Talk:List of translators

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page should really have the name "List of X". All the list pages do. Should it be List of noted translators? List of notable Western translators? Any ideas? Jwrosenzweig 16:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We can move it to "List of Translators"; I don't want to name it "list of Western translators" yet because I hope people will add more names from other countries (we will retain the note at the top), or "list of notable translators" because it would be difficult to judge them equally notable - everyone listed has their merits but they are not all famous. -- Simonides 21:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It could eventually get quite unwieldy with the complete matrix of from>to language combinations on one page. I mean, what happens when you add in the most distinguished Chinese>Turkish translators, etc? I'm not saying I have a solution to that, just something to think about. adamrice

Thanks for moving the page, Jwrosenzweig. Adam, I doubt it will get to the point when we have to add Chinese>Turkish, but when it does I think we can split up the list over several pages according to target language (the predominant target language now being English), then repeat the current schema for each target language. That is, we would break up the list according to subject, then major foreign works in each subject, and major translators under each foreign work. In the meanwhile we can keep adding translators under the relevant subject headers. Until, of course, there is a sufficient number from a source language who can then be moved to their own sub-section, ex. when we have enough translators from Chinese to English we will create a section for them under the appropriate subject. -- Simonides 22:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I deleted "W. Y. Evans-Wentz - translated or adapted numerous Tibetan Buddhist texts, including The Tibetan Book of the Dead". Evans-Wentz famously didn't know a word of Tibetan, though he didn't mind creating the impression he did. The version of the so-called Tibetan Book of the Dead that he compiled and edited was actually translated by Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup (ISBN 0192813021). Shantavira 11:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translators of the Bible

Why we shouldn't create an article called list of Bible translators? Rafael, the Gawain 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so. But has nobody commented on the fact that texts such as the Bible and the Koran are currently listed under the heading of "literature"? --woggly 07:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the list again, clearly the list of Bible translators does not belong under the heading of "Translators into English". I'm afraid we'll have to work out some clever solution for how to sort translators both by language and by works translated. I'm off to see how they solved this at "List of Prizes". --woggly 07:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is still a bit of a mishmash, because different sorting methods are employed inconsistently in the same list. It would probably be best to work out what we're aiming for before attempting to apply unclear principles. There are several ways the list could be sorted:

By source language
By target language
By type of material translated, heirarchically (first categories such as "Literature", "Philosophy" etc, then within each category divisions such as "Classic" and "Modern", or genres, then specific works).

Naturally, this being the English wikipedia, there would be more translators into English represented than any other group, and this too must be taken into account. And it makes a lot of sense to split off separate articles for different ways of sorting the list, as is done under Lists of writers; need not be applied consistently to each and every work, but makes a lot of sense for works like the Bible where the list of translators is long and of particular interest. --woggly 08:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'll create this article, list of Bible translators. That's what you said "need not be applied consistently to each and every work, but makes a lot of sense for works like the Bible where the list of translators is long and of particular interest". Rafael, the Gawain 16:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

worth mentioning verse/prose translations?

Hello, would it be worth mentioning on this page whether certain translations of, say, The Odyssey are in verse or prose? For example, E.V. Rieu would be a prose translation, while Robert Fagles would be a verse translation. Any thoughts? Thanks. --Kyok o 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning that, plus the dates for historic translations and maybe a little note about the really famous versions discussing significance, influence etc..--Folantin 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General solution possible for searching for translated books?

Would there be any way to provide a generalized list of translators and translated works, or is this just a project which is outside of the scope of Wikipedia? My primary interest is actually in recognizing translators of Japanese books into English, but I'd like to be able to refine it beyond that level. I'm actually more interested in the translated books by their categories. I obviously can't prove it, but I believe that there are many translators who have only done one or two books, but if those books are in a category of my interest, it seems very difficult to find the translations, except almost by accident. Shanen (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's Plutarch

I am intrigued by the claim that Amyot was the version of Plutarch on which Shakespeare relied. It is generally my impression -- although I don't necessarily subscribe to this myself -- that Shakespeare read North (who of course translated from Amyot, and not the original), not Amyot. I'm quite open to the argument that he read Amyot instead of, or in addition to, North. But I wonder what the basis for the claim is. Can anyone cite some relevant scholarship? If so, I'd be much indebted. If not, perhaps the claim needs to be attenuated.

Best wishes to all, --BenJonson 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it claim this? The article claims that Shakespeare used North who had translated Amyot's version of Plutarch. --Folantin 15:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]