition of the original. If the latter were the primary aim, the translator should probably be a native speaker of the original language. But both aims are equally important to a good translation. Perhaps, then, the translator should be somewhere in the middle, bilingual for exampleâor from a nation situated (linguistically) in the middleâŠ
I really wonder how you translate that first sentence of section 668, which most literally reads: ââWillingâ is not âdesiringâ, striving, longing: therefrom it heaves itself off through the affect of the command.â (Even more literally would be âbegreedingâ instead of âdesiringâ, but that doesnât exist.)