Traduzir o intraduzível: o impacto dos textos sagrados orientais no ocidente
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: As obras do remoto Oriente foram trazidas para a Europa ao longo dos séculos XVIII e XIX para serem estudadas inicialmente com intenção polêmica, visando a fortalecer as crenças coloniais na superioridade ocidental. Porém o seu estudo tomou caminhos imprevisíveis, colocando em causa a identidade religiosa e cultural da Europa dominante e as crenças religiosas dos conquistadores. No final a cultura do vencido acabou conquistando a do arrogante vencedor, segundo o paradigma horaciano (Hor., Epistulae 2.1.156-7). Um novo mundo “antigo” surge ante os olhos estupefatos dos homens de pensamento, um mundo cuja pervivência poderia e deveria ser estudada in situ. Deu-se uma revolução cultural tão importante como a provocada pelo renascimento da cultura greco-latina e a descoberta de novos continentes e populações no século XV, ou a dos novos mundos astronômicos, físicos e da história natural ao longo da Idade Moderna. As principais consequências da vitória da Filologia se fizeram sentir no mundo da teologia e da filosofia.Palavras-Chave: Orientalismo; Gramática comparada; tradução.Abstract: The Eastern Sacred texts arrived at Europe during the XVIII and XIX centuries and were supposed to help Christian conversions: proselytizers and missionaries assumed that translating them to European languages would bring to general derision the beliefs of the Eastern colonized nations, and will bring support to the cultural supremacy of the West. However, such translations acted more as a vehicle for Eastern religion to enter the West, rather than to the West to convert the East. The article summarizes the lives of important Orientalists, and presents the first translations of the Persian, Chinese and Indian classics.Keywords: Orientalism; Compared gramar; translation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".