Translation Again

Apparently, the example translation given in the Translator’s Preface of Montgomery Furth’s translation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics is not how he actually translates that passage.

The example from the Preface is:

“And first, let us say a few things about it formulawise, that the what it is to be of each thing is that which is said in respect of itself. For the being for you is not the being for musical; for you are not musical in respect of yourself. Therefore, that which in respect of yourself. (Zeta 4)”

But, he actually translates this (as far as I can tell) as follows:

And first, let us say a few things about it that hold good for it from its formula, to wit, that the essence for each thing is that which is said [of it] [or: what it is said to be] ‘in respect of itself’. For, being you is not [the same as] being musical, for you are not musical ‘in respect of yourself’. What you are ‘in respect of yourself’, then [—that is your essence].

Hmmm…

Advertisements
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: