The classical history professor at my uni can't read Latin or Greek

No, he LITERALLY cannot read the fucking source material because if he is not reading the original words of the author, he LITERALLY is not reading the material, he is reading someone else's interpretation of the work (meaning he is FIGURATIVELY reading it).

You're such a fucking idiot it's unbelievable. If you honestly think you can proclaim to be an expert in a field of study and not even speak the language of said field, you have no business running your mouth about it.

>he thinks one translation is going to be significantly different to another

Now I know you're either genuinely retarded or baiting. Either way, here's your last (You).

So please enlighten us oh great one as to how they're going to be radically different?

Also why ate you so outraged by this on an anonymous Eritrean Yak Breeders forum and not taking it up with your tutor personally?

No really. I'm not talking about Derek's written interpretation of events, I'm talking about literally copied and translated works you fucking spoon.

Stop fuming and try to actually bloody learn something user, I think you need it.

/thread

>You're such a fucking idiot it's unbelievable. If you honestly think you can proclaim to be an expert in a field of study and not even speak the language of said field, you have no business running your mouth about it.

You're just trying to excuse the fact that you're probably a braindead idiot who can't speak any foreign language, let alone Latin or Greek. There are a massive variety of different English words that a Latin or Greek word can be translated into, and in English, these words may make a huge impact on the meaning of the sentence. Why do you think there are so many different translations of the Bible? Even the changing of one word can completely change the context of the passage.

This is where there are universally applauded translations of texts, and there are also universally despised translations. Some of them suck ass and others don't, but unless you speak the source language, you really have no idea whether it is or not.

And what would you like me to do? Go up to him and tell him to resign his (probably tenured) position because he's a hack?

Like I said, I really am done arguing this. You're historically illiterate if you honestly think that any translation is as good as any other, and that you're more than qualified to be an "expert" on a subject and culture whose language you can't even begin to decipher.

>thinks his tutor is a hack
>doesn't do anything about it except impotently vent online

You do know there are people you can speak to at your uni other than your professors, right?

If they're universally applauded perhaps you could do something wierd amd radical and ask multiple experts in those languages and get their thoughts on which is best? Your tutor probably didnt write the text books and secondary sources you're using either but let others do it for him, and they're apparently good enough for you.

He's probably been waiting weeks to find a problem with his professor. Least he's happy

At least the brainlets are in good company

>is wasting his time and energy on an education he thinks is bogus, while doing nothing to stop it
>calls others brainlets

>doesn't think there's any difference between translations of texts
>doesn't think he's a brainlet

>implying minor differences in wording are going to make much of a difference at undergrad level
>implying that so long as you and your tutors use the same translation it matters at all anyway
>implying you don't just want to vent and justify to yourself why you're so much better and smarter than your tutor

>he thinks the differences in translations are "minor wording"
>he thinks you can tell that apart if you don't speak the source language
Also, I never said I was better or smarter than him, I said he's not an expert on Roman history if he doesn't speak Latin. That's it. Get fucked, dipshit.

>implying the blatant need to show you're better than him isnt visibly oozing out of every post

Holy shit sperglord, calm down. I'm pretty sure your professor has read enough Roman history to teach you in an undergrad class. And if you're apparently this expert that can read all the primary sources in Latin, why are you taking that class?

Yeah but if he knew the og language it wouldn't matter anyways,he'd know what the differences are

>why are you taking that class?
Not him,but there are many reasons the school would require it.

OP doesn't know Greek or Latin either so the thread is literally just him shrieking like a baby.

If he knows Latin and is reading all of the primary sources himself, but is apparently going to a school that doesn't allow him to clep out of entry-level classes, I'm just going to blame that on him.

>implying I ever said that
You're just getting defensive because you also don't speak Latin. You feel threatened because you're a brainlet, it's okay.

Cura te ipsum.

>doesn't allow him to clep out of entry-level classes
Many schools don't. Mine bamboozled me out of it.

If youre upset with the quality of teaching why did you choose to go there in the first place?

how the fuck is Veeky Forums full of so many retards that defend not being able to read source material and actually think translated works are all the same
Starting to think there are lot of brainlet amerifat education teachers that lurk here

>implying they can't read the source material
>implying the differences matter if both tutor and student use tgevsame translation
>implying this isn't undergrad level and the tutor isn't more than familiar with enough Roman history from transkations and secondary sources to give a fantastic education
>implying OP isn't a shrieking autist

because they are uneducated retards who think history is about watching youtube channels

see the excrement that replied to you first, thats the avarage his browser

Just ignore it man, dont get your panties in a wad over every stupid person online. Once he said you should have stopped replying

This is Veeky Forums, not a classroom.

so? he's a history professor not a linguist or language professor

see, there's a guy whose job is to learn ancient languages and translate ancient texts to modern languages(linguist), then there's a guy whose job is to interpret them and draw conclusions from them(historian) and then there's the guy whose job is to teach these conclusions(teacher) to you(brainlet)

What does it matter? He knows the stuff, you don't. Do you need him to act as your guide when you go on the magic school bus and interact with the Roman Senate? Fuck off. If you want to cry about not reading greek propaganda that writes about details a hundred years after they take place, you're a pretentious piece of shit for demanding others do it for you.

>pretentious piece of shit
That's pretty much what OP is

>t. Autist

>implying the sources used at fucking UNDERGRAD level are goimgvto be so radically different as to affect the level of education

>see people saying that reading translated works and historical records is exactly the same as reading and translating it yourself
It's not like misinterpretations and incorrect translations aren't a pretty common sighting.
There is absolutely no worth for a person dedicated to historical studies to be able to translate/interpret/decipher original records yourself because it's enough to read other people's translations.
Absolute state of Veeky Forums is just staggering.

>taking Classics at a uni that doesn't offer tuition in Ancient Greek and Latin
You only have yourself to blame.

>translating works
>at undergrad level

I was referring to the professor not being versed in Latin nor Greek.

Why does it matter when he won't be teaching his students anything to do with translation?

It's his professor. Which is doctoral level.

Because a frigging PROFESSOR that teaches classical history should be versed in language(s) that were most important during the ages he's specialized in. Which means Latin or Greek.
I would expect a person that dedicated his studies/life to studying history should be able to study the original texts/works himself because he should be able to make conclusions from ancient texts/works himself and not just rely on other people's translations.

>Because a frigging PROFESSOR that teaches classical history should be versed in language(s) that were most important during the ages he's specialized in
why?

that's not his job, his job is to teach you the academically accepted conclusions, not make up his own

Not that guy, but he has a point. It certainly helps tremendously to know the languages of the literature and history that you work with. Translations are quite problematic at times, and linguistics is heavily tied to history.

That said, its not required in any way. It's just both common and helpful. Really depends on the professor's focus of research though.

I'm assuming he's talking about a research professor. If its a teaching professor, this is far less important.

yeah sure, it would be neat if he was so dedicated that he would learn the languages, but as you said it's not important. OP thinks teachers are supposed to be Indiana Jones or something

>Irish
The niggers of Europe

This thread is fucking shit and whoever created it is a cretin

Read Seamus Heaney's Beowulf and drink my piss.

How is it radically different to Tolkeins translation?

>citing a literal poet with no formal qualification in history

If you're too lazy to read a single excerpt and see yourself, I'm not going to coddle you. And the original claim was that one translation wouldn't be significantly different than other which is simply a bald-face idiocy.

Heaney

Tolkien.

Oh yes, totally different. It's like reading a whole separate story!!!

...

This is what Protestantism, "Enlightenment" and Vatican 2 have caused.

Because you cant teach Russian history if you dont know Russian, same with the English, or French or any other nation.
Western education is a joke.

So what? There is a bunch of bong and burger celebrated Russia "historians" who are unable to read Russian. Beaver 'Red Army raped zillions' for starters.

t. monolingual mouthbreather

That's the result of Cultural Marxism.

I'm a shit tier latinist and even I know this is garbage.

You can find changes in every translation. They come in different forms : ease of access (getting a pun or rhyme across), political-social, or even just censoring "naughty" language (greek comedy is a big example of this).

If you're not looking at the original text you're not going to develop an informed opinion

See

two wrongs don't make a right

>actually posting this dogshit opinion in a history board.
If you've taken any class on the Bible for example, or literally any other equally old work you know that translations, while being adequate for amateur scholarship or pleasure reading, are not a good equivalent for the actual original works in their original language. I genuinely think you should be banned from Veeky Forums for holding such fucking heresy as a belief.

>undergraduate
>works in their original language

>implying undergraduate isn't amateur scholarship

So where's the issue then?

Not sure if you've read article published historical journals, but most cited widely renowned translations as primary sources. It really isn't necessary because the topics of debate for historians usually involve unrecorded events, unreliable sources, or words from sources without a direct translation that knowing the original language wouldn't help (Othismos is a good example).

Most historical articles are also not citing sources that haven't been read and debated millions of times. No one reads Appian and suddenly comes away with something completely new compared to the hundreds of thousands that have read his works before.

That said, it's a shame not to read works in their original language because it neuters the poetry and trims the culture from it.

I'm saying that it's fine if you're an undergrad and pursuing a general major to take a class that uses translated works, but to be an expert in the field and not be able to read some of the important sources of said field in their original language is kind of laughable.

Why? Surely you're an expert in Roman history because you know a lot about Roman history, not because you can read Latin?

To all advocating for not knowing Latin and Greek, I dont think you realize how many works haven't actually been translated. Sure, there are standardized translations of Polybius and Procopius, but try finding a scholarly source for the fragments of Fronto.
Knowing Latin and Greek is not so that you can re translate source material, its so that when Latin/ Greek sources which have not been translated come up, you can read them.
Also, inscriptions. Inscriptions everywhere.

Please tell me what role a teaching professor (in Ireland) has in translating these unknown documents?

But to know a lot about Roman history is to be able to deal with the first major well of historical knowledge, primary written sources. All of which are not written first in the King's English, unfortunately. Also, uncovering new sources and judging their value for the study of the field in general is an important part of being a historian, and it is completely impossible unless you know Latin.

For example, we don't know that Cicero was beheaded and had a pin stuck through his tongue by Mark Antony's wife because we found his skull with the pin in it, and the pin bore some identifying marker of Mark Antony or his wife. We know it because someone, a historian presumably, read that shit in a source about Roman history.

Motherfucker people all over the world translate obscure and previously unmentioned manuscripts. I literally just attended a lecture about how a professor in America discovered and translated a unique and interesting chronicle about a knight's journey on crusade.

>Why? Surely you're an expert in Roman history because you know a lot about Roman history, not because you can read Latin?

Reading and being able to understand works in their original Latin would be of enormous importance if you want to do any sort of research or publications.

>scholarly source for Fronto

Van den Hout's translation is the academic standard usually. In the papers citing Fronto younger than 30 years they'll likely be quoting that version.

And multiple translations of the significant primary sources are available. It's been done. There is absolutely no need for him to sit and attempt an amateur translation of every source they want to use when they can walk down to the library and get a better translation done by someone who's literal job it is to provide accurate translations of primary sources.

People writing papers and using a translation?!?!??!?! Don't they know only amateur hacks do that???

Yes but my point is that there are other primary sources that have value that are left untranslated and uncovered, and part of the work of a historian is to uncover these forgotten primary sources and judge their value as historical documents. Also, the intricate details and subtle nuances of the original language are quite frankly lost in translation.

Part of the study of history is expanding the body of historical sources about a given subject. Your idea of "significant primary sources" kind of implies that the entire study of history is just retreading the ground of the older thinkers without gaining a fresh perspective. I mean, going over the same historical sources from a new angle (such as from the perspective of a Marxist historian, or an environmental historian) has value, but only up to a point.

You are aware that Indiana Jones isn't an accurate depiction of what a teaching history/archaeology professor does, right?

>europoors are this angry about having no unis in the top 10

jesus christ you're a trog

Haha nice point dude you really proved my argument wrong there epic reference to indiana jones xdddddd!!!

No but really, you clearly have no idea about the intricacies and pitfalls of relying on translations as opposed to reading the work in its original language, and you clearly have no idea how much judging the value of newly discovered sources matters to an actual historian.

This is a really skewed view of the field. Theoretically sure some random historian can come across an untranslated document from antiquity and translate it, but this hypothetical historian is likely someone who has access to an archive where the document is stored or is part of an archeological expedition where it discovered. Either way, this historian is not typical of your normal paper-publishing historian. There are specializations of historians for the handling and translating of these documents and the people "leading the field" in say Roman Military studies of the Polybian era would not be one of those people. The papers you normally read from Polybian Military expert cited translated scholarly-approved texts so that the journals can be as accessible to the most number of people.

even my pe teacher can read latin

Im not talking about Fronto's typical works, im talking Fronto's really obscure stuff. I had to pull some fragments for independent research last semester. Point being there are simply things out there that have not been translated/ published for use.
Unless professors in Ireland are different, a professor's job isnt just teaching. You are expected to conduct research, write, etc.

>muh semantics

lol'd