The form of the imperative and the form of the bare infinitive (without
'to') are identical in English - and identical to most present tense forms
are the same, with the exception of third person singular. So it's a
question of interpretation. Given the infinitives in the original French, I
think infinitives are the most parsimonious solution in the English. The
imperative doesn't quite make sense here, does it? He's not enjoining us to
discipline and punish...
Tim
On 9/5/09 12:52 AM, "ari@xxxxxxxx" <ari@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I interpret the verbs as being in the imperative tense.
>
>> The verbs in 'Discipline and Punish' are both infinitives, not present
>> tense
>> verbs. English has two infinitive forms, with and without 'to'; words
>> like
>> 'can', 'must', etc require the bare infinitive as it is called, otherwise
>> the 'infinitive without 'to''. So from the grammatical point of view we
>> could have had 'Survey and Punish', though of course there are objections
>> to
>> 'survey' on other grounds, as various people have already pointed out.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/09 11:33 PM, "David Shumway" <shumway@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> The English translation is DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH, not "punishment."
>>> Both terms are verbs, but not infinitives as are those in the French
>>> title. There is no exact equivalent to "Surveiller" in English; it does
>>> not mean surveillance in the usual sense of that word in English.
>>> Moreover a title that used the exact cognates, "To survey and to
>>> punish," would neither be clear nor catchy. Thus the choice of present
>>> tense verbs, for which again, "survey" does not work. Finally, one could
>>> argue that the English title actually better reflects the focus of the
>>> book because "discipline" is a more important concept there than is
>>> surveillance.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> Tamir Sorek wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone can help me to solve the following puzzle: Why did Michel
>>>> Foucault ask to translate the title of his book "Surveiller Et Punir"
>>>> to
>>>> "Discipline and Punishment" in English, instead of "Surveillance and
>>>> Punishment"? Did he think that his French title was misunderstood?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for your help,
>>>>
>>>> Tamir Sorek
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Tim McNamara
>> Discipline Chair, Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
>> School of Languages and Linguistics
>> The University of Melbourne
>> Victoria 3010
>> Australia
>> Tel (+ 61 3) 8344 4207
>> Fax (+ 61 3) 8344 8990
>> Web:
>> www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/profiles/mcnamara/index.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Professor Tim McNamara
Discipline Chair, Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
School of Languages and Linguistics
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010
Australia
Tel (+ 61 3) 8344 4207
Fax (+ 61 3) 8344 8990
Web: www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/profiles/mcnamara/index.html
'to') are identical in English - and identical to most present tense forms
are the same, with the exception of third person singular. So it's a
question of interpretation. Given the infinitives in the original French, I
think infinitives are the most parsimonious solution in the English. The
imperative doesn't quite make sense here, does it? He's not enjoining us to
discipline and punish...
Tim
On 9/5/09 12:52 AM, "ari@xxxxxxxx" <ari@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I interpret the verbs as being in the imperative tense.
>
>> The verbs in 'Discipline and Punish' are both infinitives, not present
>> tense
>> verbs. English has two infinitive forms, with and without 'to'; words
>> like
>> 'can', 'must', etc require the bare infinitive as it is called, otherwise
>> the 'infinitive without 'to''. So from the grammatical point of view we
>> could have had 'Survey and Punish', though of course there are objections
>> to
>> 'survey' on other grounds, as various people have already pointed out.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/09 11:33 PM, "David Shumway" <shumway@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> The English translation is DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH, not "punishment."
>>> Both terms are verbs, but not infinitives as are those in the French
>>> title. There is no exact equivalent to "Surveiller" in English; it does
>>> not mean surveillance in the usual sense of that word in English.
>>> Moreover a title that used the exact cognates, "To survey and to
>>> punish," would neither be clear nor catchy. Thus the choice of present
>>> tense verbs, for which again, "survey" does not work. Finally, one could
>>> argue that the English title actually better reflects the focus of the
>>> book because "discipline" is a more important concept there than is
>>> surveillance.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> Tamir Sorek wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone can help me to solve the following puzzle: Why did Michel
>>>> Foucault ask to translate the title of his book "Surveiller Et Punir"
>>>> to
>>>> "Discipline and Punishment" in English, instead of "Surveillance and
>>>> Punishment"? Did he think that his French title was misunderstood?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for your help,
>>>>
>>>> Tamir Sorek
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Tim McNamara
>> Discipline Chair, Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
>> School of Languages and Linguistics
>> The University of Melbourne
>> Victoria 3010
>> Australia
>> Tel (+ 61 3) 8344 4207
>> Fax (+ 61 3) 8344 8990
>> Web:
>> www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/profiles/mcnamara/index.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Professor Tim McNamara
Discipline Chair, Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
School of Languages and Linguistics
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010
Australia
Tel (+ 61 3) 8344 4207
Fax (+ 61 3) 8344 8990
Web: www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/profiles/mcnamara/index.html