TASK 1:
Do a short freewrite about WHAT IS BETTER: TO TRANSLATE AS LITERALLY AS POSSIBLE, OR TO SAY IT ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LANGUAGE'S CUSTOMS AND IDIOMS, THUS LOSING PARTS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND THE AUTHOR'S STYLE?
Publish your quickwrite on this blog as a comment.
TASK 2: Read the texts (6 pages) in the following
INSTRUCTIONS:
Click on the first SMALL one of the six images you see. Then, click on the MAGNIFYING GLASS symbol on your right side (because the original texts are very small). When you've enlargened the image with the magnifying glass, pull the page up and down with the cursor, so you're able to read the whole page.
When you've read the six pages, answer the following essay questions, and EMAIL THEM TO ME:
1) What do you think about the different translations of the same original text from Homer? Which one is your favorite?
2) What are the reasons for different translations of the same text?
3)If you translated a text, what would influence you, and what would you try to do?
4) Do you think human translators will ever become unnecessary?
5) What would you prefer to read - books in their original versions, or as an English translation?
6) Can there be a perfect translation?
7) for extra credit (makes up for one missed blog response from the past): Find an online translation engine, and email me a long German sentence of at least 10 words that you translated from English, and which you think I can understand.
22 comments:
I think it is better to translate leaving things a literal as possible. I think it is very important to not edit an author's work in any way, shape or form. I think if a translator changes and author's work or text that it is kind of like plagiarism. It's important to translate as closely to the author's work as possible.
I would try to stay as close to the original text as possible. However, when translating from one language to another you come across various problems with compatibility. Some languages cannot be translated literally into another language because the language you are translating it into may not have the same vocabulary. I would translate a piece as literally as possible only changing things if it is necessary for the new text to be understandable.
Being that I am in a lot of Medieval literature class, I find that there are a lot of problems with not translating literally. This is because the text and writing can be easily misinterpreted when the text has been translated into our own modern terms. However, reading a literal translation can be a problem as well because it might not make any sense and it might be harder to understand what the author is trying to say. It really depends on the text that is being translated and how much the form means to the overall tone or effect of the piece. I have read both kinds and see problems with both types of translations.
Most often languages will not fully translate from one language to another. Therefore it is necessary to get it as close as possible to the language you are trying to translate it into. This is extremely evident when translating into English because English is extremely different from other languages. Many times when translating there is a verb or adjective, etc. that cannot be expressed in English, thus the English translation will get near to the meaning of the original but will most likely not be true to the other language. In syntax it is important to get an English translation in the end, but to look at the grammar of the sentence to discover the true meaning.
I think that it is better to translate according to your own words rather than trying to copy the writer's. This shows that you understand what you are reading. It could make it easier for someone else to understand if they were able to read it several different ways.
Translation should be as literal and unbiased as possible. When the intended receiver gets the translation, he/she can make inferences. If the translator makes his/her own inferences, the message will be lost and unintentional implications can be made to the intended receiver.
I think it depends on the text that is being translated. A set of directions or a piece of literature might require different types of translation. In many the things I read I prefer to have things translated in a way that best expresses the original authors ideas in my own language.
I think it is important to translate as literally as possible because certain languages have meanings for words that others do not. Thus, the meaning of the sentence could be lost in translation if manipulated to follow the speaking customs of the translator.
I believe it is important to translate word for word. The author wrote these lines and words for a reason and I don't think it's fair to translate something and "lose" their work and ideas. It's almost as if we were "rewriting" the story for them. How upset would an English author be if we rewrote their story.
I think that perhaps the translator should be able to deviate from the original text. Because translations are taken out of context of the original culture, the translator should be able to put the meaning of the text back into context in the other culture. In trying to stay to the true meaning of a text, the translator should be able to slightly change the grammatical structure in order to make it more comprehensible to the readers.
I believe that if the literature is in another language then it is good to translate as literally as possible so you don't lose part of the original text or the cultural feel of the text. I believe that once you read and understand a text in a literal fashion then it is ok to expand and interpret it according to your beliefs. It is important to understand what the poem is saying according to the original focus of the text. One reason we read texts from other countries is because we want to learn about their culture. If we translate using our beliefs and not staying true to the text then we are taking away the purpose of the translation and our reason for reading the text in the first place.
I think that the translation should be changed in some small ways so as to incorporate the different aspects of different cultures. While it may not be exactly the same as the original version, i think that it will better serve its purpose to its audience. While not a literal translation, it is a translation extremely similar to the original version with more potential to captivate the reader. By transferring culutral ideas, traits, and idioms the text will give the reader a better chance to relate to the writing.
It all depends on the reason why you are translating. If you are translating colloquial writings, you can translate less literally and just get the ideas. Academic translations like philosophy usually warrant a more literal translation. Translating poetry can be difficult. A literal translation is usually better to get the feel for the poetry. But you may mis some of the beauty because it is making cultural allusions. In this case you have to translate the allusions into the new language to communicate the metaphor. Reading the text in the original language is always preferable but not always practical.
Bryan Norbut
WHAT IS BETTER: TO TRANSLATE AS LITERALLY AS POSSIBLE, OR TO SAY IT ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LANGUAGE'S CUSTOMS AND IDIOMS, THUS LOSING PARTS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND THE AUTHOR'S STYLE?
I believe it is better to translate according to one's own language customs and idioms. Translations are usually very accurate with exceptions to certain grammar rules which do or do not apply to another language. Trying to literally translate something will not necessarily make in another language.
Translation can be a pretty tricky subject. Once word can make such a big difference. One big problem of translation is that some languages have words meaning things that just aren't in other languages. The example I immediately think of is the word "love". In Greek, I think it is, there are three words for love: agape(sacrificial love), eros (passionate love), and philia (friendship love). English just doesn't have that variance in the word. I think that a good translation would be somewhere between a literal translation and a free translation, ideally by a scholar of the text, conveying the emotion and meaning of the text. That is the most important thing.
--bonnie bilyeu
I think that it is important to translate as literally as possible. This way you can maintain the style in which the author was trying to maintain.
Amanda Yates
I think that if you are capable of translating so that original text does not lose meaning is it very important especially since it is in another author’s words and not your own. When you write in your own texts, in your own style then feel free to use your own customs and idioms. However when translating certain texts such as poetry it would be hard to keep the style and meaning so I think that the meaning is what is more important even if you lose the rhythm and rhyme.
I think that it is better to translate according to your own languages customs and idioms. I think that because if it is translated literally I think that the message can be changed. Sometimes if one thing is meant in one language, it isn't meant the same way in another.
i do feel that one should stick to the text. Changing things can compromise the integrity of the work. Any translation that is made should be made very evident to the reader
I think that it is better to translate it using your own customs and ways of thinking. That being said, it is of critical importance to have a deep understanding of the text first, before translating. The issue here is attempting to convey as much of the original meaning as possible.
I think to leave words as literal as possible is better, because each language has its own understanding contextually.
I think it is better to translate as literally as possible. The author's message can get lost and this could hinder the flow of the text and cramp the style. I completely understand that it is very difficult to translate everything literally, however, I think that the match should be as close as possible.
Post a Comment