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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
‘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…
