Yes I have two translations of 'Beyond Good and Evil', the copy I am studying is a translation by Marion Faber which is quite up to date. What I mean by this is the fact that the wording is in a modern style, I can't quite put my finger on it, in some ways it is advantageous in others I find it annoyingly anachronistic. One way it is advantageous is in making up for the fact that a lot of the tricks and so on that Nietzsche used in his actual writing style, what I mean is the fact he was a grammatically very good and rhythmically etc. it was good (I'm not brilliant at understanding grammar in its technical terms
). When I say "making up" I mean that in this translation the grammatical flow seems to be well done, for example at the end of the book, the section known as "From High Mountains: Concluding Ode/Epode" is as it says an Ode and it seems to flow well rhythmically in this translation. My other translation is by R. J. Hollingdale, this one is an older translation and seems to hold more to an old-fashioned style and uses old-fashioned and more sophisticated words and phrases which I do like and it seems to make it feel more authentic (since language is dumbed down these days and somehow it doesn't seem to suit the way I can imagine Nietzsche writing). As for Kaufman I may try out a copy of his translation, thanks for the advice.
I new Nietzsche was in to languages but I have never really read in to that aspect of his biography, that is very interesting him being a Classical philologist.
Yes if I remember correctly this book on Scientism talks a fair amount about Logical Positivism since it is one of the fundamental aspects in Scientism, although it tends to be more characteristic of the modern forms of Scientism, those of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In fact it refers to an interesting (but scary) idea that a man called Neurath has where he refers to Metaphysics as a "childhood disease" and says that "Every child can in principle learn to apply the language of physicalism correctly from the outset" (which sounds like brainwashing to me). What he means by this is that children could be taught a purified language which would contain traditional words but omitted words that resisted translation in to the preferred forms of physicalism. He gives examples of such words that could be omitted some of which are 'norm', 'transcendental', 'categorical imperative', 'intuition', 'immanent' and 'reality'. By doing this Neurath believed that children could be free of senselessness and that their language could not be corrupted by philosophy. By doing this, later in their lives they could become acquainted with academic philosophy and would perceive philosophy as a foreign and historical subject.
My 'Beyond good and evil' does translate the non-German quotes but only in the notes section, they are left in their original untranslated form in the actual text.
Yes thesaurus your last paragraph you wrote there is interesting, I didn't know that, it is pretty stupid though doing that since English and French, although derived from Latin (which in turn had parts derived from Greek) are by no means Latin and Greek
.
) however I almost always have to turn to the translation in the notes section of whatever I am reading in order to understand it. I personally feel (and I am aware this is a commonly held fact) that in the case of translating languages much of the original meaning is lost. This fact also makes me want to at least get an average understanding of Latin in order to be able to understand quotes, concepts etc. in the way they were intended to be read by the philosopher, author etc. as opposed to having to accept someone else's translation which is rather like looking at the world through frosted glass 
, the beginning is always the most difficult hurdle.