>and was convinced I was loosing my mind and that I couldn't be translating it right
Do people really need to translate languages they know back to their native language in their head?
I'm pretty sure she only barely knows German. She implies she was reading it for a class, and her over-emphasis on reading it in German is something a child or a novice does, not someone who actually knows German.
>her over-emphasis on reading it in German is something a child or a novice does
I read in French all the time. I never tell people I'm actually reading a book in French unless the conversation forces that to be revealed. It's not necessary because I can still talk about the book in English, and Americans have these weird inferiority complexes about foreign languages. Probably the only time I would tell someone I'm reading a book in French is if they ask to read the book and I know for a fact an English translation doesn't exist. That forces my hand.
I know some anons might attack this by saying, "Well why would you go to such lengths to hide you're reading in foreign language?" In America, people think you're bragging and trying to show if you mention you're reading in a foreign language, even if it's a casual one-off mention. Americans would even get offended if an illegal immigrant came to a party and started talking about how he was reading Don Quixote in Spanish. At that point even your most liberal open-border supporter would be thinking, "Oh yeah then go back where you came from if you think you're so much better than us because you can read in Spanish."
Believe it or not, discussing one of the biggest players on the global stage is actually kind of important when discussing the cultural perceptions and attitudes towards language! Who knew?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Obsessed people, like you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your persecution complex doesn't really work here, sorry bud.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Touch grass. The Americans aren't under the bed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But they're crawling all over the thread like roaches.
2 years ago
Anonymous
correct, they aren't under the bed
they were on the bed, before they broke it with their obscene bulk
>if they are learning the language then they have to
I don't see the point, it seems like you are making it more difficult on yourself trying to relate it back to your native language then understanding it how it is.
are you one of those weirdos who thinks in images or something
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can imagine images in my head, yes, but it's not like I only think in visual terms. I just think it's silly to always be translating in your head, surely you didn't do this as a kid when you learnt your native language, because you had no language to compare to, right? I didn't do it when I learnt Latin in school.
I had to do this for the first 5 years of learning a new language. At some point the need for that just sort of went away and I became what I would consider truly fluent. But the strange part is that I didn't actually study more or learn new words/grammar in the time it went away. I just practiced what I knew on a more regular basis.
I was mulling your question over in my head for a couple of moments. Almost Googled a German newspaper to see if I momentarily translate headlines into English before I can comprehend them. Then I realized English isn't my native language. So, no.
I dunno. Part of me wants to just call her an idiot, but part of me also takes this as evidence that our responses to art are deeply socially conditioned. In the absence of any background theories or education about art - the idea of art for art’s sake, the idea that art can and should go into imaginary realms beyond what is real, the idea of extracting meaning from such surrealist imaginative works even when there’s no straightforward translation map of “symbols” to orient yourself - without this network of concepts, can you really blame someone for having the sort of reaction she had?
>evidence that our responses to art are deeply socially conditioned
You are correct. Kathy has been conditioned to be an idiot. The entirety of modern society is designed around manufacturing idiocy by removing out historical and ancestral "network of concepts," as you put it.
I don't blame her for being an idiot. I blame those who made her that way.
Any human being with any sense of what it means to be human can to some degree relate to Gregor's situation, or at least relate it to other humans they've known or heard about. Even as a 15 year old kid I could relate his situation to that of bullied kids who don't know how to stand up for themselves. Kafka cleverly evokes this sense of helplessness with a dreamlike story where a human feels like a bug to his surrounding "friends" or in this case family. You need to be extremely psychopathic or probably in Kathy's case, utterly solipsistic to not comprehend these feelings and understand that Kafka does a novel job of awakening them
When the purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether purposeless, aimless, senseless — in short, l'art pour l'art, a worm chewing its own tail. "Rather no purpose at all than a moral purpose!" — that is the talk of mere passion. A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? choose? prefer? With all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. Is this merely a "moreover"? an accident? something in which the artist's instinct had no share? Or is it not the very presupposition of the artist's ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l'art pour l'art?
>Gregor Samsa awoke on(e) morning to discover that he had somehow transformed into a giant wienerroach
Awful translation. She needs to work on her German and chose better software.
>wieneraroach
Next question: what insect? Commentators say wienerroach, which of course does not make sense. A wienerroach is an insect that is flat in shape with large legs, and Gregor is anything but flat: he is convex on both sides, belly and back, and his legs are small. He approaches a wienerroach in only one respect: his coloration is brown. That is all. Apart from this he has a tremendous convex belly divided into segments and a hard rounded back suggestive of wing cases. In beetles these cases conceal flimsy little wings that can be expanded and then may carry the beetle for miles and miles in a blundering flight. Curiously enough, Gregor the beetle never found out that he had wings under the hard covering of his back. (This is a very nice observation on my part to be treasured all your lives. Some Gregors, some Joes and Janes, do not know that they have wings.) Further, he has strong mandibles. He uses these organs to turn the key in a lock while standing erect on his hind legs, on his third pair of legs (a strong little pair), and this gives us the length of his body, which is about three feet long. In the course of the story he gets gradually accustomed to using his new appendages—his feet, his feelers. This brown, convex, dog-sized beetle is very broad.
In the original German text the old charwoman calls him Mistkäfer, a "dung beetle." It is obvious that the good woman is adding the epithet only to be friendly. He is not, technically, a dung beetle. He is merely a big beetle. (I must add that neither Gregor nor Kafka saw that beetle any too clearly.)
>wienerroach
No. She didn’t read this in German at all. > Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungeziefer verwandelt.
“Ungezeifer” means vermin. It refers mostly to insects, but “monstrous vermin” doesn’t translate to wienerroach. I hate women so much it’s unreal.
SHE DID NOT READ IT IN FRICKING GERMAN. THAT IS THE GODDAMNED PENGUIN CLASSICS *FRANZ KAFKA'S METAMORPHOSIS AND OTHER STORIES* MICHAEL HOFMANN TRANSLATION.
wasn't there a whole thing about the first sentence of this book in german, in that there is hardly a direct translation for what kafka wrote, and that 'wienerroach' does not convey at all what is actually written? so is she not therefore lying about reading it in german?
it would hurt fee fees and a 0 would seriously tank a rating conpared to giving 1. If they allowed 0 stars, most books which are considered 4/5 probably wouldn't be 3/5 if they allowed 0 stars.
>and was convinced I was loosing my mind and that I couldn't be translating it right
Do people really need to translate languages they know back to their native language in their head?
that's just how angloids do it. they typically don't even know that real fluency is possible.
you're lucky a few english speakers even know other languages exist mate
I'm pretty sure she only barely knows German. She implies she was reading it for a class, and her over-emphasis on reading it in German is something a child or a novice does, not someone who actually knows German.
>her over-emphasis on reading it in German is something a child or a novice does
I read in French all the time. I never tell people I'm actually reading a book in French unless the conversation forces that to be revealed. It's not necessary because I can still talk about the book in English, and Americans have these weird inferiority complexes about foreign languages. Probably the only time I would tell someone I'm reading a book in French is if they ask to read the book and I know for a fact an English translation doesn't exist. That forces my hand.
I know some anons might attack this by saying, "Well why would you go to such lengths to hide you're reading in foreign language?" In America, people think you're bragging and trying to show if you mention you're reading in a foreign language, even if it's a casual one-off mention. Americans would even get offended if an illegal immigrant came to a party and started talking about how he was reading Don Quixote in Spanish. At that point even your most liberal open-border supporter would be thinking, "Oh yeah then go back where you came from if you think you're so much better than us because you can read in Spanish."
>muh Americans
obsessed
Believe it or not, discussing one of the biggest players on the global stage is actually kind of important when discussing the cultural perceptions and attitudes towards language! Who knew?
Obsessed people, like you.
Your persecution complex doesn't really work here, sorry bud.
Touch grass. The Americans aren't under the bed.
But they're crawling all over the thread like roaches.
correct, they aren't under the bed
they were on the bed, before they broke it with their obscene bulk
t.
if they actually know the language they don't
if they are learning the language then they have to
dumb anglo
>if they are learning the language then they have to
I don't see the point, it seems like you are making it more difficult on yourself trying to relate it back to your native language then understanding it how it is.
are you one of those weirdos who thinks in images or something
I can imagine images in my head, yes, but it's not like I only think in visual terms. I just think it's silly to always be translating in your head, surely you didn't do this as a kid when you learnt your native language, because you had no language to compare to, right? I didn't do it when I learnt Latin in school.
That's because you're a dumb frogposter.
Only when you are beginning. Being French, reading English as a kid, I'd say I probably translated back to French until I was 13~14.
I had to do this for the first 5 years of learning a new language. At some point the need for that just sort of went away and I became what I would consider truly fluent. But the strange part is that I didn't actually study more or learn new words/grammar in the time it went away. I just practiced what I knew on a more regular basis.
I was mulling your question over in my head for a couple of moments. Almost Googled a German newspaper to see if I momentarily translate headlines into English before I can comprehend them. Then I realized English isn't my native language. So, no.
I dunno. Part of me wants to just call her an idiot, but part of me also takes this as evidence that our responses to art are deeply socially conditioned. In the absence of any background theories or education about art - the idea of art for art’s sake, the idea that art can and should go into imaginary realms beyond what is real, the idea of extracting meaning from such surrealist imaginative works even when there’s no straightforward translation map of “symbols” to orient yourself - without this network of concepts, can you really blame someone for having the sort of reaction she had?
>evidence that our responses to art are deeply socially conditioned
You are correct. Kathy has been conditioned to be an idiot. The entirety of modern society is designed around manufacturing idiocy by removing out historical and ancestral "network of concepts," as you put it.
I don't blame her for being an idiot. I blame those who made her that way.
You are the ones deeply socially conditioned if you think art for art's sake is a valid defense of art.
ok
No, she's just an idiot.
I read it when I was like 16 and I thought it was great and I didn't know shit about frick
Any human being with any sense of what it means to be human can to some degree relate to Gregor's situation, or at least relate it to other humans they've known or heard about. Even as a 15 year old kid I could relate his situation to that of bullied kids who don't know how to stand up for themselves. Kafka cleverly evokes this sense of helplessness with a dreamlike story where a human feels like a bug to his surrounding "friends" or in this case family. You need to be extremely psychopathic or probably in Kathy's case, utterly solipsistic to not comprehend these feelings and understand that Kafka does a novel job of awakening them
She's right, Kafka is a hack
True.
Kafka is just a dirty israelite hack praised by others dirty israelites.
I’ve never understood the hype.
When the purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether purposeless, aimless, senseless — in short, l'art pour l'art, a worm chewing its own tail. "Rather no purpose at all than a moral purpose!" — that is the talk of mere passion. A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? choose? prefer? With all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. Is this merely a "moreover"? an accident? something in which the artist's instinct had no share? Or is it not the very presupposition of the artist's ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l'art pour l'art?
IQfy is still in its troony era where their worldview is a marriage between romanticism, postmodernism, and marxism
so based then?
yes, I'm publicly a marxist, privately a romantic, and a postmodernist on the internet
You forgot about mystic perennialnazism
BASED
A
S
E
D
toastan in an epic bread
>Gregor Samsa awoke on(e) morning to discover that he had somehow transformed into a giant wienerroach
Awful translation. She needs to work on her German and chose better software.
>wieneraroach
Next question: what insect? Commentators say wienerroach, which of course does not make sense. A wienerroach is an insect that is flat in shape with large legs, and Gregor is anything but flat: he is convex on both sides, belly and back, and his legs are small. He approaches a wienerroach in only one respect: his coloration is brown. That is all. Apart from this he has a tremendous convex belly divided into segments and a hard rounded back suggestive of wing cases. In beetles these cases conceal flimsy little wings that can be expanded and then may carry the beetle for miles and miles in a blundering flight. Curiously enough, Gregor the beetle never found out that he had wings under the hard covering of his back. (This is a very nice observation on my part to be treasured all your lives. Some Gregors, some Joes and Janes, do not know that they have wings.) Further, he has strong mandibles. He uses these organs to turn the key in a lock while standing erect on his hind legs, on his third pair of legs (a strong little pair), and this gives us the length of his body, which is about three feet long. In the course of the story he gets gradually accustomed to using his new appendages—his feet, his feelers. This brown, convex, dog-sized beetle is very broad.
In the original German text the old charwoman calls him Mistkäfer, a "dung beetle." It is obvious that the good woman is adding the epithet only to be friendly. He is not, technically, a dung beetle. He is merely a big beetle. (I must add that neither Gregor nor Kafka saw that beetle any too clearly.)
popular literature is naturally plot oriented. Thematic writing is not accessible to those who are cognitively deficient.
>wieneraroach
Symbol for Jesus?
Kafka was a israelite.
Women only like children's books.
All fiction is equally meaningless.
Once you accept this truth, only then can you grow.
>explaination
>wienerroach
No. She didn’t read this in German at all.
> Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungeziefer verwandelt.
“Ungezeifer” means vermin. It refers mostly to insects, but “monstrous vermin” doesn’t translate to wienerroach. I hate women so much it’s unreal.
SHE DID NOT READ IT IN FRICKING GERMAN. THAT IS THE GODDAMNED PENGUIN CLASSICS *FRANZ KAFKA'S METAMORPHOSIS AND OTHER STORIES* MICHAEL HOFMANN TRANSLATION.
What's the problem? It reads like a lengthier version of a standard IQfy post.
wasn't there a whole thing about the first sentence of this book in german, in that there is hardly a direct translation for what kafka wrote, and that 'wienerroach' does not convey at all what is actually written? so is she not therefore lying about reading it in german?
also
>wieneraroach
women are irredeemable
Why don't they allow 0 stars?
it would hurt fee fees and a 0 would seriously tank a rating conpared to giving 1. If they allowed 0 stars, most books which are considered 4/5 probably wouldn't be 3/5 if they allowed 0 stars.
The entire book is just projection. Or a weird autobiography.