What is this openness? "It is that...wherein being allots itself to man such that man preserves the allotted in its ownmost and such that for his part man first finds his ownmost from out of such preserving and retains it" (GA 54:115). The "word" does not have the function of relating the human to human being. Rather, the word appears as that wherein being allots itself to the human. Put more precisely, the "word" is not the link between the human and being. The issue here is not linkage or relatedness but allotment. In view of this allotment, Heidegger considers the "word" to be "the essential mark of distinction of man" (GA 54:118). And the "word" sustains such an allotment because it is openness through and through. Precisely as this openness the word "allows for the intralingual translation of the "word" Ereignis in to Er- and eignis.

Turning now to the problems that pertain to the translation of Ereignis, the most crucial being-historical word, I should note that my translation of this word is oriented by Heidegger's own stance toward this "guiding word." (He articulates this stance when he points out that Ereignis is as untranslatable as the Greek logoV or the Chinese Tao.) The first thing to be kept in mind is that the prefix Er- and construct eignis have an independent status calling for distinct translations of both if the translation is to be hermeneutically responsible to what Heidegger says with Er-eignis. In Er-eignis the prefix Er- has an active character, which places an unmistakable emphasis on the dynamism and the movement inherent in the verb eignen. Moreover, the construct eignis opens the way to the being-historical word Eigentum, "ownhood."

P. 32

¶ 9:15 AM