Scanned (with possible errors) from page 9-31 Mouse or of any language (be it verbal or other) signify something

other) signify something and are thus

Rat – translation as negotiation (2003) Umberto EcoThe endowed with meaning, we can figure out that, given a set of symbols
plants of Shakespeare a, b, c, . . . z and another set of symbols a , [3, y, 8 , . . . co, we are
entitled to substitute an item from the first set with an item from the
second set if and only if, according to some rule of synonymity, a is
equivalent in meaning to a , b to 13, and so on.
What does `equivalence in meaning' mean? There is a widespread
opinion that meaning is exactly that which remains unchanged (or
When I look in Webster's Dictionary, among the definitions of translate
equivalent) in the process of translation, but such an assumption runs
I find `to transfer or turn from one set of symbols into another '. That is
the risk of entering a vicious circle. Another suggestion' is that the
more or less what happens when we use Morse code and we translate
equivalence implied by synonymity and translation is a referential
from alphabetic letters to Morse signals or vice versa. e
quivalence: a given word A used in a language Alpha is synonymous
However Morse code involves a process of transliteration, that is, of
with the word B used in a language Beta if both are seen to refer to the
substituting letters of a given alphabet with letters of another one, and
same thing or event in the real world. However, referential equiva lence
letters are meaningless. Using Morse code, operators could correctly
is no better than equivalence in meaning. We generally believe that it
translate messages written in a language they do not understand into a
is correct to translate husband as mari or marito, and un doubtedly Mary's
series of dots and dashes. But Webster's, under the entry translation,
husband refers to the same person as le mari de
also says `a rendering from one language into another'. Since the signs
UMBERTO ECO
i. The works of Shakespeare - 4 G li impianti di Shakespeare - The
plants of Shakespeare
Mary or il marito di Mary. But one only need open a dictionary in order 2 . Speaker of the chamber of deputies -* Altoparlante

to see that husband, in English, can also mean a navy manager or a dell'alloggiamento dei delegati -4 Loudspeaker of the lodging of the
steward, while mari or marito cannot. delegates
Let us assume, however, that synonymity exists, that equivalence in 3. Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce ---> Studi nella logica
meaning is a value rigidly established by a linguistic convention, and delle sabbiatrici Peirce del Charles -4 Studien in der Logik der
that a machine can be provided with rules that allow it to operate Charlessandpapierschleifmaschinen Peirce - 3 Studies in the logic of
according to that convention, so that it can switch from one symbol to the Charles of sanders paper grinding machines Peirce
another even though it does not understand the meaning of these
symbols. Let us stick to case number 1 . AltaVista undoubtedly has definitions
With this in mind, I accessed Babelfish, the automatic translation and dictionary translations in its `mind' (if AltaVista has a mind of any
system provided by AltaVista (http //babelfish.altavista.com). I gave it a description), because it is true that the English word work can be
series of English expressions and asked it to translate them into Italian. translated into Italian as impianti and the Italian impianti can be
Then I asked AltaVista to retranslate the Italian expressions back into translated into English as plants. Plainly we must give up the idea that
English. Only in the last case did I follow a more complicated path, that to translate means only ` to transfer or turn from one set of symbols into
is: English-Italian-German-English. Here are the results: another' because, except for cases of transliteration like Morse code, a
given word in a natural language Alpha frequently has
 THE PLANTS OF SHAKESPEARE

more than one corresponding term in the natural language Beta.

Besides, the problem does not only concern translation but also the
very comprehension of a language Alpha on the part of its native
speakers. What does work mean in English? According to Webster's,
work can be an activity, a task, a duty, the result of such activity (such as
a work of art or a literary masterpiece), a structure in engineering (such
as a fort, a bridge, a tunnel), a place where industrial labour is carried
out (like a plant or a factory) - and many other things. Thus, if we
accept the idea of equivalence in meaning, we could say that work is
synonymous and equivalent in meaning both with literary masterpiece
and with factory.
When a single word can express two different things or concepts we
no longer speak of synonymity but rather of homonymy. We have
synonymity when two terms both refer to the same thing or concept,
but we have homonymy when a single term refers to two different
things or concepts.
If a lexicon contained only synonyms (and if synonymity was an
unambiguous concept), then translation would be possible, even for
AltaVista. If in the same lexicon there are many homonyms then
translation becomes a discombobulating job.
I know that the notion of meaning is a very complicated one and I
would like to avoid it. Let me assume that what we naively call the
meaning of a word is everything in a dictionary (or better, an
enc
yc l opaedia) that is written in the corresponding entry for that
word
Every single thing written in that entry is part of the content
ex
pressed by that word. If we read the content of a given entry we realise
that (a) it includes many accepted meanings or senses (the case of the
word work is a very clear example), and (b) these senses are not always
expressed by an alleged synonym but by a definition, a par aphrase or a
concrete example. In this sense a dictionary provides a series of
in
terpretations for a given word, or, according to Charles Sanders
Peirce,' of interpretants of that sign.
For Peirce, an interpretant is another representation which refers to
the same ` object'. In order to tell the content of an expression (be it

n
 UMBERTO ECO
THE PLANTS OF SHAKESPEARE

verbal or other) we must substitute the first expression with another interpretations of the same expression cannot be mutually synony mous,
expression (or string of expressions), which in its turn can be interpreted and every expression resembles a homonymous term conveying a
by another expression (or string of expressions). different interpretation.
An interpretant can be a synonym (in those rare cases in which one Moreover, in certain cases, we are facing examples of real
can believe in synonymity, as happens with husband, mari, marito); a sign homonymy, as happens with the very famous example of bachelor. This
from another semiotic system (the word work can be interpreted by term can be translated as soltero, scapolo, celibataire only within a human
showing the photograph of an engineering structure); a given object context, possibly concerning questions of marriage. Within a university
which is shown as representative of the class to which it belongs (one context a bachelor is a person who has received a bachelor's degree
can interpret the word work by indicating a real engineering structure); a (therefore it becomes a diplomato or improperly a laureato in Italian, or a
definition; a description; a paraphrase; or a complex discourse that licencie in French), and in a medieval context a bachelor is `a young
inferentially develops all the logical possibilities implied by the content knight who follows the banner of another' – that is, in Italian, a
baccelliere. Within a zoological context, a bachelor is `a male animal, like
of the expression. For instance, if one takes into account that there is
a seal, without a mate during breeding time'. It is because of these
something in common between the various senses of work, since a
contextual selections that, if I am given the English text John, a
literary masterpiece, a bridge, a factory, and a painting are all artificial
bachelor, who studied at Oxford, is now writing a Ph.D. dissertation on the
objects made by human beings by virtue of an activity or labour, and
North Pole bachelors, I should not translate it into French as Jean, une
that the same senses are conveyed by the Latin word opus, then even this
foque sans copine qui s'est licenciee a Oxford, est en train d'ecrire une these
complex inference is an interpretant of the expression work.
de doctorat sur les celibataires du Pole Nord ..
Certainly a dictionary (as a concrete object sold in bookstores) does
At this point we can understand why AltaVista's Babelfish is
not provide all the possible interpretants of a given linguistic term – this doomed to be wrong. It is not endowed with a vocabulary that includes
is the job of an ideal encyclopaedia. But even a dictionary at least tries contextual selections (or that can interpret them with sufficient
to circumscribe the sense that a given term assumes in the more precision). Thus AltaVista was unable to realise that the word work has
frequently recurrent contexts. Lexicographers, if they know their job, one sense in a literary context and another in an industrial one. Or
not only provide definitions; they also provide instructions for maybe AltaVista was endowed with the necessary in formation that works
contextual disambiguation, and this helps a lot in choosing the most in literature means a series of texts or books, but it did not receive any
adequate term in another language. information that the phrase to be translated c oncerned literature. In
According to Peirce, every interpretation teaches us something more order to realise it, AltaVista would have had to know that Shakespeare
about the content of the interpreted expression. `Feline mammal', 'Felis was a poet and a playwright and not an in dustrial tycoon. This is the
catus' and `domestic animal which miaows' are certainly three different kind of information that is not usually provided by dictionaries, but by
interpretations of the expression cat, but the first suggests a property (to encyclopaedias.
be viviparous) that the second does not, and the third tells us something Is it conceivable that AltaVista was not provided with contextual
info
about the way to recognise a cat that the first did not provide. At the rmation? Perhaps it simply needs a larger context, so that it can find
same time every interpretation focuses on the interpreted content from a therein useful information in order to disambiguate the most Puzzling
different point of view. Thus all the expressions. In order to test this theory I chose a more co nsistent and
very well-known text:

12
i3
 UMBERTO ECO

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and the had never suppos ed that it was endowed with the biblical and theological
earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of competence necessary to be able to distinguish between a god who is there
the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;
at the beginning and a god who is on the verge of starting something .
and God said, Let there be Light, and there was Light. And God saw
the Light, that it was good: and God divided the Light from the Besides, even from a theological and cosmological point of view, this
darkness. And God called the Light Day, and the darkness he called Dios que comenzaba is moving and convincing. As far as we know, it really
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God was the first time He was creating a world, and perhaps this explains
said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it many imperfections of our universe, including the difficulties of
divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and translation.
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters
It seems that AltaVista is not endowed with information about
which were above the firmament. And it was so.
contextual selections or rules of contextual disambiguation because it was
unable to realise that spirit acquires a given meaning when uttered or
I asked AltaVista to translate it into Spanish, and I got in return:
written in a church and another one when uttered or written in a pub. Why
did it not know this? The answer is easy: it did not realise that the name
En el dios que comenzaba creo el cielo y la tierra y la tierra estaban sin
God implies spiritual and not profane matters because in its vocabulary
forma, y vacio; y la oscuridad estaba sobre la cara del profundo. Y el
the name God was not interpreted. AltaVista probably has merely a list of
alcohol del dios se movio sobre la cara de las aguas. Y el dios dijo, dejo
correspondences, like Morse code (that is, a list of alleged synonyms).
alli ser luz: y habia luz. Y el dios vio la luz, de que que era bueno: y el
Thus it is not entitled to know anything about God.
dios dividio la luz de la oscuridad. Y el dios llamo el dia ligero, y la
To continue my game, I asked Altavista to retranslate the Spanish text
oscuridad que el llamo a Noche. Y la tarde y la manana eran el primer
into English, and was given:
dia. Y el dios dijo, dejo alli ser un firmament en el medio de las aguas, y
lo deft; dividir las aguas de las aguas. Y el dios hizo el firmament, y
In the God that began created the sky and the Earth and the Earth
dividio las aguas que estaban bajo el firmament de las aguas que
was without form, and emptiness; and the dark was on the face of
estaban sobre el firmament. Y estaba tan.
the deep one. And the alcohol of the God moved on the face of
waters. There and the God said, let be light: and there was light. And
AltaVista cannot be blamed if it interpreted God called the Light Day as
the God saw the light, that that was good: and the God divided the
the story of a god who summoned a weightless day; likewise, the idea of
light of the dark. And the God called the slight day, and the dark
interpreting void as a noun and not as an adjective can be considered a
that it called to Night. And afternoon and the morning was the first
minor flaw. AltaVista had the right to interpret face as cara (in English it
day. And the God said, there it let be firmament in means of waters,
would be countenance) and not as surface: w h y should the abyss have a
and it let divide it waters of waters. And the God did firmament,
surface and not a countenance, like the Moon? At most AltaVista should
and divided the waters that were under firmament of the waters that
have detected that that it cannot be translated as que que, but nobody is
were on firmament. And it was so.
perfect.
Altavista read beginning not as a noun but as an adjective, but I
This text is more or less a victim of the misunderstandings of the
14
Spanish version, plus some new mistakes (for instance it translates the

15
UMBERTO ECO expression dividir las aguas de las aguas, AltaVista, if provided with a
reasonable dictionary, should have detected that the Spanish preposi tion
Spanish medio, middle, as means). Notice that, faced with the Spanish de can be translated either as of or from. AltaVista nonchalantly chose of
because it lacks the fundamental information that, in the world we live
in, there is nothing like waters of waters. This is not a mere piece of
encyclopaedia information, like the facts that Shake speare was an author The German text accepts the story of a beginning God, of the light
and that God is a spiritual being. It concerns our understanding of the day, of a world without void, and that that obviously becomes das das.
world. Let me avoid a painful semiotic discussion over whether an But it mistranslates Earth as Mass, form as formular, and the divine
understanding of the world should or should not be included within an alcohol becomes Spiritus, which is as ambiguous as spirit. There are other
encyclopaedic competence. We shall see later that there are certain pieces syntactical oddities. In order to translate created AltaVista finds the
of information about the world which are not registered by an
German verb herstelle, which must be conjugated as Ich stelle her or Ich
encyclopaedia but rather provided on the spot by a given text (like there
stellte her. Because of a syntactic rule that was provided, AltaVista
is a cat on the mat). However, we have succeeded in adding a new stricture
`knows ' that her should be put at the end of the sentence, but it does not
to our criteria for good translating competence: translation does not only
concern words and language in general but also the world, or at least the realise that the sentence already ended with Himmel, and so put her much
possible world described by a given text. too far ahead. Moreover, apropos waters of waters, the first term is
At this point I decided that, by continuing to play, I could probably interpreted as a verb and the second as a noun. Such a mishmash could
get some other interesting suggestions, so I asked AltaVista to translate not but give the following result when I asked the computer to
the English text into German, which produced this: retranslate German into English:

lm Gott, der anfing, stellte den Himmel and die Masse and die Masse In the God, which began, placed the sky and the mass and the mass
war ohne Formular and emptiness her; and die Dunkelheit war auf dem was without form and emptiness ago; and the darkness was on the
Gesicht vom tiefen. Und der Spiritus des Gottes verschob sich auf dem face of the deep. And the white spirits of the God shifted on the
Gesicht des Wassers. Dort and der Gott sagte, lassend Sie, Licht zu sein: face of the water. There and the God said, leaving you, to be light:
and es gab Licht. Und der Gott sah das Licht, das, das gut war: and der and there was light. And the God saw the light, which, which was
Gott teilte das Licht der Dunkelheit. Und der Gott benannte den good: and the God divided the light of the darkness. And the God
geringfugigen Tag and die Dunkelheit, die sie zur Nacht benannte. Und designated the slight day and the darkness, which designated it to
Nachmittag and der Morgen waren der erste Tag. Und der Gott sagte, dort the night. And afternoon and the morning were the first day and
lieB er firmament in den Mitteln des Wassers sein, and er lieB es teilen the God said, there let it in the means of the water be firmament,
wassert vom Wasser. Und der Gott tat firmament and teilte das Wasser, das and it left it divides waessert from the water. And the God did
unter firmament des Wassers waren, das auf firmament waren. Und es war firmament and divided the water, which firmament under the
so. water was, which were on firmament. And it was like that.

i6 It is interesting to remark that, faced with stellte ... her, AltaVista

does not (and with good reason) recognise a compound verb; it finds
in its dictionary that her alone can also mean ago; and concocts placed
... ago. (By way of compensation, many other verbs are put at the end
of the sentence, as in under the water was.) Spiritus again becomes
something alcoholic, and the program is unable to translate waessert.
The conclusion of my experiment is that in order to translate, one

17
UMBERTO ECO
must know a lot of things, most of them independent of mere
grammatical competence.
But at this point we are encouraged towards another reflection. If one THE PLANTS OF SHAKESPEARE
received the different versions of Genesis provided by Babelfish, one
would guess that they were bad translations of the King James text – and grasp bananas with a stick. My second reaction used linguistic
not, let us say, bad versions of the first adventure of Harry Potter. And if knowledge. If one cross-references the Italian and English a `false
someone who had never heard of the Bible read these versions, I think that friend ' is revealed:
even such a naive reader would in some way realise that these texts deal
with a God who has created a world (even if it would be very difficult to ITALIAN ENGLISH
understand what the hell He actually made).
When I started working for a publishing house I was given the Ape Bee
manuscript of a translation from English for a first check, without being Scimmione Ape
able to refer to the English original, which was still in the hands of the
translator. The book told the story of the first researches on the atomic It was clear that the original English text spoke of an ape and that the
bomb in America, and at a certain point it said that, gathered in a certain translator believed that ape meant bee in English too. Furthermore, my
place, a group of young scientists had started their work by performing encyclopaedic knowledge was telling me that apes do grasp and eat
corse di treni (which in English means train races). I thought it was pretty bananas.
peculiar that persons who were supposed to discover the secrets of the All this means that, even if a translation is wrong, not only is it
atom wasted their precious time in such childish play. I resorted to my possible to recognise the text that it translates badly, but a reasonable
world knowledge and inferred that these scientists were certainly doing interpreter can usually infer, from a wrong translation of an unknown
something else. I do not remember whether at this point I remembered original, what that original was probably saying.
an English expression that I already knew, or tried to retranslate the Every text (even the most simple sentence) describes or presuppo ses
Italian expression into English as if I were a bad translator. In any case I a possible world. In the two cases above I made some inferences about
immediately realised that these scientists were on training courses, which the world described by the text, by comparing it with the world we are
was more reasonable and less expensive for American taxpayers. As living in, and trying to figure out how an atomic scientist and a bee
soon as I received the English original I saw that I was right, and I did should behave. After having made a hypothesis about the probable
my best to get the translator fired immediately. structure of the world pictured by the original text, a short exploration
Another time, in the translation of a psychology book, I found that, into the English lexicon helped me to find a reasonable final
in the course of an experiment, l'ape riusci a prendere la banana posta hypothesis: the scientists were on training courses and the banana was
fuori dall sua gabbia aiutandosi con un bastone, that is: a bee succeeded in grasped by an ape.
grasping a banana lying outside its cage with the help of a stick.
Another example: in Italian we have only one word (nipote) for the
My first reaction drew on world knowledge: bees are unable to
three English words nephew, niece and grandchild. Moreover in English
the possessive adjective agrees with the gender of the possessor while
in Italian it agrees with the gender of the possessed object or person.
Now suppose we have to translate the phrase John visita ogni giorno sua
sorella Ann per vedere suo nipote Sam. The possible English translations
are:

1. Every day John visits his sister Ann to see his nephew Sam.
2. Every day John visits his sister Ann to see her nephew Sam.

18 19
UMBERTO ECO
3. Every day John visits his sister Ann to see her grandchild Sam.
4. Every day John visits his sister Ann to see his grandchild Sam.
 TH E PL AN TS O F S HAK E SPE AR E
The last translation seems less probable tha n the previous ones, but it is
possible to imagine a world in which (i) John had a son, Max, (ii) Max
married Mary, (iii) Max and Mary gave birth to Sam, (iv) they then died difficult to establish the meaning of a term in an unknown language even
in a car accident, (v) aunt Ann decided to adopt Sam. A very improbable when the two speakers are facing the same external stimulus – which
but not impossible world situation (given the present corruption of any casts in doubt the notion of referential equivalence. If the linguist points
moral principle) would be that Max, son of John, had a love affair with to a passing rabbit and the native informant utters gavagai! it is
his aunt Mary, and that they produced Sam, so that Sam can be correctly uncertain whether, by that expression, the native speaker means rabbit,
defined both as John's grandchild and as John's nephew. In any case, if the stages of rabbit, or the fact that an animal is passing through the grass at
genera l context does not provide translators with further information, so that moment – or whether gavagai is the proper name of a universal
that they can conceive of a possible world structure, it is impossible to rabbithood. It is impossible to decide, if one has no previous information
translate that Italian sentence on mere linguistic grounds. on the native culture – that is, if one does not know how the natives
In order to understand a text, or at least in orde r to decide how it should categorise things, parts of things, or events involving things. The linguist
be translated, translators have to figure out the possible world pictured by must start by making a series of analytical hypotheses in order finally to
that text. Often they can only make a hypothesis about that possible produce a translation manual that corresponds to a whole
world. This means that a translation is also the result of a conjecture or of a anthropological handbook. However, the indeterminacy of translation is
series of conjectures. Once the most reasonable conjecture has been made, proven by the fact that rival systems of analytical hypotheses can produce
the translators should make their linguistic decisions accordingly. Thus different (but equally legitimate) translations of the same sentence. In
given the whole spectru m of the content displayed by the dictionary entry Quine's words, `Just as we meaningfully speak of the truth of a sentence
(plus all the necessa ry encyclopaedic information), translators must choose only within the terms of some theory or conceptual scheme ... so on the
the most suitable or relevant meaning or sense for that context. whole we may meaningfully speak of interlinguistic synonymy only
within the terms of some particular system of analytical hypotheses. "
You have probably realised that I started speaking of differences In spite of the current cliche about the incompatibility between
between languages (in the sense of tongues) and now l am speaking of Anglo-Saxon and Continental philosophy, I believe that Quinean holism
differences between texts. This is a very crucial point for every is not so different from the idea that every language has its own genius
translation theory. But let me go on with languages. (as Humboldt said) or – better – that every language expresses a
These are two main arguments against translation, both more different world view (the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis). In what sense a
germane than they seem at first sight: (i) the impossibility of setting up given language designs its own world view is pretty clearly explained by
a unique translation manual and (ii) the incommensurability of the structural semiotics of Hjelmslev. 5 According to Hjelmslev, a natural
language structures. language (and, more generally, any semiotic system) consists of a plane
As for the first argument, following Quine's famous example, it is of expression and a plane of content which represents the universe of the
concepts that can be expressed by that language. Each of these planes
consists of form and substance and both are the result of the organisation
20
of a pre-linguistic continuum.

21
U MB ERTO EC O

THE PLANTS OF SHAKESPEARE

expression neutrinos lack mass into a jungle language,

elaborate a and one only
need think how difficult it is to translate theform Germanofword Sehnsucht
into English or Italian in order to understand that German culture has
expression,
the precise notion If of a certain
we passion English
whose `
has space' can be
semantic
only partially covered
considerby terms selected
the like nostalgia, yearning, craving for or
wishfulness (and none
English (from
of them renders it adequately). the
But frequentlylanguage, the
such inadequacy continuum
is only the result of a sort of
optical effect'. Letform of a momentof
us return for the
to the distinction between
sounds that
nephew/niece andexpression
grandson. It is clear that where English recognises
consists the human
of Italian recognises
three separate content entities, only one: nipote.
its voice can
phonological produce) a
system, its series of
lexical sounds,
repertory and excluding
its syntactic others that
rules. exist and
Through this are
form of pronouncea
expression, ble but
we may which do
generate not belong
various to the
substances of English
expression, language.
such as the
If the
words we
sounds of a
utter every
language
day. But I
are to be
shall speak
comprehens
of substances
ible it is
in another
necessary
essay. Let
to associate
me consider
them with
here the
contents.
problem of
For
form. In
Hjelmslev,
order to
the
23
continuum of in
content is the genera,
totality of all families
that can be and
thought and species,
said: namely the
the oppositio
whole n
universe, of high
physical and vs low,
mental (as and
even the
far as we can
structur
speak of it), es that
Including the linguists
material identify
elements in
phonolo
such as
gical
sounds that systems
we use to — all
make belong
expression to the
form of
s. Each content.
language Certain
organises cultures
the organise
the
universe
kinship
of what system
may be by
said and isolating
thought differen
ces that
into a in Great
form. The Britain,
system of as well
colours, as in
Italy,
the
are
organisati ignored:
on of the for
zoological instance
universe , the
differenc
e
between
the English
brother
of the
mother
and the Italian
brother
Nephew
of the
N
father,
i
who for
e
us are
c
both
e
uncles.
In this sense N
two semantic i
p
systems can
o
result in t
being e
mutually
inaccessible, G
because they r
a
different
n
segment the d
content c
continuum in h
a way. Thus, i
according to l
Quine, one d
cannot
translate the Now, it is
true that in
Italian a
single word
is used to
express
three
different
units
deriving
from the
segmentation one word
of the does not
continuum of mean that
kinship Italians do
relationships not see any
. But this difference
graphic between the
representatio child of
n of the one's son or
phenomenon daughter
can be very and the
misleading if child of
we imagine one's sister
that the four or brother.
words They see it
(nephew, to such an
niece, extent that
grandchild even in the
and nipote) case of
represent death duties
concepts, or the two
content kinds of
units. They relatives
do represent pay a
words, which different
are used to tax. This
mean a means that
certain Italians
content unit, have more
and linguistic
curiously difficulties
Italian has than
one word for speakers of
three distinct other
positions in languages
the kinship in certain
system. But contexts
the fact that where the
there is only distinction
between distinguish
nephew/ ed from
niece and each other
grandchild by a
becomes specific
relevant. word, are
Despite nonetheless
having only interpreted
one word, by
then, dictionaries
Italians or
conceive encyclopae
three dias, which
content explain
units, and what I
these units, have just
which are explained
not — namely,
 UMBERTO ECO

th e
e w
di or
ff ds
er ,
en th
ce e
in p
ki os
ns si
hi bl
p e
inte
be
rpr
tw
et
ee a
n ti
a on
ni of
ec th
e es
an e
d sl
a ot
gr s,
an w
dc hi
hi ch
ld ar
To e
tr n
an ot
sl co
at nc
e ep
m tu
ea al
ns ly
to e
se m
e, pt
un y
de b
r ut
th o
nl S
y
ling

uis
t
ic S
all
o
y
ill n
-
na o
m f
ed
.
t
h
E
e
N

GL b
r
IS
o
H t
TE h
R
e
r
M

S o
C r

O
s
NT i
E s
t
NT
e
IT r
AL

IA

N D
a
TE
u
R g
M h
 t n
e
r o
r
o
f d
a
t u
h g
e h
t
N e
i r
p
o o
t f
e
t
b h
r e
o
t s
h o
e n
r
o
o r
r
d
s a
i u
s g
t h
e t
r e
r
Grandchild

T
S
o
o b
e f
h i
o n
n e
e l
st y
, s
si e
n g
c m
e e
t n
h t
e e
r d
e ,
a o
r n
e e
d c
if o
f u
e l
r d
e s
n a
t y
k t
i h
n a
s t
h e
i v
p e
s n
y E
st n
e g
m li
s, s
m h
o i
r s
e v
e s
r m
y o
s r
a e
v n
a a
g m
e e
i s
n f
c o
o r
di
m
f
p f
a e
ri r
s e
o n
n t
w k
it i
h n
a s
j h
u i
n p
g p
l o
e s
l it
a i
n o
g n
u s
a .
g F
e o
t r
h e
a x
t a
h m
a p
 l X
e
: Son of the brother
Term A
N
ENGLISH TERMS ep
he
C w
O S
N o
T n
E of
N th
T e
si
T st
E er
R T
M er
S m
B
O D
F a
u
J g
U h
N t
G e
L r
E

o
L f
A
N t
G h
U e
A
G b
E r
o
t r
h
e T
r e
r
T m
e
r D
m Son or daughter
Term E
C G
ra
nc
N hi
i ld
e of
c th
e
e
so
n
D Son or daughter
a Term F of the
u daughter
g
h B
t u
e t
r
t
o h
f i
s
t
h d
e o
e
s s
i
s n
t o
e t
 e
p
r t
o o
v
e r
e
t c
h o
a g
t n
i
a s
n e

E t
n h
g e
l
i d
s i
h f
f
s e
p r
e e
a n
k t
e
r k
i
i n
s s
h
u i
n p
a
b p
l o
s e
i
t b
i y
o
n t
s h
e
e
x s
p e
r r
e i
s e
s s
e
d o
f
i
n t
e
o r
u m
r s

j A
u –
n F
g .
l
e E
n
l g
a l
n i
g s
u h
a
g s
p
fo
e
a r
k th
e
r es
s e

di
h
a ff
v
er
e
en
n t
o
p
n os
a
iti
m
e o
s
ns

ut

ar

ab

le

to

in

te

rp

re

t
 e
ea n
ch
t
of w
o
th
l
e a
n
m
g
co u
rr a
ec g
tl e
y s
T s
h e
e e
m
c
h t
a o
l
l h
e a
n v
g e
e a
f
o di
r ff
a er
en
t
r t
a se
n g
s
l m
a en
t ta
o ti
r
, o
w n
h of
th e
e co
co ve
nt re
en d
t b
co y
nt a
in h
uu o
m, m
is o
to n
m y
ak m
e te
a r
re m
as in
on a
ab gi
le ve
co n
nj co
ec nt
tu ex
re t.
ab U
ou p
t to
th th
e is
co p
nt oi
en nt
t I
sp ha
ac ve
ar n
gu t
ed w
as o
if di
tr ff
an er
sl en
ati t
on li
w n
er g
e ui
a st
pr ic
oc sy
es st
s e
ta m
ki s.
ng It
pl is
ac n
e ot
be so
tw ,
ee ot
n he
to r
ng w
ue is
s, e
th th
at e
is, pa
be ra
tw m
ee o
un en
t ts
ex ta
a ki
m n
pl g
e an
of ex
tr a
an m
sl in
ati a
on fo
w re
ou ig
ld n
be la
a n
bi g
li ua
ng ge
ua ar
l e
di n
cti ot
on ex
ar pe
y. ct
O ed
n to
th pr
e o
co d
nt uc
ra e
ry, a
st di
ud ct
io ec
na tl
ry. y
T to
he tr
y an
ar sl
e at
re e
qu a
es t
te e
d x
to t.
us W
e e
(o m
r us
to t
kn co
o m
w e
by ba
he ck
ar to
t) th
a e
di st
cti ru
on ct
ar ur
y e
in of
or a
de na
r tu
co ra
rr l
la er
ng e
ua al
ge l
. el
T e
he m
di en
ag ts
ra of
m th
on e
pa st
ge ru
22 ct
su ur
gg e
es of
te a
d la
th n
at g
fo ua
r ge
m, ,
su an
bs d
ta th
nc ey
e w
an er
d e
co p
nt ut
in in
uu th
m at
w di
ag n
ra g
m ui
in sti
or c
de sy
r st
to e
sh m
o st
w ar
ho ts
w w
th he
ey n
ar a
e gi
m ve
ut n
ua la
ll n
y g
re ua
lat ge
ed ha
. s
I al
n re
fa ad
ct y
th se
e g
st m
ud en
y te
of d
a th
li e
co w
nt it
in h
uu th
m e
of co
all nt
po en
ss t.
ib In
le th
so is
un se
ds ns
in e
to th
a e
fo st
r u
m d
of y
ex of
pr a
es la
si n
on g
, ua
an ge
d as
th a
e sy
sa st
m e
e m
ha is
pp co
en nc
s er
ne m
d ph
on en
ly o
wi m
th en
fo on
r .
m It
s: ap
co pe
nt ar
en s
t on
fo ly
r w
m he
an n,
d by
ex ex
pr pl
es oi
si ti
on ng
fo th
r e
m. po
S ss
ub ib
st ili
an tie
ce s
is pr
no ov
ta id
sy ed
st by
e a
gi is
ve c
n o
lin u
gu r
ist s
ic e
sy .
st T
e he
m, su
on bs
e ta
p nc
h e
y of
si an
c ex
al pr
ly es
pr si
od on
uc is
es pr
a od
t uc
e ed
x ,
t m
or, at
if er
yo ial
u ly,
pr on
ef ly
er, w
a he
d n
a e
co ru
m le
m s
un of
ic a
ati gi
on ve
pr n
oc la
es ng
s ua
be ge
gi .
ns T
, ra
th ns
at la
is, ti
w o
he n
n is
so a
un p
ds he
ar n
e o
e m
mi en
tte o
d n
ac w
co hi
rd ch
in d
g oe
to s
th n
ot pt
co in
nc th
er e
rn ra
th re
e ca
re se
lat s
io in
ns w
hi hi
ps ch
be o
tw ne
ee as
n ks
tw na
o ti
la ve
ng sp
ua ea
ge ke
s rs
or or
li in
ng te
ui rp
sti re
c te
sy rs
st h
e o
m w
s th
– ey
ex w
ce o
ul e
d ri
tr sk
an b
sl y
at as
e ki
a n
gi g
ve a
n na
te ti
r ve
m of
in Q
th ui
ei ne
r or
o th
w e
n pr
la o
ng gr
ua a
ge m
, m
an er
d of
w B
e ab
ha el
ve fi
se sh
en .
w R
ha at
t he
w r,
 UMBERTO ECO THE PLANTS OF SHAKESPEARE

tr at
an ta
sl ke
ati s
on pl
is ac
a e
pr be
oc t
es w
s ee
th n
t g
w i
o v
e
t n
e
x h
t i
s s
t
p o
r r
o i
d c
u a
c l
e
d m
o
a m
t e
n
a t
i u
n a
t
a e
l
g y
i
v t
e r
n a
n
c s
u l
l a
t t
u e
r
a t
l h
e
m
i I
l t
i a
e l
u i
. a
O n
n
e w
o
c r
a d
n
n
a i
d p
e o
q t
e i
n
i
n a
t n
o
e
E x
n p
g r
l e
i s
s s
h e
d
o
n t
l e
y x
t
w ,
h
e r
n e
f
i e
t r
r
o i
c n
c g
u
r t
s o

w a
i
t g
h i
v
e O
n t
h
p e
o r
s w
s i
i s
b e
l
e o
n
w e
o
r c
l a
d n
n
o o
r t

s m
t a
a k
t e
e
a
o n
f y

a r
f e
f a
a s
i o
r n
s a
. b
l p
e r
o
d d
e u
c c
i e
s d
i
o s
n u
. b
T s
h t
u a
s n
c
i e
n ,

a w
e
t
e h
x a
t v
, e

w a
h
i L
c i
h n
e
i a
s r

a T
e
x e
t r
e
M d
a
n a
i t
f
e O
s x
t f
a o
t r
i d
o
n o
r
–
t
l h
i e
k s
e e

t y
h o
e u

w a
o r
r e
d
s r
e
I a
d
u i
t n
t g
 l
o t
n i
p
t l
h e
i
s S
e
p n
a s
g e
e s

– o
f
a
n t
d h
a
t t
h
e g
i
S v
e e
n n
s
e t
e
o x
r t
:
t
h n
e o
t
m
u t
h
e b
u
m t
u
l t
t h
i e
p
l s
e e
n
m s
e e
a
n t
i h
n a
g t
s
t
o h
f i
s
t
h w
e o
r
w d
o
r a
d c
q
n u
i i
p r
o e
t s
e
i e
n t
i
a n
g
g
i a
v
e L
n i
n
c e
o a
n r
t
e T
x e
t x
. t
W
h M
e a
n n
i
I f
e
s s
t t
a a
r t
t i
o
i n
n ,
t
e I
r
p r
r e
l d
y g
e
o ,
n
a
t n
h d
e
a
w
h m
o o
l r
e e

o c
f o
m
m p
y l
e
l x
i
n p
g r
u o
i c
s e
t s
i s
c
o
k c
n c
o u
w r
l s
e
w i
h s
e
n s
a
I i
d
t .
r
y A
s
t
o a

e f
l i
i r
c s
i t
t
a
t p
h p
e r
o
s a
e c
n h
s
e I

o t
f r
y
w
h t
a o
t
u
n l
d e
e
r s
s e
t n
a t
n e
d n
c
t e
h s
e
(
l i
i f
t
e t
r h
a e
l y

s a
e r
n e
s
e n
o
o t
f
a
t m
h b
e i
g
s u
i o
n u
g s
, o
n
h t
e e
n x
c t
e )
,
r
e a
q n
u d
i
r t
i o
n
g s
e
t e
h
e t
h
h e
e m
l
p a
s
o
f r
e
a f
e
w r
i r
d i
e n
r g

c t
o t

a S
n
g o
i w
v
e W
n h
i
p t
o e
s
s i
i s
b
l e
e a
t
w i
o n
r g
l
d a
. n

I a
f p
p
I l
e
r
e I
a
d k
n
t o
h w
a
t w
h i
a n
t g

a a
n
f d
e
m s
a w
l a
e l
l
i o
n w
d i
i n
v g
i
d a
u
a f
l r
u
i i
s t
,
b
i a
t n
i d
n
g I
,
c
c a
h n
e
m
a w
k o
e r
l
s d
o
m w
e h
e
h r
y e
p
o t
t h
h i
e s
s
e s
s c
e
a n
b e
o
u o
t c
c
t u
h r
e s
:
p
o i
s s
s
i i
b t
l
e a
 n
w
o a
r p
l p
d l
e
l
i a
k
e d
a
t y
h
e k
e
o e
n p
e s

w t
e h
e
l
i d
v o
e c
t
i o
n r
,
a
w w
h a
e y
r ,
e
o
a r
 a
a p
p
f l
a e
i
r m
y e
- a
t n
a s
l
e t
o
u
n b
i e
v c
e o
r m
s e
e
t
w h
h e
e
r v
e i
c
t t
o i
m
e
a o
t f

a a
n
s
p y
e ,
l
l t
? h
e
I n
f
I
I
h
c a
h v
o e
o
s t
e o

t r
h e
e s
o
s r
e t
c
o t
n o
d
e
p n
o c
s y
s c
i l
b o
i p
l a
i e
t d
i n
c t
e
c r
o t
m e
p x
e t
t u
e a
n l
c
e s
s c
, r
i
a p
m t
o s
n ,
g
e
w x
h p
i l
c a
h i
n
t i
h n
e g
r
e t
h
a a
r t
e
i
i n
f c
a e
i r
r t
y a
i
t n
a
l f
e a
s s
h
t i
h o
i n
n .
g
s N
a
u t
s u
u r
a a
l l
l l
y y

h I
a
p a
p m
e
n o
b
i l
n i
g
a e
d u
r
t t
o h
e
e r
x
p i
l n
o
r o
e r
d
t e
h r
e
t
L o
i
n k
e n
a o
r w

M s
a o
n m
i e
f t
e h
s i
t n
a g
t
i m
o o
n r
e
f
a p
b l
o a
u c
t e

S a
n n
o d
w
t
W h
h e
i
t t
e i
, m
e
a
s i
n
w
e w
l h
l i
c
a h
s
t
a h
b e
o
u e
t v
e
t n
h t
e s
 o
c m
c y
u s
r e
. l
A f
t
w
e h
v a
e t
r
y t
h
s e
t
e t
p o
p
o i
f c

m i
y s

r o
e f
a
d a
i
n s
g e
n
I t
e
a n
s c
k e
,
a
o n
f d

a I

p m
a u
r s
a t
g
r i
a s
p o
h l
a
o t
r e

o i
f s
o
a t
o
w p
h i
o e
l s
e ,

c t
h h
a a
p t
t
e i
r s
, ,
h I
o
m w
o o
g u
e l
n d
e
o b
u e
s
a
s b
e l
n e
s
e t
o
l
e r
v e
e c
l o
s n
. s
A t
t r
u
t c
h t
i
s a

p s
o t
i o
n r
t y
 o
f n
r o
o l
m o
g
t i
h c
e a
l
p
l s
o e
t q
, u
e
t n
h c
e e

s o
t f
o
r e
y v
e
b n
e t
i s
n
g t
h
t a
h t
e
c
c a
h n
r
b e
e d
'
t
u b
r y
n
e t
d h
e
u
p p
s l
i o
d t
e .

d I
o
w c
n a
n
o
r t
e
a l
t l

l t
e h
a e
s
t s
t
` o
e r
d y
i
t o
f
s
L t
i a
t r
t t
l i
e n
g
R
e f
d r
o
R m
i
d t
i h
n e
g
e
H n
o d
o ,
d
, w
i
f t
o h
r
26
i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
t h
h u
e n
g t
i e
r r
l ,
w r
h e
o m
, e
a m
f b
t e
e r
r s
h w
a h
v a
i t
n h
g a
b p
e p
i e
n n
g e
d
r
e i
s n
c
u t
e h
d e
b
y e
t a
h r
e l
y e
m ,
o a
r n
n d
i
n s
g t
w e
h p
e
n b
s y
h
e s
m t
e e
t p
t
h r
e e
w c
o o
l n
f s
f t
o r
r u
t c
h t
e s
f h
i e
r r
s v
t i
t c
i i
m s
s t
i i
t o
u n
d
e a
s l
. s
B o
y
t h
h o
e l
w d
a s
y f
, o
n r
o n
t o
i n
c -
e f
t i
h c
a t
t i
s o
u n
c a
h l
a t
d e
i x
s t
t s
i .
n I
c
h e
a d
t
e J
d o
h
J n
o
h I
n k
, i
s l
o l
e
I d
k
i h
l i
l m
e
d a
r
h e
i
m t
w
a o
n
d L
S i
i n
n e
c a
e r
M
I a
h n
a i
t f
e i
s f
t f
a e
t r
i e
o n
n t
s p
t l
h o
a t
t s
c .
o M
n o
v r
e e
y o
t v
h e
e r
s ,
a s
m t
e o
s r
t y
o
r a
y n
w d
i
t p
h l
t o
w t
o a
d l
s i
o k
h e
o
l `
d A
f
o S
r i
n l
o v
n i
- a
n '
a b
r y
r
a L
t e
i o
v p
e a
t r
e d
x i
t .
s T
. h
T e
a r
k e
e
a i
p s
o a
e
m s
t
l o
r o
y v
: e
t d
h
e h
r e
e r
w ,
a s
s h
a e
y
o d
u i
n e
g d
w ,
o a
m n
a d
n
, t
t h
h e
e
p p
o o
e e
t t
s r
e e
c m
r e
e m
t b
l e
y r
l s
h t
e i
r l
i l
n u
t s
h i
e o
f n
l s
o .
w B
e u
r t
o t
f h
h i
e s
r s
y t
o o
u r
t y
h
, i
a s
s s
w e
e e
l n
l
a t
s h
h r
i o
s u
l g
o h
s
a d
p e
l f
o i
t n
: i
t t
h i
e v
p e
o l
e y
t
s l
h o
o s
w t
s ,
u a
p n
w d
h
e t
n h
h e
i
s y
i o
l u
l n
u g
s
i w
o o
n m
s a
a n
r
e a
p e
p r
e a
a t
r e
s
a r
s e
a m
g e
e m
n b
t r
l a
e n
g c
h e
o s
s .
t I
i n
n
t t
h r
e a
m n
i s
d l
s a
t t
o i
f n
h g
i
s `
d A
e
s S
p i
l a
v l
i s
a o
'
o t
n h
e e
s
h p
o l
u o
l t
d ;
r o
e t
s h
p e
e r
c w
t i
n s
o e
t
o o
n n
l e
y
t w
h o
e u
s l
t d
o
r c
y o
b n
u c
t o
c r
t a
n t
o h
t e
a r
t a
r
a c
n l
s u
l m
a s
t y
i
o s
n u
o m
f m
t a
h r
i y
s .
d B
e e
l c
i a
c u
a s
t e
e
p I
o t
e r
m y

b t
u o
t
r d
e i
c n
o g
n
s g
t o
r e
u s
c o
t n
t ,
h I
e w
s i
t l
o l
r t
y r
f a
r n
o s
m f
o
t r
h m
e
p l
l a
o r
t g
, e
a
s t
m e
y x
r t
e u
a a
l s
c )
h i
u n
n t
k o
s
( m
o i
r c
s r
e o
r -
i p
e r
s o
o p
f o
s s
e i
n t
t i
e o
n n
c s
e t
s h
a a
n t
d r
p e
a c
r a
a p
g i
r t
a u
p l
h a
t i
e t
t e
h
e I
m c
a
– n
a
t s
t y
h n
e t
m h
i e
d s
d i
l s
e e
o
f w
m h
y a
r t
e I
a l
d e
i a
n r
g n
o e
f d
S
n a
o s
w `
S
W n
h o
w s
e
W s
h t
i h
t e
e
i j
s e
a a
b l
e o
a u
u s
t y
i
f o
u f
l h
y e
o r
u s
n t
g e
p p
r m
i o
n t
c h
e e
s r
s w
w h
h o
o
a w
r a
o n
u t
s t
h a
e g
r e
t
o o
b f
e t
k h
i e
l
l t
e a
d l
i e
n
t I
h c
e a
w n
o
o s
d u
s m
',
b u
u p
t
a t
t h
a e
f
u w
r h
t o
h l
e e
r
s s
t b
o e
r a
y u
b t
y i
a f
m u
a l
c y
r o
o u
- n
p g
r
o p
p r
o i
s n
i c
t e
i s
o s
n i
a s
s r
` e
A c
e
p i
e v
r e
s d
e
c a
u n
t d
e
d w
e
l m
c i
o c
m r
e o
d -
b t
y o
s
e m
v a
e c
n r
d o
w -
a p
r r
v o
e p
s o
.' s
T i
h t
i i
s o
e n
m s
b w
e i
d l
d l
i b
n e
g
f m
r y
o
m w
a ,
y a
t n
o d
i
s e
o v
l e
a n
t
e i
t t
h s
e m
` o
d r
e a
e l
p m
' e
s a
t n
o i
r n
y g
o
f (
t i
h f
e a
w n
h y
o )
l ,
e w
t h
a i
l l
e e
 o
a n
t s
t i
h d
e e
s r
a e
m d
e
t a
i s
m e
e s
d s
e e
c n
i t
d i
i a
n l
g a
w n
h d
i
c w
h h
e i
v c
e h
n
t o
s n
c e
a s
n m
b a
e r
c g
i e
n
a p
l s
o y
r c
p h
a o
r l
e o
n g
t i
h c
e a
t l
i f
c e
. a
T t
h u
e r
n e
I s
c o
a f
n t
t h
r e
y
t c
o h
d a
e r
t a
e c
c t
t e
t r
h s
, n
a t
n i
d a
t l
h s
e t
i r
r u
p c
o t
s u
i r
t e
i s
o ,
n '
i i
n n
w
h t
a h
t e
G
r s
e e
i n
m s
a e
s
c t
a h
l a
l t
s m
a a
c n
t y
a
d p
i p
f o
f n
e e
r n
e t
n o
t r
c t
h h
a e
r
a H
c e
t l
e p
r e
s r
c ,
a a
n n
p d
l
a a
y
t g
h i
e v
r e
o n
l
e c
o h
f a
t r
h a
e c
O t
e d
r
c t
a h
n e
s n
e
e b
m e
c
a o
t m
t e
h
e t
b h
e e
g
i O
n p
n p
i o
n n
g e
t n
o t
b (
e s
t u
h c
e h
H
e a
l
p s
e t
r r
a a
n t
e v
g e
y
i s
s t
f o
o r
r i
i e
n s
s ,
t w
a h
n e
c r
e e
t
y a
p
i c
c h
a a
l r
o a
f c
d t
e e
t r
e
c
2
t
7
i
U C
M O
B
E
s
R
e
T
O
e
E
m
s e
to is
c r
ol e
la v
b e
o al
ra e
te d
w a
it s
h t
th h
e e
d c
et u
e l
ct p
iv ri
e t,
u t
nt h
il at
, is
in ,
th t
e h
la e
st d
c et
h e
a ct
pt i
er v
, e'
h s
e/ a
s r
h c
h I
- c
f a
o n
e) f
. o
I c
t u
w s
o o
ul n
d d
b u
e ri
p n
o g
ss m
ib y
le r
to e
di a
s d
c i
o n
v g.
er T
ot h
h e
er r
te e
xt is
u n
al o
le fi
v x
el e
s d
th c
at h
r p
o ),
n i
ol n
o s
gi o
c f
al a
p r
r a
o s
g at
re t
ss h
io e
n v
( e
n r
ei y
th m
er o
to m
p e
- n
to t
- I
b tr
ot y
to t
m o
n d
o et
r e
b ct
ot t
to h
m e
- t
u o
pi m
c o
o r
f al
a o
s r
e i
nt d
e e
n o
c l
e, o
I g
c ic
a al
n st
al r
s u
o ct
tr u
y r
h e
y s
p o
ot f
h t
e h
s e
e w
s h
a o
b le
o te
ut x
th t
e —
g a
re n
at d
o s
n e
c t
e h
a e
g y
ai u
n s
d u
et al
e l
ct y
iv s
e h
st o
o w
ri h
e o
s w
ar a
e te
a x
u t
s c
ef a
ul n
to d
u e
c c
h ei
st v
o e
n it
e s
b r
e e
c a
a d
u e
rs e
, r
p al
er s
s e
u n
a s
di e
n o
g f
th c
e e
m rt
to ai
m n
a e
k v
e e
w n
r ts
o a
n n
g d
in t
fe o
re v
n e
c n
e t
s u
a r
b e
o w
ut r
th o
e n
g g
e g
n u
e n
ss d
e o
s. n
A t
n h
y ei
in r
te i
r m
p p
re o
ta rt
ti a
v n
e c
b e
et f
o o
n r
th t
e h
di e
ff g
er l
e o
nt b
le al
v i
el n
s te
o r
f p
s r
e et
n at
s i
e, o
a n
o s
f s
a e
te n
xt ti
, al
is f
o o
b r
vi a
o tr
u a
sl n
y sl
f at
u o
n r.
d A
a n
m o
e t
nt h
al e
f r
o c
r r
a u
n ci
y al
re p
a o
d i
er n
, t,
b h
ut o
it w
is e
e v
er n
, if
is e
th st
at at
a i
pl o
u n.
ra T
li h
ty e
o r
f e
le a
v r
el e
s m
c a
a n
n y
al s
s u
o b
b st
e a
f n
o c
u e
n s
d i
in n
th t
e h
L e
in L
e i
ar n
M e
a a
r ta
M k
a e
ni f
fe o
st r
at e
io x
n. a
T m
hi p
s le
is a
e m
vi o
d v
e ie
nt ,
f w
o h
r e
m r
a e
n i
y m
n a
o g
n e
- s
v c
er e
b rt
al ai
s n
y l
st y
e c
m o
s: u
nt g,
f s
o o
r u
a n
lo d
t, (
b w
ut o
o r
n d
e s
m o
u r
st n
al o
s is
o e
ta s,
k a
e n
in d
to m
a u
c si
c c
o ),
u a
nt n
r d
h e
yt v
h e
m n
, g
e r
di a
ti p
n h
ic m
el o
e v
m ie
e s
nt h
s o
— w
n s
ot w
o ri
nl tt
y e
w n
h e
e x
n p
th r
er e
e s
ar si
e o
s n,
u s
bt u
it c
le h
s, a
b s
ut t
al h
s e
o ti
w tl
h e
e o
n f
th a
e b
o a
o p
k ai
o n
r ti
a n
n g
a w
d e
v o
er u
ti g
s h
e t
m t
e o
nt c
th o
at n
is si
vi d
si e
bl r
e n
in o
th t
e o
b n
a l
c y
k t
g h
r e
o ic
u o
n n
d. ic
I el
n e
m e
e n
nt ti
s o
b n
ut a
al n
s ic
o o
c n
ol o
o l
u o
rs g
a ic
n al
d le
c x
hi ic
ar o
o n
s al
c l
u o
r w
o i
re n
la g
ti o
o n
n e
s t
hi o
p r
s, e
n c
ot o
to g
m n
is y
e t
a h
C e
h li
ri n
st g
, u
a is
V ti
ir c
gi s
n, u
a b
S st
ai a
nt n
o c
r e
a is
K t
in h
g. e
I m
n o
a st
v e
er v
b i
al d
te e
xt n
, t
o o
b n
vi e,
o b
u u
sl t
it k
is e
n t
ot o
al c
w l
a o
y s
s e
th t
e h
m e
o d
st o
re o
le r
v ?
a c
nt a
. n
T e
h x
e p
e r
x e
p s
re s
ss c
io o
n u
W rt
o e
u s
l y,
d l
y o
o v
u e,
li r
a te
g r
e, e
s d,
a b
di u
s t
m t
o h
r e
s s
h e
y f
n e
e el
ss i
, n
a g
c s
c w
o o
r u
di l
n d
g b
to e
th e
e q
to u
n al
e l
in y
w c
hi o
c m
h m
it u
is n
ut ic
at a
e r
d e
if p
th h
e e
e n
x o
p m
re e
ss n
io a
n t
w h
er at
e li
p n
le g
a u
s is
e ti
p c
a s
s c
s o
t n
h si
e d
b e
u rs
tt a
er s
. s
A u
ll p
th r
e a
s s
e e
g it
m h
e t
n h
t e
a la
l w
o s
r o
t f
o a
n li
e n
m g
ic u
, is
a ti
n c
d s
w y
hi st
c e
h m
d (
o o
n n
ot e
h c
a a
v n
e e
di x
re p
ct r
ly e
to s
d s
o r
w a
g s
e s
b a
y m
ut i
te il
ri b
n u
g r
ei r
th o
er ).
p If
le I
a
s 2
8
e
p
a
s
s
t
h
e
b
u
tt
e
r
o
r
p
r
e
g
o
,
p
a
 THE
PLAN y
TS o
OF u
SHAK
ESPE s
ARE u
c
s h
a
y a

( b
a a
n d
d
e
I x
a a
p m
o p
l l
o e
g
i o
s f
e p
o
f e
o t
r r
o y
f )
f p
e l
r e
i a
n s
g e
p a
a m
s
s m
a
t k
h i
e n
g
b
u s
t t
t y
e l
r i
s
— t
i
t c
h a
a l
t p
i h
s e
n
w o
h m
a e
t n
I a
,
u m
t e
t t
e r
r i
, c
I a
l o
e
l i
e n
m d
e e
n p
t e
s n
a d
n e
d n
t
r f
h r
y o
m m
e
t
p h
e e
r
t l
i i
n n
e g
n u
t i
. s
M t
e i
t c
r
i s
c y
s
i t
s e
s m
 e
t
h e
a m
t b
t o
h d
e i
e
h d
e
n b
d y
e
c e
a x
s p
y r
l e
l s
a s
b i
i o
c n

s i
t n
r
u d
c i
t f
u f
r e
e
r
c e
a n
n t
l
b a
n f
g p
u o
a e
g t
e r
s y
,
a i
n s
d t
o
t
h f
e i
n
p d
r
o s
b o
l m
e e
m t
h
f i
o n
r g
t
r i
a n
n
s t
l h
a e
t i
o r
r o
s w
o n
 e
l n
a t
n t
g o
u
a a
g
e r
h
t y
h m
a e
t
c i
a n
n
t
b h
e e

c s
o o
n u
s r
i c
d e
e
r l
e a
d n
g
e u
q a
u g
i e
v .
a T
l o
 y
c
i e
t f
e f
o
L r
e t
o t
p o
a
r t
d r
i a
' n
s s
` l
A a
t
S e
i
l i
v t
i s
a f
' i
o r
n s
c t
e s
t
a r
g o
a p
i h
n e
,
a w
n o
u n
l d
d
i
b t
e i
s
i u
n s
a u
d a
e l
q l
u y
a
t i
e m
p
i o
f s
i s
t i
d b
i l
d e

n t
o o
t
s s
u u
c c
c c
e e
e e
d d
)
( i
a n
 i
m n
a i
k t
i i
n a
g l
n
t a
h m
e e

f (
i S
n i
a l
l v
w i
o a
r /
d s
a
a l
n i
v
a i
n )
a .
g I
r t
a c
m a
n
o
f o
t n
h l
e y
r t
e h
a e
l
l g
y i
r
b l
e ,
t
d h
o u
n s
e l
o
i s
f i
o n
n g
e
t
c h
h e
a
n v
g a
e r
s i
t o
h u
e s
a
n s
a s
m o
e n
a
o n
f c
e t
s h
a e
n
d s
o
h u
i n
d d
d
e b
n o
t
a h
l
l o
i f
t S
e i
r l
a v
t i
i a
o
n a
s n
i d
n
s
i a
t l
h i
a v
t i
l w
i i
n t
k h
o p
c a
c r
h i
i s
t o
u n
o
i b
r e
i t
d w
e e
n e
t n
i
a t
n h
d e

f o
u r
g i
g g
i i
t n
i a
v l
i t
. e
S x
e t
e ,
w
a h
e
c r
o e
m
I r
p a
u n
t s
t l
h a
e t
i
i o
s n
i
n b
y
b
o M
l i
d c
h
t e
y l
p O
e r
, c
a e
n l
d (
w
t h
h e
e r
e
F
r o
e b
n v
c i
h o
u
t s
l i
y s
t
o h
n a
e t
i
d n
o
e F
s r
n e
o n
t c
s h
t
r p
e r
s o
s d
a u
l c
l e
t
h a
e
d
a i
l f
p f
h e
a r
b e
e n
t t
i s
c o
a u
l n
d t
) u
:' a
v
S it
i a
l m
v o
i r
a t
, a
r l
i e
m Q
e u
m a
b n
r d
i o
a b
n e
c lt
o a
r s
a p
Q l
u e
e n
l d
t e
e a
m N
p e
o g
d li
e o
l c
l c
a h
i ,
t il
u li
o m
i it
r a
i r
d e
e d
n i
t g
i i
e o
f v
u e
g n
g t
i u
t s
i a
v li
i, v
e i
t ?
u
S
,
y
l
l
i
v
e
i
t
a
a
,
e
t
p
o
e
s
n
o
s
u
o
v
s
i
a
e
n a
t n
- d
i l
l a
e b
n e
c a
o u
r t
e e
D b
u r
t il
e l
m a
p it
s D
d a
e n
c s
e t
t e
t s
e r
v e
i g
e a
m r
o d
r s
t r
e i
l e
l u
e r
, s
Q e
u t
f e
u ,
g A
i u
t s
i e
f u
s il
, d
E e
t t
q o
u j
e e
t u
u n
t' e
a s
v s
a e
n ?
t
a O
i r
s c
, e
h l
e h
u a
r s
e i
u n
s e
e v
e i
t t
s a
a b
g l
y d

m s
i a
s l
s i
e v
d i
.
t H
h e
e
h
r a
e s
l s
a u
t c
i c
o e
n e
d
b e
e d
t
w i
e n
e
n p
u
S t
i t
l i
v n
i g
a
q
a u
n i
t r
e e
n
a c
h
f
e t
w o

i I
s t
i a
n l
i
h a
i n
s
t i
e s
x t
t e
s n
,
b t
u o
t
t t
h w
e e
n
r t
a y
t .
i M
o o
r
o e
f o
F v
e i
r g
, i
i n
n a
l
t t
h e
e x
t
o
r 2
9
 THE PLANTS OF
SHAKESPEARE

these is
in are easy to notice
Chestermann, A., ed.,because they
Readings are
in Translation Theory (Helsinki:
repeated
Oy six
Finntimes
Lecturain AB, the body
1989).of a single
word, Mywhile in French
references to Peirce this willhappens
alwaysonlybe to Collected Papers
2
once. As a final defeat
(Cambridge U.P., 1
93 1in
-5 8 )the
.
course of a
brave contest,
As a matterthe Italian
of fact name I gaveSilvia, with itssentence to AltaVista and
the English
3.
accent received
on the as first i, protracts
an output: John, un subtle qui a etudie a Oxford, a
thecelibataire
fascination of the name
ecrit maintenant as well as
une dissertation of the
de Ph.D. sur les celibataires de Po1e du
namednord.
person, while the French Sylvia (since
the lack of Van
Willard the Orman
tonic Quine, accent Word in French
and Object (Cambridge U.P., 4.
inexorably
1960),obliges
vol. II, p.the16.speaker — and the
reader Louis
— to Hjelmslev,
stress the Prolegomena
final a) transforms a of Language (Madison: 5.
to a Theory
sigh into a lash. U.P., 1 943) .
Wisconsin
Cf. Algirdas J. Greimas and Joseph Courtes, eds., Semiotics and 6.
Language:
To conclude, (i) aAntext
Analytical Dictionary (Bloomington:
is the manifestation of Indiana U.P.,
1982). either at the content or at the
a substance,
'
G. Leopardi,
expression Les chants,
plane, and tr. Michel is
(ii) translation Orcel
not (Lausanne: L Age 7.
only d'Homme,
concerned 1982).
with such matters as
`equivalence' in meaning (or in the substance
of the textual content), it is also concerned
with the more or less indispensable
`equivalences' in the substance of expression
(as we shall see more clearly in the following
essays). In translating we must isolate
various substantial levels. An insensitive,
inattentive or superficial reader may miss or
disregard many of them: one can read a fairy
tale to enjoy the story without paying
attention to its moral meaning, one can read
Hamlet purely in order to see if Hamlet will
succeed in avenging his father, one can read
`A Silvia' simply in order to know if the poet
married the girl in the end or found another
sweetheart. Translators are in theory bound
to identify each of the relevant textual levels,
but they may be obliged to choose which
ones to preserve, since it is impossible to
save all.
If we consider that in poetic texts it is 31
crucial to render a strict relationship between
given levels of the expression substance and
given levels of the content substance,
translators are challenged on their ability to
identify them, to save all of them (or some,
or none), and to put them in the same
relationship with each other as they are in the
original text.
In this game, translators may miss a lot,
but can also make up for some of their
losses.

NOTES

1. See for instance Werner Koller,

`
Equivalence in Translation Theory ' ,

30