Translatology: What Hobbles It

Abstract

Noting that man hasn’t as yet awakened fully rationally to the life-giving life-enhancing power and life-refreshing life-sourcing civilization-deepening beauty of literary translation, the Note argues that the possible anodynity of (Literary) Translation Sciences as they obtain today cry out for a good deal of rationally illuminating rigorisation. Part of the anodynity is linguistic (and cultural) naiveté, as we argue. See Giridhar 2005 for a rational elucidation. Lexicalisations like the Sanskrit word dharma for example have been subjected to unacceptably naïve, irrational and supremacist, and hence glaringly unscientific, treatment. This has been demonstrated (See Giridhar op cit). We will talk about it here as well. Part of the problem is the waffly kind of demagoguery that sustains itself over the years. For example, people talk(ed) of eco-translation. Has any piece been translated with eco-translation in mind? If not, what is its status? It, as seems to be the case, exists in the air as cerebral gymnastics? Is there a translation precept which has no conceivable relation to translation praxis? Following Ramayana’s several regional avatars, there was some piquant and fashionably exultant buzz about originals undergoing several forms in response to the narrativisation requirements of target cultures. I know of no modern literary piece which has had such avatars because apparently, the translator doesn’t know what to do! Does it mean these different avatars, however nebulously defined, are theoretically optional? Adaptation, I rationally assume, is technically different from translation. Essentially, there is no ‘adaptation’, for example, for discursive or scientific discourse.