Letter to Irena Krońska written in n.d.

Author Roman Ingarden

Category outgoing correspondence, Polish researchers in Roman Ingarden's correspondence

Archive Archive of Science PAN in Cracow

Reference code in archive K_III-26_D_50

Resource type letter

Subject matter publication issues, translations

Field philosophy

Tags #Adam Landman, #changes in translation, #critique, #edition, #Edmund Husserl, #Geschmacksurteil, #Immanuel Kant, #Irena Krońska, #Jerzy Gałecki, #Judgment of taste, #Paweł Beylin, #problems with translation, #scientific articles, #scientific publications, #scientific terminology, #scientific work, #terminology issues, #tiredness, #translations, #Wohlgeffalen

Dear Ms. Irena,

v thank you for your letter and new suggestion regarding the dictionary. Of course, I will not be writing to Mr. Beylin. Let him write when the matter is done.

v    I am almost done with rewriting the paper on Husserl for volume VI, but I still have 20 pages left. Then other things on Husserl will have to be written in Polish /since they are in German and French/. It will take some time yet. This semester has exhausted me, and I cannot work more at the moment. The doctor has caught high blood pressure again, I think it should pass this time as well.
v    I read the first chapter of Kant’s Critique at two editorial offices, together with Gałecki. In a week or so, I will send you the text modified by Landmann, PhD as a sample, as I think that is the way matters should proceed. You will see if his translation is that good. In any case, he followed Gałecki in all substantive matters, added two clear factual errors, elevated it a little stylistically, but he is not always fortunate in his formulations. He could not figure out the really difficult points – I did not touch them either, though. What I am referring to are such terms as “Geschmacksurteil” – which is translated by both as the “Judgment of taste”, which is awful, Wohlgeffalen is translated as “liking”, which changes the sense because it is about a current “enjoyment of something” – which again leads to linguistic difficulties. And that awful “interest” used by Gałecki, and Landmann too, in general contexts. “Concern” is something different yet again. This will result in more trouble here. Landmann changed many things unnecessarily because he provides terms at the same linguistic level. In addition, he deleted a number of, in my opinion, necessary and reasonable, although sometimes awkward in Polish, comments by Gałecki. Why, for example, he removed the one stating that the first edition of Critique used different words from the second edition, when these changes are usually very significant. Why does he change good Polish “mark” to “moment”, which barely means anything, etc.
v    When I am in Warsaw /around December 7-9/ I will visit you in order to consult what to do about it. I have now devoted – not counting the hours of reading – five evenings of three hours each to discuss the matter with Gałecki. I absolutely do not have time for this job, so I am not sure what to do with it. Gałecki cannot do it alone, and probably neither will Landmann/ although certainly his corrections are good sometimes, in a purely stylistic sense, but – as I have said he changes a lot unnecessarily, and he did not get rid of any significantly problematic issues.

Cordial greetings to you and apologies that in is only today, on a Sunday that I write back, but I have too much work and my health is quite poor.