Is the ambiguity in "amor matris" that of subjective vs. objective genitive (whether the mother is the one loving, or the one being loved)? Because I think the same ambiguity exists in English: one need only Google "love of * for *" and "love of * by *" to see that in English, love can be "of" the love-er or the love-ee. (I think the actual possessive construct — *'s love — is less ambiguous with "love," specifically, but not with other words: "murder," for example, as one can see by Googling "his murder of" and "his murder by".)

Funny that. In the dutch translation of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers guide, cricket was indeed replaced by field hockey.

That's crazy -- the Dutch have a national cricket team that has played in the cricket world cup. Ok, they're not very good, but...

I liked the article, and agree that, as far as articles on translation go, it's the only kind that's of any real interest. Examples! We want examples!

But I have to say that I was a bit surprised by his line: "But I doubt very much that there is or can be such a thing as a theory of translation...". Even if he's pressing the point that only experience and erudition can make a good translator, it's an oddly uninformed (faux naïf) statement for someone who's clearly devoted time and thought to the matter.

I suspect he's simply taking a whack at the theorists, as writers often do. I'm sure he knows of the existence of translation theory.

For that matter, I expect there's a pretty substantial body of cabinet-making theory...

Which is probably a lot more lively reading than most translation theory.

Practical details of specific translations can be really interesting IMHO and IME. Translation theory in the abstract, not really.

I agree with Gail - it's very surprising that Coetzee would allow himself to appear uninformed about the well-established existence of translation theory, whether intentionally or unintentionally. @languagehat: I think it's unlikely that Coetzee's comments on this are intended as a jab at academics/theorists, as the article appears in 'Meanjin', which calls itself "Australia's leading literary magazine", and will be included in a book published by Oxford Uni. Press (not to mention the fact that Coetzee is himself an academic and has held positions in various universities around the world). Coetzee's article contains some great insights, but it's a pity that his experiences with translators, which seem to be very positive, didn't lead him to present a more balanced picture of both the practical and the theoretical sides of translation.

Translation theory to my mind is very precize science. I would compare it to math.