Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthetics

But it ain’t so. Wille can be translated in many ways, depending on the context.
See pages 845-846 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SBdXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA890&dq=Muret+Sanders+1901&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwB2oVChMI15P9pY7wxgIVxXo-Ch0rDQwl#v=onepage&q=Muret%20Sanders%201901&f=false

What do you expect from academics? Intelligence? Knowledge of English grammar? Keep wishing, baby.

(I have seen the term ‘overhumanity’ in Nietzsche literature, no joke.)

You just admitted that an exception was axccepted. The native speakers of the English language accepted the “to” in the term “will to power”, probably because there were more examples before the “will to power”. Centuries before this there was the same linguistical change in Germany.

The German “zu” and the English “to” have the same root. In Low German “to” is still used instead of “zu” which is High German, as i said several times. So “to” is not only used in English but also in Low German.

It is possible, but I guess that it did not happen in that way.

Again: The exception of that said rule was accepted and is accepted by the native speakers.

Language changes.

The verbs “machen” (German) and “make” (English) and the nouns “Macht” (German) and “might” (English) had lost their former much deeper relationship a bit, so that the rule “Nomen + zu + Verb” (“Wille zu machen”) / “noun + to + verb” (“will to make”) was not possible anymore and became a rule exception: “Nomen + zu + Nomen” (“Wille zur Macht”) / “noun + to + noun” (“will to might”). Use other examples in order to ascertain this rule exception by negating the other examples.

Arminius:

The German rules are irrelevant, why do you keep bringing them up? In English, what matters are English rules.

‘Will to power’ is impossible in English, no matter how many morons say it.

I am speaking of both the German and the English rules in order to show why both (and not merely one of the both) languages changed.

The English langauge has changed, Ornello.

This is nonsense. The German zu does not always mean “for”. The reason it sounds like “to” is that it’s etymologically the same word… The next thing you say is just a rant. And as for “will for power”, what’s your source for that?

Yes, but we’re discussing one very specific context, the context of Nietzsche’s key phrase Wille zur Macht

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

The German “zu” does almost always mean “to”. Hence I wrote:

No, it does not. Most of the time it means ‘for’, but it can mean ‘at’, ‘in’, or ‘to’.

forum.wordreference.com/threads/ … or.587402/

Besonders:

"My point was: an English German teacher might be able to answer this question; a German is puzzled by it, because a German does not perceive “zu” and “für” as related, or as competing prepositions.

You really need to give examples! Prepositions are tricky. They don’t translate well between languages. You basically have to learn for each expression what preposition is appropriate.

For example – Zum Beispiel.
For your information – zu Ihrer Information.
A gift for my brother – ein Geschenk für meinen Bruder.
For whatever reasons – aus welchen Gründen auch immer.

I don’t know that there is a rule. An English native fluent in German might be better qualified to answer this question."

Nietzsche never used the term Übermenschlichkeit, ever. The scholar who used this term (‘overhumanity’) made it up, and it has nothing to do with anything Nietzsche wrote.

Christa Davis Acampora:

pdcnet.org/scholarpdf/show?i … e_type=pdf

That guy seems to be stupid.

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

There are indeed some examples that show how problematic translation can be, but it is not as problematic as some morons say.

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.

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?

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.

vistawide.com/german/common_ … stakes.htm

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.

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. :slight_smile:

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!

For Sauwelios:

google.com/#q=nietzsche+%22 … d_max:1899

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 :smiley:

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.

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.