Translation versus original

[barbara0207]

Have you ever read a book in translation and found that some passages sounded funny, somehow wrong?

Recently, I read "84 Charing Cross Road" by Helene Hanff, a simple little book that can make people laugh and cry at the same time. I had the English original, a friend of mine read the German translation. She said there were a few passages she could not understand. Here are two examples:

The original says, "I don't add too well in plain American, I haven't a prayer of ever mastering bilingual arithmetic", meaning she didn't have a chance of doing sums in British pounds. The translator says, she cannot pray any more. :bawling:

Original: (A woman is looking for someone at a book store) "But it was one-ish when I went in, I gather they were all out to lunch and I couldn't stay any longer." The translation says, "But I was all alone when I went in ...", which doesn't make any sense at all. :sick:

Have you ever had similar problems with translations?

[manolia]

With a lot of books. That's why i'm always on the watch for original copies, in the languages i can read tolerably, that is.

[Annamariah]

I've always been interested in different translations (okay, not always, but ever since I started reading in English and later in Swedish). I'm actually applying to university to become a translator. (Let's hope I'll get in :D)

Sometimes it happens that the translator has misunderstood the original sentence so that it's meaning changes when it's translated, but that's not very usual. More often mistakes are something like a few words or a sentence missing somewhere (sometimes even a couple of sentences from some chapter) or selecting a synonym that has not quite the same meaning as the original word in that context.

There can never be a perfect translation, because different languages have always different vocabularies and different expressions that cannot be translated directly to other languages. A good translation, however, doesn't feel like a translation when you read it. Sometimes you can see too clearly that some text is translated. There might be phrases that do not sound right, or structures that are more from the original language than from the one the text is translated to.

[Aiculík]

LotR.

The guy who translated it into Slovak is... no. I won't be rude because of that creature.

On the beginning, for example (I don't have books here) it is said that after Galadriel's departure, there was no one left who remembered history of elves.

But, in the translation, it said, after Galadriel's death... and Galadriel became man.

I could pherhaps forgive him, if it was the only mistake. Unfortunatelly, it wasn't. And if he wasn't one very renowned translator. Well maybe his other translations are better, but I'll never find out. I check every translation from English now and when I see his name, I ignore the book until I find original.

[Annamariah]

I must admit that I was really shocked when I read "A Little Princess" by Frances Hodgson Burnett in English. I'd read it in Finnish several times, (though the first time it was probably read to me when I was a small kid) so I knew it basically by heart already. So I was surprised when I realised "this sentence doesn't sound familiar at all", checked the Finnish translation and saw that it was missing there. All put together there are several pages missing from the translation, yet there is no mention about the book being abridged when translated.:sick:

[Demona]

Once I got a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover...what a "masterpiece" it was....unbelievable...Not only half of the book was really 'funny' it missed half of the punctuation marks...I was barely able to finish it (the situation was i HAD to read it there wasn't a possibility to get another copy, original or another translation).
A student at my former university wrote her diploma on translating tehcniques and such stuff. She compared the original and some translation into Russian of Harry Potter. The funny thing was that...yes, some passages were missing. But some were just....written in. You know, the translator obviously just added.... :D

Originals forever :P

[barbara0207]

There can never be a perfect translation, because different languages have always different vocabularies and different expressions that cannot be translated directly to other languages. A good translation, however, doesn't feel like a translation when you read it. Sometimes you can see too clearly that some text is translated. There might be phrases that do not sound right, or structures that are more from the original language than from the one the text is translated to.

You are right about that. Wherever human beings work there will be errors and misunderstandings. But I think there is no excuse for sloppiness. (I'm sure you will be a very careful translator... :D )

[barbara0207]

Yes, I agree with you all, reading the original is always the best thing to do. But sometimes you can't help reading a translation, and then it would be nice to be sure that they have been done carefully.

There is one thing that has just struck me. Above I wrote there is no excuse for sloppiness. But perhaps there is? Could it be that publishers pay translators so badly that the translation must be done in a hurry because otherwise one couldn't make a living by translating?

[Demona]

There is one thing that has just struck me. Above I wrote there is no excuse for sloppiness. But perhaps there is? Could it be that publishers pay translators so badly that the translation must be done in a hurry because otherwise one couldn't make a living by translating?

Maybe that someone should get another job then?
I understand that it's a real pity when you don't get enough money for the work you've done. I'd rather not be ashamed of how've done it though...

[barbara0207]

Maybe that someone should get another job then?
I understand that it's a real pity when you don't get enough money for the work you've done. I'd rather not be ashamed of how've done it though...

Hmm, you're really harsh on them. But probably you're right. Personally, I could never be a translator. I'd hover over one and the same passage for hours just to find an even better translation. So I'd probably starve to death. :D So perhaps it's not even fair that I complain about sloppiness ...

[Dante Wodehouse]

I'm thinking of learning Italian to read the original Inferno. Would you literary people recommend it?

[barbara0207]

I'm thinking of learning Italian to read the original Inferno. Would you literary people recommend it?

By all means. Although it will take you a long time to master the language so that you can read the original. But if you are young enough and have the time, have a go at it. Nothing compares to the original. Translations are always second best They can give you the general idea but if you want to go into detail and study specifics, you need the original.

[nps_marina]

As all of you, I always try to read originals better than translations because, as most of you, sometimes I find myself faced with thing like the bad, bad, bad translation for The World According to Garp.

I had the spanish translation, so I begun it on a Sunday- and had this gut feeling on certain passages, that they sounded so strange. On Monday I went and bought the original, and begun again.
Never have I been more suprised to find that when, in the Spanish translation it tells about the kids having chicken pox and checking their vomit to see if they're sterile; the English make more sense by telling they checked their *other bodily fluids* that would show if they are sterile (I have no idea how strong the censorship is on this page...).

It made me quite mad, actually.
Perhaps translators are paid badly and then they have to do things quickly and sloppily, but this is just plain BAD. One wonders about all the books not read in the original... what have I been missing, just because some translator decided to change huge chunks of text???

I could rant on forever...!

AnnaMaria, my sister is studying translation herself (though that would be here in Spain, I doubt that you two would meet in class or anything). Here fisr language (to translate) being sp-english; and the second one, french.

[Taliesin]

Well, one of the best mistakes we know is a mistranslation of the word spinning wheel. In a medieval castle, in the room of a princess...and it was translated as part of the spinning (fishing equipment).

[aabbcc]

Translation - especially of poetry - is a form of art; rather than pure mechanic translation and conversion from one system to another, it is re-writing the work in another language, trying to perserve at most the original "feeling". Every translation, thus, is a form of interpretation of the work, and can never be the original in its essence.

However, there are translations that are wonderful and that - if that is not out of the realm of possibility - actually sound better than the originals; good translators sometimes follow the "sensum pro senso" rule to an extent that their translations can be beautiful. Or sometimes the sense itself can be so "congenial" to the language one translates to that it simply produces an effect of the original... if not more.
I have always preferred a lot of Russian poetry in Croatian/Serbian translations. It was not the matter of the knowledge of the language - all the two/three were my native languages - but the matter of "that something" inside the language that captures the idea well, and the matter of the reader himself. In the other hand, there were Russian works I have read entirely intranslatable, which no translations - neither to Slavic languages - managed to "capture", it was only the original that produced an effect.

I generally prefer to read books in originals, then in translation if I have the need to re-read the work, unless, of course, I cannot speak the language and am thus forced to read only translation. Each language carries a specific mindset, a specific taste and is as "glasses" from which to observe the world, and even when the 'contents' of the world are the same, the view is dramatically different from language to language.

[barbara0207]

[QUOTE=Anastasija;379252]Translation - especially of poetry - is a form of art; rather than pure mechanic translation and conversion from one system to another, it is re-writing the work in another language, trying to perserve at most the original "feeling". Every translation, thus, is a form of interpretation of the work, and can never be the original in its essence.

I agree fully. And so we needn't talk about translating machine such as Google's. They are often useless. But sometimes, if I want to have some fun, I have the machine translate some lyrics from English into German. How about this one:

Original: Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Make the Yuletide gay,
From now on our troubles will be miles away ...

German translation:
Sich haben frohe wenig Weihnachten
Das Yuletide Homosexuelle bilden ab sofort ...

Re-translated into English:
Oneself have merry not much Christmas
The/that Yuletide form homosexuals from now on ... :lol:

[PeterL]

As Anastasija pointed out, there are translations that are better than the original. "The Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam" is the first one that comes to mind. It is even regarded very highly by Iranians. One of Umberto Eco's books was rewritten by the author in English, and it is said to be better than the original Italian version. But those are rare exceptions.

It seems like most translations are done by people who don't have a complete grasp of one of the languages. I understand that much translation is now being done by computer then edited into something that makes some sense.

[nps_marina]

Well, one of the best mistakes we know is a mistranslation of the word spinning wheel. In a medieval castle, in the room of a princess...and it was translated as part of the spinning (fishing equipment).

ROTFL!
So much for Sleeping Beauty being a chaste, homey and well-bred princess... she was the tomboy who wuokd strap on her overalls and go fishing every rainy morning!!!!

[barbara0207]

Translation - ... - is a form of art;


Let me give another example. It's not to do with sloppiness; the translator meant well, but failed nevertheless.

As a student, I read "The Catcher in the Rye" by Salinger. I was enthusiastic. Years later I came across the German translation, done by Heinrich Böll, a well-known writer highly acclaimed for his novels and short stories. I liked his work very much. What a surprise when I saw what he had done to Holden Caulfield's narrative. The difficulty in translating the book certainly lies in Holden's language. It is most important to hit the right tone and his way of speaking some kind of youth jargon. Böll translated that language into faultless High German, like a professor's language in a lecture.

I was stunned. The best of the book, to me, was lost. And I wondered how an author like Böll could not have seen that.

[Aiculík]

It is not enough to have perfect knowldge of both languages to be a good translator. It also requires to be a good reader and interpreter of a book - one cannot translate a book if he didn't understand the meaning or didn't catch the atmosphere. And that is what is so difficult about it. The translator must decode the book and then code it again in another language. And while there are many theories on translation, and many people who know languages perfectly try to do it - really good translators are rare.

Of course, as every interpretation of the book is subjective, there will never be a translation of any book that will be liked by everyone. And reading average translation is still better than not being able to read the book at all.

I remember when I got my first book for translation - from Croatian to Slovak, about 180 pages about Medjugorje, it contained not only teological passages, but also passages on moral and witnesses's evidence... so it really wasn't easy to translate. The people who ordered it were very surprised when I told them that I'll need about 6 weeks to translate it. As they said "what's so difficult about it, you know both languages, all you have to do is to sit down and write, so why should it take more than ten days?"

And that is very common opinion. Many people think that if they're "upper intermediate" or "advanced" in some language, they are also great translators. I recently made a reserach paper on the low quality of translations from English - not just literary works, but also advertisements, news, etc. I had few weeks of good laughter. :) It's unbelivable what constructions can people produce during "translation".

[Annamariah]

I read most of the books in Finnish, because the originals are usually quite difficult to get (If I don't want to buy the book, of course. In libraries there are quite limited selection of books in English.) Best books I like to read in both languages. I think that as long as the translation is not really bad, the reader will get something from it that the original doesn't give (unless the person in question is completely bilingual). I guess it's "the magic of the mother tongue" or something like that :D

[Moira]

It is not enough to have perfect knowldge of both languages to be a good translator. It also requires to be a good reader and interpreter of a book - one cannot translate a book if he didn't understand the meaning or didn't catch the atmosphere. And that is what is so difficult about it. The translator must decode the book and then code it again in another language. And while there are many theories on translation, and many people who know languages perfectly try to do it - really good translators are rare.

Of course, as every interpretation of the book is subjective, there will never be a translation of any book that will be liked by everyone. And reading average translation is still better than not being able to read the book at all.

I remember when I got my first book for translation - from Croatian to Slovak, about 180 pages about Medjugorje, it contained not only teological passages, but also passages on moral and witnesses's evidence... so it really wasn't easy to translate. The people who ordered it were very surprised when I told them that I'll need about 6 weeks to translate it. As they said "what's so difficult about it, you know both languages, all you have to do is to sit down and write, so why should it take more than ten days?"

And that is very common opinion. Many people think that if they're "upper intermediate" or "advanced" in some language, they are also great translators. I recently made a reserach paper on the low quality of translations from English - not just literary works, but also advertisements, news, etc. I had few weeks of good laughter. :) It's unbelivable what constructions can people produce during "translation".

That's a very good point.
And i hate reading poetry translations, i think they are pretty useless because you can never keep much of the original meaning.

[barbara0207]

And that is very common opinion. Many people think that if they're "upper intermediate" or "advanced" in some language, they are also great translators. I recently made a reserach paper on the low quality of translations from English - not just literary works, but also advertisements, news, etc. I had few weeks of good laughter. :) It's unbelivable what constructions can people produce during "translation".

I believe you. Could you perhaps come up with a few examples so we can have a good laugh, too, :lol: or is it too difficult to render them in English?

[arabian dream]

In my opinion translation from language to language it can be fine if the translator is deep-rotted in both languages. But the problem is if the translator deep-rooted in English and Arabic language for example and he tried to translate book from Russian to Arabic and he used English language as intermediary language. What you think it will be?
I think it will be disconnected meaning and will lose the beauty of the text.

That what I faced in my Arabic world we don’t have excellent translator from uncommon languages and thy tried to use English or French language as intermediary language.

[ennison]

Well some Iranians might admire Fitzgerald's version of Khayyam but it is very much 'after' the original. I admire it as English poetry but from the comments of some Persian/Iranian scholars it's clear that Fitzgerald was pretty cavalier in being true to the original. But that is the Scylla and Charybdis of all translation of poetry. Do you aim for the literal or do you give a representation? Do you try to retain the rhythms and sounds or go mainly for the key ideas? It's not easy and it's not a clear cut choice. Prose has its own difficulties but poetry much more so.

[barbara0207]

That what I faced in my Arabic world we don’t have excellent translator from uncommon languages and thy tried to use English or French language as intermediary language.

My heartfelt sympathy. That reminds me of the game "Chinese Whispers". A whispers something into B's ear, who whispers it into C's ear and so on. By the time the expression reaches the last person it has often changed completely. So I can understand how you feel about such translations. :bawling:

[barbara0207]

Well some Iranians might admire Fitzgerald's version of Khayyam but it is very much 'after' the original. I admire it as English poetry but from the comments of some Persian/Iranian scholars it's clear that Fitzgerald was pretty cavalier in being true to the original. But that is the Scylla and Charybdis of all translation of poetry. Do you aim for the literal or do you give a representation? Do you try to retain the rhythms and sounds or go mainly for the key ideas? It's not easy and it's not a clear cut choice. Prose has its own difficulties but poetry much more so.

Yes, especially if there is a strict form such as the sonnet. That is clearly a challenge for every translator. It's often poets who try their hands at poems like that. Recently I read the translations of a Shakespeare sonnet done by six different poets. Each poet added his own view and interpretation of the sonnet. That was very interesting to read.

[Aiculík]

I believe you. Could you perhaps come up with a few examples so we can have a good laugh, too, :lol: or is it too difficult to render them in English?

It is difficult to translate it back into English... but I remember one book (Qeeen of Sheba, I forgot the author). There was a passage where one character felt fear arising in her and she couldn't breathe. In translation, however, she felt fear climbing up her inestines trying to strangle her. :lol:

[Aiculík]

I found this article on the net:


Why does someone translate? What possesses them? I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case it's firstly to scrape together a living in letters, and secondly a duty to the literature and the language (German). Once there, I also found I wanted to make a difference. I want it to matter that a book has had my time and my English expended on it, and not someone else's. I want both the choice of book, and the manner of the translation, to be expressive of me. Perhaps this is already illegitimate, I quite see that. Perhaps this is some of the executive vanity of authorship meddling with and muddying the dull pitch of the translator. But I'm not deluded. I may set down every word of my Koeppens and Roths (proper names excepted), but I don't think I'm them.

The trouble, it seems to me, is that translation is perceived as a function, not an agency. It's not fully personalised and accredited work. No one sees it. You're an ambulance driver, not a surgeon. If not me, then someone else. If not someone else, then me. When people buy a book, they want to read the author, not a centaur or a Zygos brothers figure - the work, and not the product of something I once described as "the strange bi-authorship of translation". If the book was written in a different language, then there will, perforce, have to have been a translator involved in it, but the reader prefers to remain unaware of that. It may even be disagreeable to be informed or reminded of the fact. Even otherwise bookish people seem never to know who translated the book they are reading. Efforts by publishers to promote something as a "new translation", I am convinced, do as much harm as good. There's something as unnatural and infrequent about those as there is about a comet; people quite naturally take fright.

In the English-speaking world (ha!), there is very little empathy with translators. Most readers don't have any experience of translating, or indeed of another language at a serious level. Most authors and reviewers don't either. Among poets, off the top of my head I can only think of a handful who translate: Muldoon, Heaney, George Szirtes, and Don Paterson, with his Machado, and a Rilke forthcoming. Among novelists only Tim Parks (recently retired from the fray), and Julian Barnes with his Daudet. There are one or two more in the US. (You do get them in the theatre, though, where it sometimes seems that every English and Irish playwright has had a go at Chekhov, but the ground rules there are different; they work from literal versions, and it's their dramaturgical expertise and ear for speech that are brought to bear.) Any European country, I think, would have dozens of equivalent figures who had offered translations. Pavese translated; Proust translated; Bruno Schulz translated. It's an ordinary aspect of literary work. Eco refers to an Einaudi series of books translated by Italian authors. Primo Levi translated The Trial; Eco himself did De Nerval's Sylvie. A series like that would barely get off the ground in the UK.

The background of such ignorance and lack of experience has left an odd nimbus or whiff around translation. People don't know how to talk about it, and so they don't like to talk about it. Translation is perceived either in terms of clarity and faithfulness (Eco does it too), or in terms of mistakes, which is banal, because everyone makes mistakes. Again, a function, rather than an agency. Everything beyond that is shrouded in an unfortunate mystique. But really, there is no mystery. If you have a good time with a book, praise the author; if you have a good time with a paragraph, praise the translator (as well). That would be my rule of thumb.

(An excerpt from Speaking in Tongues by Michael Hofman, on Mouse or Rat? Eco's essay on translation)

[barbara0207]

Thank you very much for the article, Aiculík. I have never thought about translations that way. Very interesting, especially the remark that "people do not know how to talk about it".

I do, however, not quite agree that complaining about mistakes is just "banal". It is true that everyone makes mistakes, but that is not the point I tried to make above. If a translation is done carefully, a few mistakes can certainly be forgiven. What vexes me are translations done in a hurry without very much thought given to tone, atmosphere and meaning of the original.

PS: Nice example you gave us. :D

[chasestalling]

this may be a bit off the topic but, the one book that i've read in translation only to regret the fact that the original composition would forever be beyond my grasp is gustave flaubert's madame bovary. i never studied french and the thought of mastering of another language is too daunting (not to mention expensive) a task to undertake.