Disputatio Categoriae:Interpretes

message: :[Disputationem movi et leviter emendavi e pagina disputationis mea.]
At Claudius Ebner, why did you change Ebner's profession from "translatista" to "interpres"? From what I know, interpres is also (and maybe primarily used) for an interpreter, but to define a translator, I found the expression "translatista" in the dictionaries (PONS, Vatican). Ebner is not an interpreter but a translator. Therefore I would prefer to put back "translatista". Or do you have another reason why you changed it? --Ennius 16:42, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In classical Latin (according to Cassell's), the word for English interpreter & translator alike is interpres. (The word for an interpreter of dreams is coniector.) A word having the form translatista is obviously a neologism. Vicipaedia uses such words when necessary; but if a good classical word for something exists, it's usually preferred. Why reinvent the wheel? IacobusAmor 18:28, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree with Iacobe and would add that it is a malformed word, since the stem is Latin and the termination Greek. Up to now we have used interpres in both senses on Vicipaedia, and I don't see a strong reason to change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:34, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :: I agree that "translatista" is a malformed word. I also agree that Latin interpres used to denote both 'interpreter' and 'translator' (kind of). But in modern world there is reason to keep these terms apart even in Latin. In many (most) universities there are syllabi for "Translational Studies", "Translation Science" etc. Dubbing these as "interpretative" even in Latin would create unnecessary ambiguity. Besides, in ancient times, translation wasn't quite the same thing as it is now, because translations were rather free adaptations. This is something Hieronymus was concerned about (and with). Indeed, Hieronymus uses the Latin word translator (e.g. Epist.57.5). I think Ebner is Latine translator rather than "interpres". --Neander 12:32, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Hmm, yes, that's a good one (and it's rather odd that the Vatican doesn't use the word!) In that case most of our current "interpretes" will have to be re-categorized, because most of them are translators rather than interpreters. I will copy this discussion to the most relevant place, which, I think, is :Categoria:Interpretes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::In English, people who supply running translations, as during speeches at the United Nations, are called interpreters, so (from the English perspective) we have no problem here: an interpreter is a translator. Of course, because of modern usage in vernacular languages, translator would be more readily intelligible to novices than interpres. For notions of "interpreter" as 'one who interprets by explaining, analyzing, offering criticism, etc.', perhaps the classical coniector could be pressed into service. IacobusAmor 13:04, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I think the point is that the professions (and the skills) are different and need to be distinguished. Therefore we would need two terms, and it would make sense to reserve "interpres" for the skill that in English is called interpreting and has a similar name in many other modern languages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::No: just because concepts are distinguished in one language does not mean that they must be distinguished in another. If you truly believe that, why aren't you trying to resurrect the Old English term (that would in today's pronunciation be) eme for 'mother's brother' so that uncle can be reserved for 'father's brother'? After all, Latin distinguishes between those concepts! But you see we can get along quite well in English without the distinction! IacobusAmor 13:16, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::: "just because concepts are distinguished in one language does not mean that they must be distinguished in another." I agree, but the point is that the functional distinction between 'translator' and 'interpreter' (so appositely described by Andrew) isn't an idiosyncracy of the English language but rather a (nowadays well-established) cultural / institutional practice, reflected in other comparable languages as well (e.g. German Übersetzen vs Dolmetschen, etc.). What we're witnessing here is cultural change. Why not take such an evolutionary specification into account in Vicipaedia as well. --Neander 19:53, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

text: :::::::I don't care about uncles. I am a translator, I know that the skills of translators and interpreters are different, and so (although I was not the one proposing this) I can see a possible reason for distinguishing them. A Latin term translator, coined or used by an eminent translator is available. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Yes, the rare classical attestation of translator provides a handy term for those who'd like to use it, but it doesn't give license to substitute it for interpres where Latin authors have preferred interpres. At the moment, the quaerere box shows that Vicipaedia has fifty instances of interpres, but only two of translator (plus six of translator used in English contexts). IacobusAmor 14:43, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

text: I find myself agreeing with Iacobus on this one. Latin uses interpres for both interpreters and translators, while translator is pretty rare and late. For good reason: Even though the skills required for these two tasks are certainly not identical, they do overlap a good deal; and it is not entirely uncommon that one person is capable of performing both. This is why even in German, where two separate terms (Übersetzer and Dolmetscher) are available, everyday usage frequently confuses them. Speakers of modern Arabic, e.g., have to make do with a single term (mutarǧim) just like the Romans. I would therefore prefer to keep interpres for both functions, and to use circumlocution (e.g. interpres colloquii vs. qui scripta in alios vertit sermones) in cases where clarification is actually necessary.--Ceylon 23:05, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : I agree that everyday usage tends to confuse Übersetzer and Dolmetscher, nor do I deny occasional overlapping. My pov isn't everyday usage but translation science (Übersetzungswissenschaft, Translatorik), where 'Übersetzen' / 'translation' and 'Dolmetschen' / 'interpretation' are kept apart for obvious functional reasons. How would you "interprete" in Latin: "Im Unterschied zum Übersetzer, der seinen Zieltext mehrfach überarbeiten oder redigieren kann, ist der Dolmetscher an die konkrete Gesprächssituation gebunden und kann den Zieltext nicht korrigieren" ? --Neander 01:19, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Unless you insist on a literal translation, I should venture something like: "Duo sunt genera interpretandi: Primum verba scripta scribens in alium vertit sermonem, alterum autem viva voce dicta continuo alia lingua reddit. Illi licet quae vertenda sunt quotieslibet retractare atque reficere, cum hoc praesenti colloquio astrictum quae interpretata sunt revocare nequeat."--Ceylon 10:46, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Excellent! Dynamic translation at its best. Still, and somewhat apart from this thread, I think Vicipaedia's take on Latinitas may be a bit too vocabulary-centred. If we want to write the kind of Latin that'd be enjoyable to Cicero, the thing worth paying heed to is grammar (i.e., agreement phenomena, subordination, verbal rection, etc etc), even more than vocabulary. It's a sign of life to be open to new words, derived or borrowed, when there's need for some. This was also Cicero's tack to do. Re the case at hand, the professions and professional identities denoted by Übersetzer and Dolmetscher, respectively, are so different that there's reason to distinguish between them even in Latin. Let's keep translator at least as a terminus technicus. No language has died of overdose of words. --Neander 12:58, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguenda? 

message: Haec res mihi subdividenda videtur secundum linguas e quibus et in quas interpretes vertent aut verterunt. Equidem sic iam feci Categoriam:Interpretes Arabo-Latini. --Fabullus 09:32, 13 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Optime. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 13 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subdividenda