The ârulesâ and âexceptionsâ are not the same. Just because some moron (probably a native German speaker who didnât understand that âtoâ cannot be used in this way) screwed up the translation many years ago doesnât mean it canât 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. Donât 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 âcanâ derives from the latin word posse, meaning being able, capable. In Portuguese the word is âpoderâ, which is both the noun âpowerâ and the verb âcanâ.
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 âvontadeâ.
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 wasnât 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 ĂŒber das Deutsche, zu wenig ĂŒber das Englische und nichts ĂŒber die Geschichte des Deutschen und des Englischen? ErzĂ€hlen Sie mir nichts. Sie sind garantiert kein professioneller Ăbersetzer.
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). Donât tell me.
The rules and exceptions have to do with the language history of both German and English.
Please send me one of your âtranslationsâ, 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 ĂŒber die Regeln und Ausnahmen in der Grammatik der beiden Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch gesagt haben, sehr deutlich gezeigt.
Nope, the term is Ăbermensch. âSupermanâ is not a contraction, but a compound of âsuper-â and âmanâ. âUnabominableâ (elegant) possibilities are âsuperhuman beingâ (where ĂŒber- is translated as âsuper-â and Mensch as âhuman beingâââsuperâ and âhumanâ both being Romanic) and âovermanâ (where ĂŒber- is translated as âover-â and Mensch as âmanâââoverâ and âmanâ both being Germanic).
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.