What does/is Flotow referring to when she suggests that mimetic translation allows the expression of the previously inexpressible?
Mimetic translation focuses on graphic and phonetic aspects within the text, not semantic meaning. So, why would translators then favor such method of translation if semantic meaning is either reduced or lost?
Von Flotow says “it is noteworthy, of course, that as in the Catullus and nursery rhyme examples above, translators were dealing with poetic material, where rhythms, the sounds, the materiality of the text on the page have a strong impact on meaning” (10). What are the implications of this statement? Does this mean that prose experiences increasing difficulties in mimetic translation?