Solitary Man

I didn't say that you had to get the original manuscripts, but if you want to write a paper on Plato, reading Plato in Greek is the closest you'll get. Translations are interpretations of Plato put into another language.

Amaleq13

True but does that make them secondary or should there be another category of "translations"?

I would say that translations hold a middle ground. Not as bad as relying entirely on someone else's explanation of a source but not as good as reading the original for yourself.

Solitary Man

No, it's still someone else's explanation of the source. They're just doing it in a different way than a commentary.

Malachi151

Doesn't count, its still not considered a secondary source. Looking on the internet it seems that translation are called "primary sources in translation".

Examples:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-07-51.html

http://www.experiencefestival.com/pr...in_translation

Anthology Of Classical Myth: Primary Sources in Translation : with Additional Translations by Other Scholars and an Appendix on Linear B sources by Thomas G. Palaima (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Solitary Man

To me they're still secondary. Go to any ancient language class and try making the argument that translations are primary for understanding what the author is saying. I doubt any professor worth their salt would accept such scholarship.

PS - the first and third link are links to the same book, and the second link seems to be some offbeat christian site.

jules?

As much as I can accept the 'universal' church absorbed other gods as saints and as an aspect of Jesus what all these gods fail to do is act as judge/saviour of the End of the World. Osirus is associated as judge but this was for the individuals passage to 'heaven' and not the global end time.

please correct me if i am wrong.

Amaleq13

I think you would have better luck following my suggestion and arguing it is better than secondary but not as good as primary.

Solitary Man

In a professional setting, neither are acceptable. It's pretty simple, if it's not the actual text itself, but used the primary text, then its secondary. If it used the secondary, then its tertiary. A paper written on English translations of a work is a tertiary source. That is my and many professionals' opinion on the matter. Of course, you have different kinds of secondary sources - commentaries, abstractions, translations...

Malachi151

That's nonsense, no its not. No one calls translations a tertiary source, or even a secondary source. That doesn't even make sense.

Solitary Man

How would you know? You're not even in an academic setting. Like I said, go through any Latin course and try passing off a paper using only translations to see if that flies. Hint, the internet doesn't have all the answers. Sometimes you actually need to be in an academic setting.