Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthetics

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:52 pm

Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:That guy seems to be stupid.

Believe me, Ornello,"for" does almost always mean "für", and "zu" does almost always mean "to".

But even if that were true (it isn't), there are many uses of 'to'.

The article is correct. Go learn some German.

Do you speak any of the said two languages? If yes, then it can only be English. You do not know anything about the German language, thus you should be silent when it comes to translate words form German into English and from English into German.

There are so many examples for the rules I mentioned, so that a list of them would just be too long for this thread.

You have no idea. Your posted article is not correct, because it is suggesting that languages contain more exceptions than rules. A language with more exceptions than rules is no language. The posted examples are indeed correct, but do not disprove the correct statement that "for" does almost always mean "für", and "zu" does almost always mean "to".

So the translation of the German "Wille zur Macht" into the English "will to power" or "will to might" is correct.


No, it isn't. It's impossible. It has nothing to do with 'German rules' or 'exceptions' at all. In English, 'will to' is always followed by a verb, and the 'to' is part of the infinitive form of the verb. There are no exceptions. The expression 'will to' is actually rather uncommon, used only in set phrases such as 'will to win', 'will to live', 'will to survive', 'will to fight'. It is somewhat elevated in style, used mostly when describing struggles (boxers, soldiers, etc.). The zur (contraction of zu der) in Wille zur Macht means 'for', not 'to'. There are many uses for zu, and many uses for 'to'. They don't match up in many instances.

http://www.vistawide.com/german/common_ ... stakes.htm
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:31 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:54 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello said: (I have seen the term 'overhumanity' in Nietzsche literature, no joke.)


Your example is indeed not very elegant; it should of course be "superhumanity", "superhumankind", "overmanhood", or "overmankind".


Nietzsche never used the term Übermensch[l]ichkeit, ever. The scholar who used this term ('overhumanity') made it up, and it has nothing to do with anything Nietzsche wrote.


Well, der Mensch may mean "man" in the all-encompassing sense--"mankind"--as well, but it would be weird to say "overman" in that sense. So "overmankind" could be fine, depending on context and interpretation. And why wouldn't a scholar be able to coin a word like "overmanhood", for example when discussing the character or nature of the overman?


Because it's stupid, that's why. The term is 'superman', which if you think about it is merely a contraction of the adjective 'superhuman', which had existed for several centuries. 'Overman' is an abomination coined by Kaufmann.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:37 pm

Ornello wrote:No, it isn't. It's impossible. It has nothing to do with 'German rules' or 'exceptions' at all. In English, 'will to' is always followed by a verb, and the 'to' is part of the infinitive form of the verb. There are no exceptions. The expression 'will to' is actually rather uncommon, used only in set phrases such as 'will to win', 'will to live', 'will to survive', 'will to fight'. It is somewhat elevated in style, used only when describing struggles (boxers, soldiers, etc.). The zur (contraction of zu der) in Wille zur Macht means 'for', not 'to'.

No. The said rules and exceptions are the same in both languages: German and English. You have no idea but something to learn; so you should be silent when it comes to the knowledge of language(s). So if you cannot learn a foreign language, then try to learn the English language, Ornello, and you will see that "will to power" is the correct translation of "Wille zur Macht". In addition, the English title of the book has been accepted since it was released. You are like Mutcer because he also has no will to learn. Try to learn some English, Ornello. It pays. :)

Good luck!
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:43 pm

Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:No, it isn't. It's impossible. It has nothing to do with 'German rules' or 'exceptions' at all. In English, 'will to' is always followed by a verb, and the 'to' is part of the infinitive form of the verb. There are no exceptions. The expression 'will to' is actually rather uncommon, used only in set phrases such as 'will to win', 'will to live', 'will to survive', 'will to fight'. It is somewhat elevated in style, used only when describing struggles (boxers, soldiers, etc.). The zur (contraction of zu der) in Wille zur Macht means 'for', not 'to'.

No. The rules and exceptions are the same in both languages: German and English. You have no idea but something to learn; so you should be silent when it comes to the knowledge of language(s). So if you cannot learn a foreign language, then try to learn the English language, Ornello, and you will see that "will to power" is the correct translation of "Wille zur Macht". In addition, the English title of the book has been accepted since it was released. You are like Mutcer because he also has no will to learn. Try to learn some English, Ornello. It pays. :)

Good luck!



The 'rules' and 'exceptions' are not the same. Just because some moron (probably a native German speaker who didn't understand that 'to' cannot be used in this way) screwed up the translation many years ago doesn't mean it can't be corrected. I prepared a new translation of Der Wille zur Macht (which is in the hands of a Nietzsche scholar now for final polishing).

I am a native English speaker and a professional translator of Nietzsche. Don't tell me!
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm


Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:17 pm

Language is a model of culture. Like culture, it is alive, it builds upon the existing, transforms, absorbs, fuses, morphs. If a phrase does not exist and there is a need for it, one is created.

In latin languages, the verb "can" derives from the latin word posse, meaning being able, capable. In Portuguese the word is "poder", which is both the noun "power" and the verb "can".

The word for will that I think would be the closes in latin would be voluntas, which means all in one word a wish, a desire, a drive toward, a crave, an inclination, a yearning. In Portuguese the word is "vontade".

The fact that these two latin words fit so perfectly with what I believe was intended with this phrase makes me wonder if Nietzsche might have been playing with these two latin words in his mind, and then made a run for it in German. I have no knowledge of German so I would not know if the phrase is as straightforward as voluntas posse vita est, or "vida é vontade de poder".

PS: pardon if the tenses are all wrong in the latin translation... who knows how to conjugate latin these days anyway :D

In any case, Fixed had a very distinct intention for this thread, and it wasn't to discuss translations. Should this thread be split and the translation discussion be put somewhere else? Mods?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:26 pm

phoneutria wrote:Language is a model of culture. Like culture, it is alive, it builds upon the existing, transforms, absorbs, fuses, morphs. If a phrase does not exist and there is a need for it, one is created.

In latin languages, the verb "can" derives from the latin word posse, meaning being able, capable. In Portuguese the word is "poder", which is both the noun "power" and the verb "can".

The word for will that I think would be the closes in latin would be voluntas, which means all in one word a wish, a desire, a drive toward, a crave, an inclination, a yearning. In Portuguese the word is "vontade".

The fact that these two latin words fit so perfectly with what I believe was intended with this phrase makes me wonder if Nietzsche might have been playing with these two latin words in his mind, and then made a run for it in German. I have no knowledge of German so I would not know if the phrase is as straightforward as voluntas posse vita est, or "vida é vontade de poder".

PS: pardon if the tenses are all wrong in the latin translation... who knows how to conjugate latin these days anyway :D

In any case, Fixed had a very distinct intention for this thread, and it wasn't to discuss translations. Should this thread be split and the translation discussion be put somewhere else? Mods?


It is impossible to discuss Nietzsche with the poor translations available.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:43 pm

I my opinion, translating is more about expressing the intention of the writer than about grammatical correctness. Then, you should worry less about the English, and more about the mind of Nietzsche.Then, if English grammar does not accommodate his intention, create something new that does.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:44 pm

Ornello wrote:I am a native English speaker and a professional translator of Nietzsche. Don't tell me!
:lol:

Warum wissen Sie dann nichts über das Deutsche, zu wenig über das Englische und nichts über die Geschichte des Deutschen und des Englischen? Erzählen Sie mir nichts. Sie sind garantiert kein professioneller Übersetzer.

You are no professional translator. Otherwise you would know the rules and exceptions I was talking about. The rules and exceptions are well known. I am a professional linguist (incl. philologist, translator). Don't tell me.

The rules and exceptions have to do with the language history of both German and English.

Please send me one of your "translations", Ornello! I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator!

Sie haben keine Ahnung von Sprache, keine Ahnung von Grammatik, keine Ahnung von Sprachgeschichte. Dies haben Sie mit dem, was Sie über die Regeln und Ausnahmen in der Grammatik der beiden Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch gesagt haben, sehr deutlich gezeigt.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:51 pm

Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:Nietzsche never used the term Übermensch[l]ichkeit, ever. The scholar who used this term ('overhumanity') made it up, and it has nothing to do with anything Nietzsche wrote.


Well, der Mensch may mean "man" in the all-encompassing sense--"mankind"--as well, but it would be weird to say "overman" in that sense. So "overmankind" could be fine, depending on context and interpretation. And why wouldn't a scholar be able to coin a word like "overmanhood", for example when discussing the character or nature of the overman?


Because it's stupid, that's why. The term is 'superman', which if you think about it is merely a contraction of the adjective 'superhuman', which had existed for several centuries. 'Overman' is an abomination coined by Kaufmann.


Nope, the term is Übermensch. "Superman" is not a contraction, but a compound of "super-" and "man". "Unabominable" (elegant) possibilities are "superhuman being" (where über- is translated as "super-" and Mensch as "human being"--"super" and "human" both being Romanic) and "overman" (where über- is translated as "over-" and Mensch as "man"--"over" and "man" both being Germanic).
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:52 pm

Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:I am a native English speaker and a professional translator of Nietzsche. Don't tell me!
:lol:

Warum wissen Sie dann nichts über das Deutsche, zu wenig über das Englische und nichts über die Geschichte des Deutschen und des Englischen? Erzählen Sie mir nichts. Sie sind garantiert kein professioneller Übersetzer.

You are no professional translator. Otherwise you would know the rules and exceptions I was talking about. The rules and exceptions are well known. I am a professional linguist (incl. philologist, translator). Don't tell me.

The rules and exceptions have to do with the language history of both German and English.

Please send me one of your "translations", Ornello! I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator!

Sie haben keine Ahnung von Sprache, keine Ahnung von Grammatik, keine Ahnung von Sprachgeschichte. Dies haben Sie mit dem, was Sie über die Regeln und Ausnahmen in der Grammatik der beiden Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch gesagt haben, sehr deutlich gezeigt.


The German 'rules' and 'exceptions' have no bearing on English, which has its own rules. 'Will to' 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.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:55 pm

Is English a tool for you, or are you a tool for English?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:56 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Because it's stupid, that's why. The term is 'superman', which if you think about it is merely a contraction of the adjective 'superhuman', which had existed for several centuries. 'Overman' is an abomination coined by Kaufmann.


Nope, the term is Übermensch. "Superman" is not a contraction, but a compound of "super-" and "man". "Unabominable" (elegant) possibilities are "superhuman being" (where über- is translated as "super-" and Mensch as "human being"--"super" and "human" both being Romanic) and "overman" (where über- is translated as "over-" and Mensch as "man"--"over" and "man" both being Germanic).


I didn't mean that 'superman' was actually a contraction, but it is contained within 'super[hu]man'. It's 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 Nietzsche's superman. Again, academics don't know their shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reign_of_the_Superman

https://archive.org/details/ReignOfTheSuperman

Also, 'Superman' is a last name.
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:14 pm

Ornello wrote:The German 'rules' and 'exceptions' have no bearing on English, which has its own rules. 'Will to' 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.

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 "rules": they do their work.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your "translations".
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:16 pm

Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:The German 'rules' and 'exceptions' have no bearing on English, which has its own rules. 'Will to' 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.

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 to understand 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 "rules": they do their work.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your "translations".


'Will to' 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 'will to cereal', 'will to peanut butter', 'will to crackers', 'will to white-wall tires', 'will to sliced bread'. It's impossible. So is 'will to power'.

Der Wille has a broad ranged of meanings, including intention, volition, desire, wish, 'what one wants', etc....
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:31 pm

Ornello wrote:The German 'rules' and 'exceptions' have no bearing on English, which has its own rules. 'Will to' 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.


The question is not what "will to" must be followed by, but what "will" must be followed by. When "will" is followed by the "to" 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 "will" cannot be followed by a preposition. Now you say that it can be followed by the preposition "for", but not by the preposition "to". Why? Your reason must be comparable to the reason why, say, "desire" must be followed by "for" (or "after"!).
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:39 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:The German 'rules' and 'exceptions' have no bearing on English, which has its own rules. 'Will to' 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.


The question is not what "will to" must be followed by, but what "will" must be followed by. When "will" is followed by the "to" 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 "will" cannot be followed by a preposition. Now you say that it can be followed by the preposition "for", but not by the preposition "to". Why? Your reason must be comparable to the reason why, say, "desire" must be followed by "for" (or "after"!).


No, you are wrong. The translation of Wille is the least constrained. You are mistaken in your belief that the English word 'will' is the best or only choice. It isn't! Idiomatically there are many possibilities. The key word here is 'power', because the range of options for Die Macht is very small. It corresponds closely to 'power' in most applications. Der Wille does not correspond so closely to 'will', so you have lots of freedom there. You work from there. The preposition zu here means 'for' with most preceding nouns that fit the context ('desire', 'wish', 'demand', 'craving', 'lust', etc.). The collocation 'will to' must be followed by a verb, because the 'to' is part of the infinitive form of the verb ('to win', 'to fight', 'to live', 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.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:50 pm

Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:The German 'rules' and 'exceptions' have no bearing on English, which has its own rules. 'Will to' 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.

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 to understand 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 "rules": they do their work.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your "translations".

'Will to' 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.

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: "Wille zur Macht" - not "Wille Macht zu haben" ("zu haben" <=> "to have") - 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 "Wille zur Macht", 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 "will to power" is accepted in English.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your "translations", Ornello.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:58 pm

Arminius wrote:
P.S.: I am still waiting for your "translations", Ornello.


You'll not see them. You are unworthy.

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 one's native tongue. No exceptions! The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!!
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:01 pm

Worthy of note that "will to" + 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 "ice is solid".

will to power - will to be powerful
will to beauty - will to be beautiful
will to wisdom - will to be wise

So it isn't used for just any noun like "will to cheese and crackers", 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.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:04 pm

phoneutria wrote:Worthy of note that "will to" + 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 "ice is solid".

will to power - will to be powerful
will to beauty - will to be beautiful
will to wisdom - will to be wise



The left-hand column expressions are invalid (unacceptable, improper) in English.

Instead, use:

Desire for power
Desire for beauty
Desire for wisdom

See how simple it is?
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:07 pm

Ornello wrote:The translation of Wille is the least constrained. [...] Idiomatically there are many possibilities. The key word here is 'power', because the range of options for Die Macht is very small. It corresponds closely to 'power' in most applications. Der Wille does not correspond so closely to 'will', so you have lots of freedom there. You work from there.


This may be correct in general, but we're talking about a highly specific use of the word Wille, in a key philosophical term. You have yet to show any understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy.


The preposition zu here means 'for' with most preceding nouns that fit the context ('desire', 'wish', 'demand', 'craving', 'lust', etc.).


True.


The collocation 'will to' must be followed by a verb, because the 'to' is part of the infinitive form of the verb ('to win', 'to fight', 'to live', etc.).


The collocation must, yes. But what if we made a new combination: not of the noun "will" followed by the particle "to", but of the noun "will" followed by the preposition "to"? Then it need not, and indeed cannot, be followed by a verb.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:11 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
The collocation must, yes. But what if we made a new combination: not of the noun "will" followed by the particle "to", but of the noun "will" followed by the preposition "to"? Then it need not, and indeed cannot, be followed by a verb.


There is no such construction and you cannot just create it. 'Will to' is used only with the 'to' as part of an infinitive. I have translated four of Nietzsche's books, including Der Wille zur Macht.

Don't forget the usage of zu as 'on', as in the title Zur Genealogie der Moral.
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:11 pm

Ornello wrote:The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!!


"The" native speaker? As if native speakers of the same language always agree! (In fact, I've 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.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:13 pm

Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
The collocation must, yes. But what if we made a new combination: not of the noun "will" followed by the particle "to", but of the noun "will" followed by the preposition "to"? Then it need not, and indeed cannot, be followed by a verb.


There is no such construction. 'Will to' is used only with the 'to' as part of an infinitive.


As I've pointed out, this hasn't 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? You're just a linguistic conservative.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Silhouette