Victor,
Thanks. But if what you say is the case then it seems very odd to translate
the word as many have been suggesting, or at least it requires a radical
interpretation. I say this because the notion of an "object-related world"
could only be interpreted as a world that refers to itself.
Quite odd.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Victor Kaptelinin <vklinin@informatik.umu.se>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: translation issues
> Paul,
>
> I do work with a Russian text.
>
> Generally, "objective" in the English version may correspond to either
> "objectivnyj" or "predmetnyj" in the Russian version.
>
> However, "objective world" is always "predmetnyj mir" and "objective
> activity" is always "predmetnaja dejatelnost" (at least, in Chapter 3).
> Therefore, "objective" in both "objective activity" and "objective world"
> is a translation of the same Russian word. (On one occasions, the "object
> world" is used instead of "objective world", but in Russian version there
> is no difference between these expressions).
>
> Hope it is not too confusing :)
>
> Folks, please, do not hesitate to let me know if you think my Russian copy
> of the book can be of any help.
>
> Best wishes,
> Victor.
>
>
> >I'm wondering if anyone involved in the Leont'ev reading is actually
working
> >directly with a Russian text. In particular I'm curious as to whether
the
> >term translated as "objective" in "objective activity" is the same as the
> >word translated as "objective" in the other uses; e.g., "objective
world."
> >
> >Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:26 PST