Most reputable translators of literary texts do not aim at a literal translation, but one that replicate the meaning, the emotional affect as far as possible, and ideally some of the linguistic subtleties. Even in translating prose texts, a literal translation is usually not produced unless it is for some reason specifically wanted, because a literal translation will normally not convey the same meaning exactly as the original. Once you start looking for equivalent idioms, and a natural way of saying things in the target language, there is always room for interpretation. Consider the Bible: the only way of citing it accurately is to give a range of translations, along with the original.
Very few of the materials we use for quotations will have good translations, now or ever. The purpose of giving the original along with whatever we can manage as a translation is first, that if the original is given , others may find or write a better translation; second, so those who know a little of the source language can see for themselves.
We write the enWP for English readers--not providing some sort of a translation leaves 90% of them helpless in any particular case. I think of the 18th century writers like Gibbon who left the sexual parts in "the decent obscurity of a learned language" , with the intended effect that the gentlemen could read them, but not the ladies (very few of whom were ever taught Latin at the time) and certainly not any of the common people who might happen to see a serious book.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation.