The polarity of IIH translations

["Martin <martincosgrove@...>" <martincosgrove@...>]

It just occurred to me that it is quite fortuitous that two 
translations of IIH have been made.

Translation is a big part of my degree and I have come to realize 
that you could give a fairly simple text to ten different 
translators and get ten totally different 
translations/interpretations back. Now, if the text is something as 
detailed, involved and at times ambiguous as IIH then it is no 
wonder that there are key points and sections which both English 
versions of the book have translated differently.

Obviously, the ideal would be to have German as a first language in 
order to get 'closest' to the original meaning conceived in Bardon's 
mind, but the next best thing is to have more than one translation 
to compare, thus gleaning different shades of meaning from each 
translation, helping to build a fuller (and 'truer') picture of the 
underlaying meaning of the original.

The two translations seem to be quite distinct in their styles also. 
The more recent Merkur verion is more modern and freer in its 
approach, whereas the older translation, although sometimes rather 
stilted and 'forced', is likely to be more accurate in terms of 
details. It seems that the Principle of Duality came into play here; 
possibly not a coincidence either?

Anyway, I know it's a rather mundane and dry point, but I thought it 
was worth a mention.

Take care,

Martin

* * *

Jai guru de va om