This perspective is also clearly articulated when it comes to the concrete practice of translation in the European Union. It speaks in all the languages that it needs, whatever they may be. The issue at stake is the principle of equality among languages, which has been institutionally recognized in the EU. Bellos sees in it a historical move based on a clear political will, resulting in new linguistic practices and generating new linguistic phenomena. It has a single working language, namely French. Thus, all documents used by the court are either written in French or translated into French.
However, the cases are brought to the court in the language of a particular member state, so that the language of the state becomes the language of the case. One would likely expect that there is a lot of work for translators in the ECJ. The ECJ does not employ translators as such. Language professionals in this institution are also lawyers who have access to confidential material and work under the same procedural rules as lawyers, also offering advice on drafting.
There is thus no clear boundary between the production of a law and its translation. This also means that no version of a law can be called translation since all versions are originals. Of course, there are lot of translations taking place in the institutions of the Union, yet to claim that its administrative departments create some sort of translational space, would be, at least officially, … a politically incorrect statement. According to the basic language rule of the EU, no translation whatsoever takes place in its administrative institutions.
But while Aristotle acknowledges the inequalities of society to be natural and necessary, he insists on justice being done to the lower classes. There are several ways to mix oligarchy and democracy, but "The defining principle of a good mixture of democracy and oligarchy is that it should be possible for the same polity to be spoken of as either a democracy or an oligarchy" b In his capacity as the secretary to the Lords Proprietors, Locke was involved in the writing of the fundamental constitution of the Carolinas. What then is probability? Like the memories of childhood they are easily revived, and there is no form in which they so naturally come back to us as that in which they were first presented to mankind. Instead, "Since there is a single end for the city as a whole, it is evident that education must necessarily be one and the same for all, and that the superintendence of it should be common and not on a private basis…. Take a Study Break.
The language rule that is at stake here was originally laid down in article of the Treaty of Rome in With each subsequent expansion of the EU, new languages were added to the list, each equally claiming authenticity. And yet, among an enormous pile of documents and texts produced by the EU ,there are no translations. There are no translations whatsoever.
However, below the surface that nominally only allows for originals, there is a huge translation machinery of the EU, the so-called DG Translation Directorate-General for Translation , the European Commission's in-house translation service, which currently employs almost linguists and support staff. So, the fact is that all the languages of the EU are involved in different forms and levels of translational practice.
If this is the case, then why this discrepancy between the reality of an omnipresent translational practice on the one side and the official disavowal of this translational reality on the other, concretely, the official insistence on originality and authenticity of all the products of this same translational practice?
Why this disavowal of translation, the disavowal of the very translational origin of all the official documents of the EU? Why is the EU so ashamed of its translational practice and so keen to boast exclusive originality and authenticity of its words? Finally, why talk about Europe as a translational space when it is really the space of a disavowed translation? Where Bellos believes to have discovered a revolutionary turn, we find but a continuation of the same pattern—the traditional linguistic concept of translation that perfectly serves the construction and reproduction of political communities based on sovereignty.
For a sovereign, it is essential to speak a single language. While his word can always be translated in any other language, it can never be a translation itself. This is why his claim to originality and authenticity, as in the case of the EU, must necessarily disavow the translational practice that in fact makes the exercise of his power possible. And this is also why every attempt to envision Europe as a translational space cannot avoid this contradiction: not only is translation in the EU a necessary pre-condition of its political commonality; the very disavowal of this translation is a pre-condition of the same political commonality.
In other words, as it is politically designed today, Europe cannot claim to be both a common political and a translational space. Bellos seems to be completely blind towards this contradiction. He wants us to understand historical and political progression in terms of a move of political communities from monolingualism to pluri- or multilingualism.
The argument goes like this: while a sovereign previously used to speak only one language, in the EU he now speaks many languages.
But the question is, do the sovereign and his subjects speak the same language? In a democratic political community, where the sovereign is the people, this seems to be obvious.
But it is not. As it is well known, the space of articulation and reproduction of a sovereign power in a democratic community is called public space. Yet, even if this public space is grasped as monolingual in terms of a single, official, national language, it cannot be perceived as a linguistically and politically continuous space. Instead it is split in two: a space of what can be called the proper language of the community, which is in fact the language of its state, i.
While the state is obliged to address its citizens in a language understandable to all of them, every group or minority also has the right to use the language of its particular interests, which is not necessarily comprehensible to all, in the public space.
Pericles notes that there are practical advantages from fighting "what is to be gained by beating the enemy back" , but he wants to stress more idealistic motives: citizens should fall in love with their city, so that they willingly sacrifice themselves it and thus receive eternal glory. Happiness depends on freedom, and freedom must be defended, so it's necessary to risk death for the happiness of all.
The dead are idealised - these are men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it, who made the ultimate sacrifice to their city and fellow-citizens, and who would risk anything but dishonour. They now live on eternally in people's memories. There's no mention of any afterlife, just eternal glory. It's not nearly as bad as dishonour.
Indeed, as Pericles argues in sections , if you're prosperous and successful you should be less afraid of death than someone who is poor and wretched; the unfortunate man hasn't got much honour or much hope of improving his situation, whereas the fortunate man runs the constant risk as long as he's alive that his fortunes will change and he'll suffer the abject humilation of losing everything. Much better to die when you're being courageous and patriotic.
Certainly citizens were expected to fight for their city, but actually falling in love with the city is Pericles' own idea. Lots of Greek writers stress the uncertainty of fortune Herodotus 1. As for the idea that a noble death means eternal glory, this contrasts with the depiction of the afterlife in Homer's Odyssey Book XI , where Achilles declares he'd rather be a living wage-labourer than a dead hero. Understanding the Passage: Key Questions  Such was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire to have a more heroic spirit, although they may pray for a less fatal issue.
Why should citizens fight to defend their city, in Pericles' view? Rather, the speaker says, Oceania is, and always has been, at war with Eastasia. Nevertheless, they exhibit full-fledged hatred for Eastasia. In the room at Mr.
According to the manifesto, Eurasia was created when Russia subsumed all of Europe, Oceania was created when the United States absorbed the British Empire, and Eastasia is made up of the remaining nations. These three nations keep their respective populaces preoccupied with a perpetual border war in order to preserve power among the High class.
Goldstein writes that the war never advances significantly, as no two allied nations can defeat the third. As Winston reads, Julia enters the room and flings herself into his arms. She is casually glad to know that he has the book. After half an hour in bed together, during which they hear the red-armed woman singing outside, Winston reads to Julia from the book.
Goldstein explains that the control of history is a central tool of the Party. He adds that doublethink allows Inner Party members to be the most zealous about pursuing the war mentality, even though they know the falsity of the histories they write.