Translation

I agree that one should understand well enough what is being said, otherwise it is totally futile to try to understand.

But...

From personal experience I have learned that the more you read the more you understand what the writer is trying to tell you even if you don't understand totally what is said in the sentence. It is very odd. The first time it happened with Hugo I was farely amazed, but my feelings as they occurred were quite right upon checking in the dictionary what that one word meant. Strange.

All jobs have quacks and specialists ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

From personal experience I have learned that the more you read the more you understand what the writer is trying to tell you even if you don't understand totally what is said in the sentence. It is very odd. The first time it happened with Hugo I was farely amazed, but my feelings as they occurred were quite right upon checking in the dictionary what that one word meant. Strange.

---

Often the meaning of a strange word can be guessed correctly from the context, at least vaguely (for example whether it's a positive or a negative word). Also reading in a foreign language is the best way to learn it properly, as it expands your vocabulary and the more you read, the more you get "in" to the language. In Finnish we talk about "kielikorva", "language ear" that tells you how something should be said even if you can't remember why it is so.

So I'm not at all opposed to reading in foreign languages, on the contrary. But if we're talking about a certain book you want to read and don't know whether you'd get more out of the original or the translation, I'd opt for a good translation, if there's one available. (Unless, of course, your knowledge of the original language is comprehensive.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis_R

Are Garnett's translations any good? My War and Peace is translated by her and I was wondering how she compares.

---

Constance Garnett (1861-1946) translated a lot of Russian novels & her translations bought Russian authors like Dostoyevsky, Turgenev & Herzen to the attention of the English speaking world. She had the dubious distinction of being taught Russian by such infamous emigrés as the nihilist & terrorist Sergey Kravchinsky inter alia (well, until he was mysteriously run over by a train in London). I personally think her translations have dated & tend to agree with those that think that some of them are banal or prudish. I was not that impressed with her translation of The Brothers Karamazov but I quite liked her translation of Chekhov's The Steppe. I've actually compared her translation of War & Peace to the Maude & Edmonds translations. I prefer the Edmonds to Maude & both are better than Garnett's translation in my opinion. Although I believe that Edmonds based many of her translations on Garnett's originals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis_R

Are Garnett's translations any good? My War and Peace is translated by her and I was wondering how she compares.

---

She has a good reputation. Every serious critic of Russian literature in English usually starts by comparing her translations to others - and she usually comes well out of so such comparisons. You will not look stupid saying you are reading the Garnett translation at a literary function! So the question you need to ask is - is she "good for you". Do you like her fluent Edwardian English? Or do you want modern American literalism? (Pevear & V, for instance...)

If, like me, you are happy reading Dickens and Roth then you can only find out if Garnett is "for you" by reading (say) fifty pages, or so. The translation shouldn't grate at all. It should be like reading the best English author of that period. That's what it feels like, to me, when I read the Maude translation.

The Maudes tried to persuade Garnett to work with them, but she was happier going it alone. I read Garnett's Anna Karenina, and it was good, but I preferred the style of Maude's War & Peace. But I'd have no hesitation in reading Garnett's Chekhov and Dostoevsky - the Maudes didn't translate those authors!

I'd go ahead with Garnett, and if you dislike her style try Maude (You can buy the Wordsworth classics Maude translations for £1.99 - if you get through Garnett's W&P why not do the reverse of what I did and read the Maude Anna Karenina?) If you like Garnett, without reservation, then you are set up for reading Dostoevsky and Chekhov without breaking the bank!

I haven't read Edmonds' version, but a lot of people seem to like it:

http://ask.metafilter.com/22511/Best...nglish-edition

I've just read Tolstoy's Shorter Works in the Maude translation and (like Tolstoy) I don't see how Maude can be bettered. "The Cossacks" is the best translation I've ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I've just read Tolstoy's Shorter Works in the Maude translation and (like Tolstoy) I don't see how Maude can be bettered. "The Cossacks" is the best translation I've ever read.

---

Have you ever read any of Ronald Wilks' translations of Tolstoy's short stories?


*One slight thing that irritates me about the Maude War & Peace is that they translate Prince Andrei (Bolkonsky) as Prince Andrew. I believe that Andrei was his given name in the original novel. This seems to me like translating common English names like David or John into their original Hebrew forms if a novel was translated into Hebrew with two of the main protagonists being English people called David & John. Or if you were called 'David' calling yourself 'Daffyd' if you went to live in Wales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

Have you ever read any of Ronald Wilks' translations of Tolstoy's short stories?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

*One slight thing that irritates me about the Maude War & Peace is that they translate Prince Andrei (Bolkonsky) as Prince Andrew. I believe that Andrei was his given name in the original novel. This seems to me like translating common English names like David or John into their original Hebrew forms if a novel was translated into Hebrew with two of the main protagonists being English people called David & John. Or if you were called 'David' calling yourself 'Daffyd' if you went to live in Wales.

---

That seems to be going slightly too far, but I find it more comforting than irritating! It indicates that they have bent over backwards in producing a text that an English common reader will find transparent.

The most serious criticism of the Maudes I've read is that they sometimes lose Tolstoy's bizarre sense of humour & some detail. For instance, according to the Oxford Guide, Napoleon emerging from his toilette is pictured "snorting and grunting" with hair "wet and tangled". That gives an impression of someone beastly, but loses the equine connotations - the Russian word translated into "snort" actually is better expressed as "horse-snort" or (in English!) perhaps "whinny and snort", and "hair" is better translated as "forelock". But all translations have flaws, you just have to ask yourself if the benefits outweigh the flaws...

Thinking about this again -- perhaps the comparison of Napoleon to a horse would make him look too good in the eyes of the average British reader -- we tend to idealise animals, horses in particular! So perhaps the Maudes were actually producing a better translation by losing the "nice horsy" connotations and just keeping the "beastly" indications. Also the Oxford Guide suggested the "horsy" translation was funnier than the Maude translation -- I didn't see that at all! Neither were funny... although both were atmospheric...

Who'd be a translator? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

The most serious criticism of the Maudes I've read is that they sometimes lose Tolstoy's bizarre sense of humour & some detail.

---

Which is probably why I preferred Edmonds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Who'd be a translator? :)

---

Yeah, it's definitely an art form!

The horse-comparison is not just fun, it is also a (at least) two-fold symbolic meaning. I often find that lacking in translations. I believe that translators are not left with enough time to explore the work they are doing in all their facets, and this is an illustration of it.

The horse-comparison of Napoleon could have a first meaning in that French Thoroughbreds were deemed aristocratic and at the start of the Revolution had been banned out of use. Napoleon rode mainly Arabians himself, but he, being somewhat of a French Thoroughbred (symbol of aristocracy, hypocritical towards the Revolution) to a certain extent, could be seen as one who has re-entered the public domain, in spite of the Revolution. Naturally, because he decided to become new aristocracy by declaring himself emperor and living in a palace, lavishly.

On he other hand, there is a more general connotation with horses as symbols of wilde hedonistic living. We can certainly call Napoleon that. Without thinking, led by pride and blinded by former vistories, Napoleon led his men into Russia, in summer-uniforms, without any winter clorhing and not thinking of his heavy artillery that would sink into the mud of the summer. The Russians lured them as far as Moscow, but left them without food, so that when the winter came, the whole army was decimated by just hunger and cold. In one of the Baltic states (I have forgotten which one), there were heeps of dead bodies at the gate of the capital because those soldiers were exhausted and could take no more.

So, in comparing Napoleon with a horse, Tolstoy actually expressed an implicit judgment about Napoleon as hypocrite and wild impulsive person.

Maybe the beastly connotation was kept by the translator you mentioned, Mal4mac, but the real message was not taken care of.

I also have doubts about translations that translate names of all things. Doing that is lifting the story out of its cultural context. Things like money, measurements (if appropriate) and names should always be kept. Money because otherwise it lifts the story equally out of context: pounds are not the same as French francs, ginnies, shillings or pence. If there is a certain system it should be explained so the reader has an idea how much it is worth in his own money. If measurements are addressed, they should be explained equally, and left in the text with their original names. Names should always be kept. For things like special clothing (older or from a different country), measurements and money there is usually the practice of putting the word in italic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

The horse-comparison is not just fun, it is also a (at least) two-fold symbolic meaning. I often find that lacking in translations. I believe that translators are not left with enough time to explore the work they are doing in all their facets, and this is an illustration of it.

The horse-comparison of Napoleon could have a first meaning in that French Thoroughbreds were deemed aristocratic and at the start of the Revolution had been banned out of use. Napoleon rode mainly Arabians himself, but he, being somewhat of a French Thoroughbred (symbol of aristocracy, hypocritical towards the Revolution) to a certain extent, could be seen as one who has re-entered the public domain, in spite of the Revolution. Naturally, because he decided to become new aristocracy by declaring himself emperor and living in a palace, lavishly.

---

I think that there is always a danger of unintentional hermeneutics when reading translations. It is a science & an art form to convey different semiospheres to the reader.

Well can't talk about everything, but I do can about Russian books for instance Chekhov – I’ve never seen a good translation of his books – it was not bad. But as a person who lived Taganrog for many years, I can say it lacked the essence, the atmosphere. But anyway it is better than nothing. I remember my shock when I first found one English and then one Russian phrase that even after translated by meaning had no meaning, it was connected with the thing that in English one no is – no, but two – yes, while in Russian one, two or two thousand nos- is still no, there really are some untranslatable ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

I think that there is always a danger of unintentional hermeneutics when reading translations. It is a science & an art form to convey different semiospheres to the reader.

---

I believe it is possible in the vast amount of cases to bring the message across. There are only a limited amount of cases, I believe, where comparisons are culturally bound and where some two-fold/more-fold meanings might have to be abandoned because they make no sense in the culture of the language into which the work is translated. Although I have to admit that translating into Dutch is a nightmare. Very por language, unless one starts to use extremely old words.

On the other hand, I have often the impression that translators have indeed the skills to understand the sentences and maybe the connotations of the words they are translating, but have no clue about literature and its messages (the significance) in general. At least that is so with two translators I know. They have been taught how to translate the words and at best the atmosphere, but have not been taught the consequences of their choices, as illustrated with Tolstoy's Napoleon. They would argue that it does not matter. It matters a great deal in this, but hey, what do simple readers know? There was no reason for the translator to take that connotation away as it is also present in English culture. It was a failure to translate the thing that is most important in a work of literature... A message.

@Anna_MAlkovych:

I couldn't make out what you meant, but can you explain further? In which piece of his was this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I believe it is possible in the vast amount of cases to bring the message across. There are only a limited amount of cases, I believe, where comparisons are culturally bound and where some two-fold/more-fold meanings might have to be abandoned because they make no sense in the culture of the language into which the work is translated.

---

I should imagine you can translate the basic meaning but from a semiotic viewpoint you will always have connotation, denotation & ideo-mythology to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Although I have to admit that translating into Dutch is a nightmare. Very por language, unless one starts to use extremely old words.

---

That's interesting. English (Anglo-Saxon) is descended from a form of Frisian. Frisian dialects are still found in Holland & Germany I believe. There is some commonality with many English Midland's dialects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

It was a failure to translate the thing that is most important in a work of literature... A message.

---

I think that is the problem with translating signifieds & signifiers.

kiki1982, maybe I explained not well enough, the thing with nos - was nowhere it was an example of untranslatable cases, there is a well known phrase - If nobody is perfect, then hello my name is nobody. I once tried to translate in Russian and couldn't - well the translation was made but it had to be commented - explaining English grammar peculiarities - It was like this in Russian: если никто не идеален, тогда я никто, but it has no sense at if make word by word translation again it’ll be - if nobody is not perfect, then I am nobody, it is like saying if Jane is not perfect, then I am Jane, it is clearly not the thing meant in the original. Well I found some way to make it, but it came out more optimistic and not that sarcastic - Никто не идеален, но моё имя не никто. _- If translated - Nobody is perfect, but my name is not nobody, In Russian it actually sounds good and means that there is nobody ideal, but then I am somebody

If go back to Chehov – it is really difficult to explain, but it just didn’t feel like him. The way people speak in small towns is different, he picked that up well, but I think things like this can’t be translated there must be made an interpretation if one is translation for example for British he must take for example small British town and British manners, cause if you never saw it you never get it. Even some of my friends so not get how brilliant he is, cause they never lived even for a month in a tiny town, so I explained them what he meant and all they could say : ooohhh, the truth they got nothing of the feeling of the book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

That's interesting. English (Anglo-Saxon) is descended from a form of Frisian. Frisian dialects are still found in Holland & Germany I believe. There is some commonality with many English Midland's dialects.

---

Still, despite English and Dutch being related, I find English a very much more nuanced language. Older Dutch (until the 1950s) was much more nuanced than it is now because almost all words are considered archaic for some reason by the governing body. English has no organisation like the French have it too that dictates what is right, wrong, outdated or what-not. That is the problem in my mind. Translating, you are practically forced to use archaic words because modern words are not nuanced enough to say what is said in the original. Your scope is very narrow. Three synonyms is the most I think. Look in an English thesaurus: at least five words you can use, if not more, before descending into the depths of old posh words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anna_MAlkovych

kiki1982, maybe I explained not well enough, the thing with nos - was nowhere it was an example of untranslatable cases, there is a well known phrase - If nobody is perfect, then hello my name is nobody. I once tried to translate in Russian and couldn't - well the translation was made but it had to be commented - explaining English grammar peculiarities - It was like this in Russian: если никто не идеален, тогда я никто, but it has no sense at if make word by word translation again it’ll be - if nobody is not perfect, then I am nobody, it is like saying if Jane is not perfect, then I am Jane, it is clearly not the thing meant in the original. Well I found some way to make it, but it came out more optimistic and not that sarcastic - Никто не идеален, но моё имя не никто. _- If translated - Nobody is perfect, but my name is not nobody, In Russian it actually sounds good and means that there is nobody ideal, but then I am somebody

If go back to Chehov – it is really difficult to explain, but it just didn’t feel like him. The way people speak in small towns is different, he picked that up well, but I think things like this can’t be translated there must be made an interpretation if one is translation for example for British he must take for example small British town and British manners, cause if you never saw it you never get it. Even some of my friends so not get how brilliant he is, cause they never lived even for a month in a tiny town, so I explained them what he meant and all they could say : ooohhh, the truth they got nothing of the feeling of the book

---

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I really wanted to understand and I congratulate myself that I see what you meant (my Russian is getting there then!).

I guess the way to translate Chechov into English then would be to make the players on the stage speak dialect of some kind? But then it is the question if you can pull that off easily because in most languages dialects are narrower than the main language...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Still, despite English and Dutch being related, I find English a very much more nuanced language. Older Dutch (until the 1950s) was much more nuanced than it is now because almost all words are considered archaic for some reason by the governing body.

---

Seven out of ten spoken English words in any sentence are still virtually Anglo-Saxon but the Chancery English influence 1476 - 1776 CE (Latinate &/or Norman-French content) gets higher in written English. It is interesting that any of the nuance words (including the noun 'nuance') are of French origin. Then you have some Dane influence, so we sort of have three languages in one. Fundamental concepts seem to be expressed in the Germanic base to English & more advanced ones are often expressed in Latinate loan words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

English has no organisation like the French have it too that dictates what is right, wrong, outdated or what-not.

---

LOL, thank god!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

That is the problem in my mind. Translating, you are practically forced to use archaic words because modern words are not nuanced enough to say what is said in the original. Your scope is very narrow. Three synonyms is the most I think. Look in an English thesaurus: at least five words you can use, if not more, before descending into the depths of old posh words.

---

I think grammatical cases can be a bit of a stumbling block as well. To the English the idea of engendered definite/indefinite articles (the, a, an) is ridiculous. Balto-Slavic languages, in the main, have no definite or indefinite articles at all.