| Author |
Message |
   
Sanjin
Member
Post Number: 8
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 10:57 pm: | 
|
Nice! I was waiting for this.
Since I already read parts of the German version, I can tell that the translation is very good and accurate. Maybe some grammar/style could be improved, but otherwise great work. |
Sanjin
Member
Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 08:14 pm: |
|
After some more reading, I did find a few instances where the meaning is degraded and changed. Nothing too serious though. |
Jamesm
Member
Post Number: 152
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 10:57 am: |
|
A short section of OM (Kanon 42 - On The Psyche) has been translated and is available at
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/OM#Kanon_42
Regards
James G. T. Moore
Webmaster www.futureofmankind.co.uk
|
Phenix
Member
Post Number: 287
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Greetings to the moderators and all members,
This is a follow up to post 152 of James.
Thomas,
Keep an eye on that link ( http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/OM#Kanon_42 ), for the translations of all the Verses of Kanon 42 of OM, where the Psyche is being treated, shall be posted there.
Salome. |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 682
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 04:42 am: |
|
Thanks, I will do that :-) |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 683
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 05:47 am: |
|
Hi Adam can you email me please at:
patricksdadinfrance@yahoo.com
Thanks and no rush :-)
Thomas |
Kiwiseeker
Member
Post Number: 71
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 05:28 pm: |
|
A translation based item:
Regarding the now available translation of the `Kelch der Wahrheit`, I have two observations regarding the translation:
1)Ch.1/v.224:
224)Esst von all dem, was euch auf Erden zur Nahrung dient, von Früchten, ...
Eat of everything that serves you as food on earths, fruits, ...
It seems to me that this should be:
Eat of everything that serves you as food on earth, of fruits, ...
2)Götzen: e.g. Ch.1/55: einen Götzen = a tin god
I thought that Götze was `idol`. All idols are not made out of tin, although we might like to call some of them `tinny`! Can anyone satisfy my curiosity as to the translation as `tin god`?
Charles |
Kiwiseeker
Member
Post Number: 73
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 03:01 am: |
|
Correction-the above references should be 1)Ch.2/v.224 & 2)Ch.2/v.55.
Also: Ch.1/v.3
... und diese beschneiden und nachteilig für euer Wohl verändern.
... and curtail these and are unfavourable for your well-being.
The phrase `and are unfavourable for your well-being.` sounds wrong;`and change those unfavourable for your well-being.` sounds better, but then I am only a novice who looks forward to input from a master!
Charles |
Phi_spiral
Member
Post Number: 454
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 06:33 pm: |
|
The expression “tin god” carries an idiomatic meaning that is separate from the meaning of “idol”. Tin god as an idiom means: A self-important, dictatorial, petty person who imposes ideas, beliefs, and standards on subordinates. For example, The officials in these small towns often act like tin gods. The tin in this expression alludes to the fact that tin is a base metal with relatively little value.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tin%20god
http://dictionary.infoplease.com/tin-god
http://www.yourdictionary.com/tin-god
In the context of Chapter 2, line 55, I would concur with you Charles, that a translation of “idol” would be more apropos; however I can see both meanings as equally valid. The question then for FIGU and Billy is which translation is more true to Billy’s intent. |
Sanjin
Member
Post Number: 11
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 08:36 pm: |
|
The original German states "Götter und Götzen", where Gott is god and and Gotze is idol. The difference between the two is that Gott is the consciousness-related/imaginary idol, while the Götze idol refers to materialistic idols, like pictures, statues, etc.
That is also why Götze is translated as tin god, as in materialistic god, to make the distinction more clear. But plain "idols" would work just as well, imo.
Regarding the other comments, yes the translation is still far from perfect, but that is normal, since this book is so complex. It is probably the most complex German book out there, and so far the translator has done an excellent job.
I just hope that they take our recommendations and comments seriously, as we all want to have this completed in the best possible way. |
Kiwiseeker
Member
Post Number: 74
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Thanks Phi_spiral for that info on `tin god`. I will add that to my idiom list.
Charles |
Phi_spiral
Member
Post Number: 456
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Sanjin: "That is also why Götze is translated as tin god, as in materialistic god, to make the distinction more clear."
I don't think that was the reason. I think what the translator was trying to capture was the alliteration that occurs in the original German with "Götter" und "Götzen", and duplicating it in the English with "god" and "tin god" - alliteration being common to Germanic and English language alike. But in so doing he deviates somewhat from the original meaning because of the idiomatic use of "tin god". |
Sanjin
Member
Post Number: 12
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 09:50 pm: |
|
phi_spiral, I think that both are valid reasons, but in English, god was in actuality the idiomatic tin god, so there is no proper distinction as you know who god really was. But since tin is a base metal, it gives the idiom a materialistic property and sets the necessary distinction.
That is why tin god is a good phrase/idiom to use. |
Kiwiseeker
Member
Post Number: 75
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 02:24 am: |
|
Regarding my post 71 on Ch.1/v.24 regarding `auf Erden` as `on earths`, I have noticed in a later verse, the translation in brackets is given as(worlds). This means, I then assume, that the sentence in v.24 refers to planets i.e. worlds, or `earths`. However, with respect to this I assumed that the use of the word `earth` was specific to our planet Earth.
Charles |
Gaiaguysnet
Member
Post Number: 801
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:47 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Pages 341-345 of vol 1 of the Contact Notes (Asket's Explanations) has been sent off to Futureofmankind.
To be continued ...........
Cheers!
Dyson |
Sanjin
Member
Post Number: 13
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 07:17 pm: |
|
Phi_spiral, I thought about this some more and came to the conclusion that "idols" would be the better translation, since maintaining the same meaning is what we should stress on.
A good variant would be to just include tin god in parentheses as in : gods and idols (tin gods).
Since I read the German version first, I already knew the proper meaning, and when I then read "tin gods', the materialistic property is what came to my mind. I was not aware of the idiom before you mentioned it. But if I look at it from a perspective of a common English speaking reader, he/she will probably look up the meaning in the dictionary and not get the same meaning as was written in German. That is why I would translate it as "gods and idols (tin gods)".
This is what Gotze is supposed to refer to.
If "tin gods" by itself does not convey this message, then it is not a good translation. |
Sanjin
Member
Post Number: 13
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 08:01 pm: |
|
Kiwiseeker, the translation of "on earths" is supposed to refer any human-populated planet, not just our Earth. As far as I'm aware, this book is supposed to be a teaching for all mankind and is intended to be spread to other planets eventually.
It is possible that the convention with having (worlds) was not held throughout the book, but it probably should be. |
Sanjin
Member
Post Number: 14
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 08:29 pm: |
|
I have a question and I hope someone can help me out. Is there a distinct difference between the English terms "value" and "worth"? |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 697
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Hi Dyson. On behalf of those who appreciate your translations, thank you. I have a question directly for you however. A long while ago you mentioned electrons having 7 factors Earth science is not aware of along with some facts about light. I asked you where you got that info and you gave some references which I promptly looked up as soon as was possible. I found the info very interesting but I never did find anything at all about electrons having 7 factors unknown to us on Earth. I know you have a busy life but if you ever ran across that exact contact with the mention of those 7 factors, even if they aren't explained, will you please post exactly which contact you saw that in? It would be very much appreciated :-)
Thanks again for your efforts and translations. They are quite enjoyable and valued by many of us...
Thomas
patricksdadinfrance@yahoo.com
|
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 698
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Hi Sanjin, yes there is a difference since most often the word value can be used in place of worth but the reverse is not always the case. Think of the example of saying "a color value" which refers to specifying what color. You couldn't accurately say "a color worth" so there you have one example.
I am no expert on words although English is the main one of the languages I use, but I think this example shows that at least the two words do not have identical "values"! :-)
Thomas
patricksdadinfrance@yahoo.com
|
Indi
Member
Post Number: 328
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Sanjin
It depends on whether a noun or an adjective or verb.
They can mean the same thing but the context is what will determine which one would be more likely to be used.
Value can be a verb or a noun.
Worth can be an adjective or a noun.
Robyn |
Cpl
Member
Post Number: 454
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 09:28 am: |
|
As Goblet of Truth is to eventually go out to the universe at large it would seem of benefit to have a footnote (similar to the other footnotes) describing the "tin god" proverbial meaning and usage in English within the tome. This would also make it clear to all English readers without the need for a re-translation. |
Cpl
Member
Post Number: 455
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 10:09 am: |
|
Sanjin,
Worth as an adjective may only be used predicatively, e.g.: "His house is worth two million pounds." It must have an object. We cannot say, "His house is worth." We can, however, say, "His house has value." Or, "His house is valuable."
While we can say, "He is a man of worth" it really means he is a man of wealth or opinion that is worth considering. We would not usually say, "He is a man of value." This would tend to suggest he is a slave of high price. "He is valuable" would mean he is important enough to us for us not to want to lose him. We could only say, "He is value" poetically by implying that he is the essence of value itself or all that has value. (Which, of course, would be a misplaced emotion you might find e.g. in a romance novel.)
Similarly, "This is a car of some worth" would mean worth some money. Money being the implied object.
If we say , "He is worthy" it means of receiving the prize or reward. The object is again assumed. We cannot say, "He is worth."
Best,
Chris |
