Before I left my old job I wrote a guide to editing other people's translations.
I argued five translations were taking place.
In other words, by the time the original meaning is transformed into what the editor actually writes, it's already undergone a roomful of Chinese whispers.
In fact, as early as when the original writer writes the initial words, it's already been translated once.
The original message is not the initial words used but the intended meaning that preceded them. Do the words accurately reflect that meaning? Not always. Not even often. Rarely if ever do we say exactly what we mean.
I said the discerning translation editor must go to the roots. In other words, cut out the middle man (the translator) and translate the intended meaning of the original writer.
Yes, it's a risk. We can't know that intended meaning for sure. All we have to guide us are the words he/she used. But discerning this intended, unwritten meaning and making the translation even more indicative of it than the original writer managed is the beauty of the game.
Some would say arrogance underpins this philosophy. Why presume to be able to express another's thoughts better than that person him/herself?
On the other hand, most people aren't professional writers. A person paying a car mechanic to fix a car would think nothing of the mechanic presuming to know more about the car, regardless of who owned it. Likewise, a professional writer should presume to be able to use words to express thoughts better than a non-professional, regardless of who owns the thoughts.
That's what translation or editing is: expressing another person's thoughts in your own words.
Translation is not being faithful to the words used. It's being faithful to the meaning they attempted to express.
And that means expressing it better than the original words.
Posted by Setsunai at March 31, 2006 3:42 PMThis is very interesting.
I don't know what sort of things you were translating, and I know little of translation theory, but how much do you think 'being faithful to the intended meaning' ought to apply if there is a markedly different target readership or audience?
For example, if the text contains sly cultural allusions that invite the reader's complicity, should these be translated in a literal fashion, or should you look for equivalent cultural allusions in the culture of the target readership?
I'd be interested to know your thoughts.
Posted by: Hugh Green at March 31, 2006 5:14 PM | Permalink to CommentThe stuff we translated and edited was usually badly written originally. Hence the post, which says make your own assumptions and make the original better.
So on your question, and I know nothing about translation theory, but I'd say try to achieve the equivalent effect with your target audience as the original writer intended to the achieve with the original target audience. And make whatever assumptions you like to do so. So, definitely not in a literal fashion. Avoid the literal at all costs and get at the intended meaning/effect.
Just been reading your blog by the way. Some really funny stuff.
Posted by: Setsunai at March 31, 2006 6:19 PM | Permalink to CommentI guess it all depends on how good the original writer and the translator are as writers, since writing is all about trying to interpret what you imagine. A translator who is a better writer than the author can do a good job of improving the way the words are presented, but what about when there is a truly great writer such as Shakeseare or Tolstoy or Emily Dickinson? How in the world does a translator bring across the intention, plus the masterful and judicious choice of the perfect words, seeing as very few translators and writers can hope to match that level of greatness?
In Japanese the opening line of Hamlet's famous soliloquy, "To be or not to be" is translated as "Ikiru beki ka, shinu beki ka..." Right from the start the Japanese language fails to provide a proper word for "be". The very intention of what Hamlet is trying to say is lost from the beginning. How does a translator get the intention across? And with Shakespeare the exact word is crucial to understanding his creatiions. That is why he is great, isn't he?
Posted by: butuki at March 31, 2006 10:08 PM | Permalink to CommentAbsolutely Butuki. We never did seem to get work written by people as good as Shakespeare though...Maybe I should change the title of the post to "commercial translation".
Posted by: Setsunai at March 31, 2006 10:43 PM | Permalink to Comment