If someone wants to make it appear the punctuation of Nostradamus can be changed, at
will, then it is because someone wants to make up punctuation to fit his or her own needs.
With a lack of punctuation restrictions, it is then easy to recreate new text that goes along
with the new punctuation, also to fit one's need. This leads to the element of translation,
which is where this ability to recreate a document in a foreign language can be termed
"translator copyrights." As not everyone is versed in all foreign languages, people only
fluent in English have only read translator copyright material, said to be what
Nostradamus wrote in French. As long as these translator-authors make these changes
without anyone questioning their reasons, they can promote their own agenda and make
it seem like Nostradamus is impossible to solve.
One has to realize that translation is a corruption of an original text written in a foreign
language. Languages are termed "foreign" because each language has a different set
of rules for understanding. This means that French fluent people best understand a text
written in French. Every learned language, particularly one learned as a developing child,
becomes read automatically with the syntax of the French language embedded in their
brains (from years of training and practice). People fluent in a language readily adapt to
the nuances of that language, understanding expressions like idioms, quotes, slang, and
even slips of the tongue. Those foreign to a language, having learned the language later
in life, often find it difficult to simply translate in their minds what they hear or read. They
have to ask questions, stating their lack of understanding, or asking how to fluent people
would say what their native language normally says another way.
When this comes to the translation of a text into another language, it is a standard
practice to call a paraphrasing a literal translation, especially when additional wording is
required to explain a certain pattern of word use. This practice becomes important in
translating the meaning of the text, which carries more weight than the literal wording of
the text, because the meaning is the essence of an author's work. However, this means
translation requires the author's meaning be understood; and, in the case of
Nostradamus specifically, everyone and his brother has admitted they cannot make
heads or tails of Nostradamus' meaning in The Prophecies.
In 1558, after Nostradamus had published a second edition of The Prophecies, complete
with three new sets of quatrains, one hundred each, the king of France had put up with
enough of obvious nonsense. He demanded Nostradamus come to him and explain the
meaning. The meaning was evident in the poetry of Nostradamus' yearly prognostication
publications, but completely lacking in The Prophecies, including that book's preface.
That demand alone says that educated Frenchmen, knowledgeable in all of the writing
tricks, inconsistencies, and nuances of the French language during that period, had
pondered long and hard over the meaning of the French text written by Nostradamus. It
was that collection of wise king's men who made the king declare The Prophecies
nonsensical. While the evidence to this inability of learned men to find meaning in
Nostradamus' words, referencing The Prophecies, may be weaker, the Roman Catholic
Church also employed wise and fluent men and scholars, who all the same difficulty
understanding Nostradamus' meaning.
When the meaning was not known in 1558, by people with a much better grasp of fluency
in Old French, it is therefore foolish to attempt to translate Nostradamus as though the
meaning is known. One cannot logically assume that the modern mind is more acute
than those minds of the early Renaissance, simply because the modern mind has
produced a higher degree of scientific discovery. That assumption, by itself, is not a
provable point. The mere fact that people like Leonardo da Vinci lived 500 years ago,
displaying tremendous genius in many fields, proves all ages of humanity have examples
of those who have displayed exceptional intellectual skills. A determination that The
Prophecies was unintelligible in 1558 acts as proof that it was beyond the abilities of the
scholastically advanced.
What this means in relation to today's attempts to translate The Prophecies into other
languages is that the translation needs to be as true to the original as possible. The
nuances of French do not hold the key to understanding the meaning, simply because the
French have not been able to understand the meaning since 1555. This means a literal
translation is not something to be overlooked, simply because a combination of words
would not have been read individually to gain meaning. An idiom read that leads to a
lack of understanding can them be read as something other than an idiom. This also
applies to a series of words that would mean one thing, only if there was not punctuation
displayed in the middle of those words. This is why it becomes so important to discount
the placement of punctuation, because it then gives the translator free reign to translate
fluently a text that is anything but fluent.
I will next give one specific example that will clarify what I have just proposed, based on
the argument that in solute oratione can translate as nothing but "in plain prose".
will, then it is because someone wants to make up punctuation to fit his or her own needs.
With a lack of punctuation restrictions, it is then easy to recreate new text that goes along
with the new punctuation, also to fit one's need. This leads to the element of translation,
which is where this ability to recreate a document in a foreign language can be termed
"translator copyrights." As not everyone is versed in all foreign languages, people only
fluent in English have only read translator copyright material, said to be what
Nostradamus wrote in French. As long as these translator-authors make these changes
without anyone questioning their reasons, they can promote their own agenda and make
it seem like Nostradamus is impossible to solve.
One has to realize that translation is a corruption of an original text written in a foreign
language. Languages are termed "foreign" because each language has a different set
of rules for understanding. This means that French fluent people best understand a text
written in French. Every learned language, particularly one learned as a developing child,
becomes read automatically with the syntax of the French language embedded in their
brains (from years of training and practice). People fluent in a language readily adapt to
the nuances of that language, understanding expressions like idioms, quotes, slang, and
even slips of the tongue. Those foreign to a language, having learned the language later
in life, often find it difficult to simply translate in their minds what they hear or read. They
have to ask questions, stating their lack of understanding, or asking how to fluent people
would say what their native language normally says another way.
When this comes to the translation of a text into another language, it is a standard
practice to call a paraphrasing a literal translation, especially when additional wording is
required to explain a certain pattern of word use. This practice becomes important in
translating the meaning of the text, which carries more weight than the literal wording of
the text, because the meaning is the essence of an author's work. However, this means
translation requires the author's meaning be understood; and, in the case of
Nostradamus specifically, everyone and his brother has admitted they cannot make
heads or tails of Nostradamus' meaning in The Prophecies.
In 1558, after Nostradamus had published a second edition of The Prophecies, complete
with three new sets of quatrains, one hundred each, the king of France had put up with
enough of obvious nonsense. He demanded Nostradamus come to him and explain the
meaning. The meaning was evident in the poetry of Nostradamus' yearly prognostication
publications, but completely lacking in The Prophecies, including that book's preface.
That demand alone says that educated Frenchmen, knowledgeable in all of the writing
tricks, inconsistencies, and nuances of the French language during that period, had
pondered long and hard over the meaning of the French text written by Nostradamus. It
was that collection of wise king's men who made the king declare The Prophecies
nonsensical. While the evidence to this inability of learned men to find meaning in
Nostradamus' words, referencing The Prophecies, may be weaker, the Roman Catholic
Church also employed wise and fluent men and scholars, who all the same difficulty
understanding Nostradamus' meaning.
When the meaning was not known in 1558, by people with a much better grasp of fluency
in Old French, it is therefore foolish to attempt to translate Nostradamus as though the
meaning is known. One cannot logically assume that the modern mind is more acute
than those minds of the early Renaissance, simply because the modern mind has
produced a higher degree of scientific discovery. That assumption, by itself, is not a
provable point. The mere fact that people like Leonardo da Vinci lived 500 years ago,
displaying tremendous genius in many fields, proves all ages of humanity have examples
of those who have displayed exceptional intellectual skills. A determination that The
Prophecies was unintelligible in 1558 acts as proof that it was beyond the abilities of the
scholastically advanced.
What this means in relation to today's attempts to translate The Prophecies into other
languages is that the translation needs to be as true to the original as possible. The
nuances of French do not hold the key to understanding the meaning, simply because the
French have not been able to understand the meaning since 1555. This means a literal
translation is not something to be overlooked, simply because a combination of words
would not have been read individually to gain meaning. An idiom read that leads to a
lack of understanding can them be read as something other than an idiom. This also
applies to a series of words that would mean one thing, only if there was not punctuation
displayed in the middle of those words. This is why it becomes so important to discount
the placement of punctuation, because it then gives the translator free reign to translate
fluently a text that is anything but fluent.
I will next give one specific example that will clarify what I have just proposed, based on
the argument that in solute oratione can translate as nothing but "in plain prose".
| Examining Some Issues of Translation & Syntax |
| All Material Copyright of Robert Tippett with the exception of the obviously stolen stuff Reproduction by Permission Only |
Archive List
Keep Going --->
