English translation: 'that which has not become' / 'that which did not become"
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
German term or phrase:
Ungewordenes
English translation:
'that which has not become' / 'that which did not become"
German to English translations [PRO] Art/Literary - Philosophy / Nietzsche
German term or phrase:Ungewordenes
Hi, I'm Spanish/Portuguese translator working on a philosophical text which cites Nietzsche. Rather than translate from the Portuguese translation of this term (which has in turn come from Italian...), I wonder if someone could help me with the standard English translation?
I've tried googling, but unfortunately don't have a citation for the brief passage in question.
Explanation: imho we're talking about whether something came into existence or whether it exists eternally - i.e. there was no beginning.
It did not come into existence - it did not become.
As a noun it's more difficult in English: the "unborn" or "uncreated" are sometimes used but in the fine nuances of philosophical argument are not sysnonymous, since the German "werden" is an intransitive verb. So if something is "ungeworden" that is independent of whether there is an agent or not (a creator).
So best to stick with an intransitive verb in English, and we're left with no real option other than a clumsy: the "not-become".
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 Stunden (2010-10-21 14:04:16 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
To clarify, in some areas of philosophical debate there could be things that
a) exist
b) were not generated by another thing (ungenerated)
c) were not born of another (unborn)
d) were not created by another (uncreated)
but
e) they did come into existence of their own accord
So these would not be "Ungewordenes", despite the applicability of the other adjectives suggested (b,c,d).
I hope people don't mind if I leave this question open - there has been so much knowledgeable debate that it seems most useful/fairest to let members decide on the best answer. I really appreciate all the help. I sent the translation in with 'un-becoming' since I had to send it off fairly quickly and this was in fact nearest to what I had been asked to translate from Portuguese - ie it was a translation of an interpretation of 'ungewordenes'.
Yes, thank you, Annett, I was able to read that as soon as the Asker posted it. I remain of the opinion that 'did not become' is the incorrect tense. In EN it would be used had an event happened at a particular time: 'She saw the man as he approached her, but did not recognise him.' 'Had not become', however, is used when a state persists over a longer or continuous period: 'She had never become used to the fact that ...'. I appreciate that this distinction is perhaps harder for a non-native to appreciate. Whether or not there is potential for change in the future is not really germane to the issue, though it exists, but this temporal aspect is, given that eternity is more than a mere moment. This is my last comment on this and I would prefer to now wait for the Asker to make up her own mind.
I was taking for granted that 'nicht' and the prefix 'un-' both refer to an absence and therefore have the same meaning (cf. not realised/unrealised). Perhaps that is not so. But my point stands. ‘[N]ichts Gewordenes’ and ‘ungeworden’ both describe to the same thing. Here’s the actual word in context: ‘vielmehr alles ist ewig, ****ungeworden****: wenn es ein Chaos der Kräfte gab, so war auch das Chaos ewig und kehrte in jedem Ringe wieder’ - - the return of chaos is predicted and thus not merely a possibility.
I do see your point. "That which has not YET become" is different from "...HAS the potential to do so". But if it has the potential to do so, it might actually "become" and it has not yet done so. It is this possibility of becoming, this potential to do so that I wanted to stay clear of.
I don't do smileys because, for me, they are for teenagers! I do not comprehend why you do not see the difference between something that has not yet become and something that has the potential for it. I must now leave it at that and let the Asker select her preferred solution.
You say below it is about "that which HAS not become', i.e. it may still become, that is has the potential to do so." So does that not imply it has not yet become?
I understand "Ungewordenes" as something that is but has not gone through and will never go through the process of "becoming". That's why I was leaning towards "did not become". As always, I am always open to being convinced otherwise. :)
"That which did not become" says to me that "it" never went through the process of becoming but that "it" nevertheless exists. The aspect of "never having gone through the process of becoming but existing" is stronger here I believe than in
"that which has not become": this is IMO more open-ended, leaving room for a future process of becoming, thus possibly indicating it is something yet to be seen. Compare:
Has it arisen? Possible answer: No. But it will.
Did it arise? Possible answer: No. It has been existing, always.
Those are my thoughts. And, sorry, yes thank you, if you meant to thank me. It just didn't sound like a thanks to me. I guess I was missing a smiley. But I needed to "just" clarify that I wasn't copying from your entry. I wanted to make that clear to the other readers. :)
Just to assure you that a native speaker would not understand 'that which has not become' as implying 'yet'.
Secondly, what a shame that you would object to be thanked.
just to clarify: I am supporting Craig's "that which did not become" or, as he phrased it in his discussion: It did not become, not his entry"not-become"; I do not agree with "that which has not become' because I read that as "that which has not 'yet' become", indicating that it will become sometime in the future.
Regarding your comment tat I am repeating your argument down even to the use of the word "Unwerdendes". I believe I am not repeating your argument, I am discussing that term and other things in my own original way.
But we've got the context! Asker provided it below in the discussion box (in English) and I posted the German original. I'd argue that my reading of 'Ungewordenes' also applies to the first example I posted, in which Nietzsche explains that our emotions appear to us as having always been the same throughout the ages, i.e. that they did not become. Of course, he believes this to be false, but he concedes that it's difficult to imagine emotions as changeable.
We have not been asked to translate 'nichts Gewordenes' but rather 'Ungewordenes' and in a different context. I would translate them differently, but let's stick to what we have been asked to do. Unrealised, by the way, does not mean that something does not exist necessarily. It can also mean that it is not fully unfolded, that it CONTAINS rather than IS potential to develop, unfurl, grow, truly become itself.
Nietzsche is explicit: ‘Der Kreislauf ist ****nichts Gewordenes****, er ist das Urgesetz’ & it would be wrong, IMO, to translate ‘nichts Gewordenes’ as something that is as yet ‘unrealized’ or only a ‘potential’. The ‘Kreislauf’ already exists and in its eternal and unchanging existence makes possible potential and flux. That is the one law that guarantees what follows. The claim that everything is in flux would otherwise be logically inconsistent. If everything was truly in flux, then that fundamental principle would itself be subject to change & tomorrow we might find ourselves in a world were everything is a priori fixed.
If the ‘Kreislauf’ had unfolded/evolved/emerged over time to its present state, it would mean that it is in fact a changeable phenomenon, which in turn implies that it could change again at some future point.
- - Sorry to go on and on, but it's important for Nietzsche that the first principle, to use your words, "'did not' (and never will) become" . . . . :-)
Reading this reminds me why we always need comprehensive footnotes in philosophical translations :-)
I like Helen's clarification of the distinction between "did not" and "has not" - I've become (sic) unsure which one I would choose here. Helen's superior knowledge of Nietzsche is convincing, but I still tend to interpret this passage in the way I described earlier (similar to Annett's), which might suggest the "did not" (and never will) become.
I think Nietzsche is trying to deal with a logical problem here. The point made in the passage is that the first principle cannot become (and did not become): it is eternal and unchanging. Nietzsche is speaking about a stability (‘Kreislauf’) that comes before any potential (‘Alles Werden ist innerhalb des Kreislaufs’). I agree that for Nietzsche the universe is all potential; at the same time it rests on one principle that is not potential, namely the ‘Kreislauf’ (and ‘ungeworden’ refers to this first principle - - and yes, it sounds a bit like god).
It is important to stress that it is not about 'that which DID not become' but instead 'that which HAS not become', i.e. it may still become, that is has the potential to do so. It is out of this ever-expanding universe that all things are generated or may be.
I mean precisely what you say in your last sentence. I certainly do not say anywhere that the universe is merely a potential. I understand this as saying, in this instance, that everything is eternal, unrealised potential.
I don't follow your reasoning. The adjective 'ungeworden' occurs in a passage where Nietzsche discusses the universe and first principles. He insists quite emphatically that the 'Gesetz des Kreises' is eternal and did not become. Neither is the universe merely a potential - - it actually is. 'Becoming' and therefore potential are, however, contained within.
I think a lot of the confusion here stems from the fact that our Asker posted this originally without a sentence including the term and we, or I at least, answered in terms of the wider use of this term in Nietzsche. When one occurrence of the term was then given to us, it was non-personal. People who have joined the debate since perhaps do not appreciate this. My argumentation addresses this wider usage as well as the limited context we have.
Please do not misrepresent me. Personal development? That means something entirely different. My objection to your suggestion is that you wrap it in terms of something creating something else, whether God or not. Since for Nietzsche God was dead, his use of the term 'werden' in this context is fundamental. The becoming is not generated from outside of the individual; it is immanent. To misunderstand this, is to misunderstand Nietzsche. The suggestion of 'that which is has not become' was mine, in fact, even though Bernhard seems to attribute it to you with your incorrect and rather clumsy 'not-become' (sorry to put it so bluntly). This 'ungewordenes' whether personal or not refers to a pre-existant potential for becoming which, however, has not become. Your solutions a) to e) do not apply.
Thanks for repeating my argument, down even to the use of the word, 'unwerdenes'!! I don't, however, agree with 'to emerge' since that would suggest that the thing emerging may exist somewhere else and emerge from that.
And to counter Helen's objection: Some Eastern philosophers continue this line of reasoning about 'eternals' to *refute* the idea of a Creator, so they would be happy to agree with Nietzsche that there is no God.
... I'm convinced that in this passage, Nietzsche is indeed putting "ewig" (eternal) and "ungeworden" together as (almost) synonymous and therefore I'm going to plead once more for my original argumentation and the use of the verb 'become'. Helen's objection that Nietzsche uses this term to talk about the topic of personal development doesn't apply to this passage, where he is imho comparing the universal laws to the attitudes which humans have to their development.
Combining everyone's useful tips about the grammar and how to translate it in philosophical texts, I would definitely choose the following translation:
"that which did not become"
Some people might be uncomfortable due to the concept of emergence/emergent property: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
alternative: that which did not arise/did not become
I would see "un-becoming" as the state/condition of not coming about/ into existence/into being - IMO in German "unwerdend/das Unwerdende (the un-becoming)", slightly diff. from das "Ungewordene" = that which did not become/come about/ into existence /into being but always "is/exists". The first term (that which is un-becoming = das Unwerdende) says "it" simply never goes through the process of "becoming" and that might make "it" weaker, possibly non-existing/non-being; the second term (das Ungewordene) says "it" never went through the "process" of "becoming/coming into existence/ into being/about but "it" always "is" (it simply existed and exists and will always exist). I thought maybe" that which did not originate" (das Ungewordene) vs. that which originated (das Gewordene) could work too. Problem is it does not describe the (non-)"process" of becoming/coming about/into existence/into being. It only denotes it has (no) origin - it does not hint at the development or lack thereof of sth. that exists.
Then I thought "that which did not emerge" which hints at a (non-)"process" and leaves open that "it" nevertheless always existed and does exist forever (without cause)
I agree with Nesrin. It would be quite normal in a philosophical text to go for something along the lines of 'that which ...' for such a GER noun. My 'unrealised' succeeds in getting across the notion of there being an untapped potential which could 'werden' but is not, if you prefer to avoid a complex solution.
I don't think you should use "unbecoming" here as the word has a very different meaning:
un·be·com·ing
• adj. (esp. of clothing or a color) not flattering: a stout lady in an unbecoming striped sundress.
∎ (of a person's attitude or behavior) not fitting or appropriate; unseemly: it was unbecoming for a university to do anything so crass as advertising its wares. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-unbecoming.html
There seems to be a misconception about what Nietzsche means by 'werden' here. He exorts people to 'become thyself'. This is about the Will to Power, the Superman (Übermensch). What he means is, don't follow the herd, become your authentic, powerful self, i.e. if you are a great man, don't let society dictate how you should be. Don't be constrained, live and act without the normal socialising rules, trample the herd, if necessary, to achieve your aims. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JSI3Oz8wLugC&pg=PA7&lpg=P...
Yes, I guess we're looking for an antonym of 'becoming' . . . . Or maybe you can rephrase it and say 'everything is eternal, and not becoming' or 'not in a state of becoming'?
in my original draft, I came up with the term "un-becoming", as a result of translating it from the Portuguese. Does this sound plausible?
the context would be the following quote: “There was not first Chaos and then at once a harmonious and stable circular movement of all the forces: on the contrary, everything is eternal, **un-becoming** [Ungewordenes]
Hi Lucy - you don't even have the rest of the phrase? Like what is "ungeworden"?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
15 mins confidence:
ungewordenes
Yet to become (reality)
Explanation: Ewigkeit der Welt – WikipediaTranslate this page
Ursprünge · Philosophie · Religion · Physikalische Kosmologie
Für ihn war es unmöglich, dass etwas Gewordenes ewig sei oder etwas Ungewordenes vergehen könnte, wie Timaois behauptet hatte. Die Ewigkeit der Welt, die sich für Aristoteles ...
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewigkeit_der_Welt · Cached pageGott hat die Welt erschaffen, aber wer hat…Translate this page
Alles was sie kennen ist geworden, wie kann es da etwas ungewordenes geben? Dann kommt der Vorwurf, das sei gegen die Kausalität. Das Gegenteil ist der Fall!!
Explanation: I've found several references for that. Not referring to Nietzsche, but to the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides:
German:
Das Sein dieses Einen ist nach Parmenides ein Sein in un- oder ... ist.3 Vielmehr ist es ungeworden und unvergänglich,4 so daß es als allgegenwärti- ...
deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=979835429...
Das Seiende ist demnach unentstanden („ungeworden“) und unzerstörbar. Parmenides´. Argumente sind die, dass das Sein, falls entstanden, notwendig aus dem ...
content.grin.com/document/v71532.pdf
English:
When Parmenides argues so urgently against becoming and birth, this is, as I see it, aimed at laying the ... among others, 'ungenerated' and 'imperishable' ...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=9051835922...
Greek philosophical tradition with Parmenides; and Coxon's own conver- .... i.e. to exist; second, to be ungenerated and imperishable is precisely what is ... www.jstor.org/stable/4182287
Nesrin Local time: 13:15 Native speaker of: Arabic PRO pts in category: 8
Explanation: imho we're talking about whether something came into existence or whether it exists eternally - i.e. there was no beginning.
It did not come into existence - it did not become.
As a noun it's more difficult in English: the "unborn" or "uncreated" are sometimes used but in the fine nuances of philosophical argument are not sysnonymous, since the German "werden" is an intransitive verb. So if something is "ungeworden" that is independent of whether there is an agent or not (a creator).
So best to stick with an intransitive verb in English, and we're left with no real option other than a clumsy: the "not-become".
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 Stunden (2010-10-21 14:04:16 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
To clarify, in some areas of philosophical debate there could be things that
a) exist
b) were not generated by another thing (ungenerated)
c) were not born of another (unborn)
d) were not created by another (uncreated)
but
e) they did come into existence of their own accord
So these would not be "Ungewordenes", despite the applicability of the other adjectives suggested (b,c,d).
Craig Meulen Germany Local time: 14:15 Works in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 7
The translation workplace 
