Translations and archaisms

I am interested in the use of archaic English words and expressions in translations from other texts. Included in this, I mean, how often new translations are lauded as "eliminating archaic, and out of date language" in comparison to an older translation - for example: the difference between the Peaver and Volokhonsky translation of The Brothers Karamazov and Constance Garnett's.

E.g. In my translation of Pope John Paul II's Encyclical, Fides et Ratio (On Faith and Reason), the expression γνῶθι σεαυτόν, in Greek, is rendered "Know yourself" in English. The exact passage is: "The admonition Know Yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as "human beings", that is as those who 'know themselves'."

Obviously "Know yourself" was not written on the wall at Delphi; it was written in Greek. From personal experience, I have always seen the Greek rendered as "Know thyself", and it struck me as strange when I read the "updated English" of the Encyclical.

So, what is everyone's opinion concerning the use of archaic words in translations. Obviously the meaning is the same, but it contributes to the overall effect and mood of writing to use "thou" instead of "you".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

So, what is everyone's opinion concerning the use of archaic words in translations. Obviously the meaning is the same, but it contributes to the overall effect and mood of writing to use "thou" instead of "you".

---

i dont think they do mean the same. when we read words, even if they are very synonymous, there is still a differing shade of meaning. hence word choice is very important; compare 'the air was cold' to 'the air was frigid'. there are subtle differences.

archaic words certainly have their place in modern work. in regards to translated work, that is much harder to say. it really depends on the translator's opinion on the passages mood and context, and also whether it holds up to the rest of the work.

I suppose its partly down to personal taste, and setting. I generally go for the King James Bible, because I find the archaic phrasing more powerful, but, for example, when I read English translations of medieval Scandanavian poetry, the enforced archaism puts me right off, espcially as the language hasn't really changed much over time!

I am very wary of the modern trend to 'modernize' things. Archaisms -whether in original works or translations- contribute to a work's flavour, atmosphere, etc., in a way that 'simplifications' never can. Imagine a Shakespeare sonnet beginning, 'Want me to compare you to a summer's day? You're cuter, and nicer too'.