On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:33:39 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
>
>U?ytkownik "Mujin" <baka@hornedking.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>news:5jus20t93otdn9iq22h6aagamgc4sec6k1@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:02:49 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>> <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >U?ytkownik "Mujin" <baka@hornedking.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>> >news:hens209vg2g72vedir0cpcdeuauumfssak@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:00:37 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>> >> <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >U?ytkownik "Mujin" <baka@hornedking.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>> >> >news:bgfs20li5pnobgeaub6l0bfdpvt2fkuh2h@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:41:14 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>> >> >> <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >U?ytkownik "Mujin" <baka@hornedking.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>> >> >> >news:2ttq2099jts2u65hin31nbethpibnv30qv@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:13:35 +0000 (UTC), Cheezits
>> >> >> >> <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >[etc.]
>> >> >> >> >> He said "Alexey, you didn't translate what I said". To which
>the
>> >> >> >> >> translator said. "No, I translated what you OUGHT to have
>said."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sometimes good translation is like that.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >That is not good translation. That is lying.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's not any kind of translation, actually. It's the kind of
>> >> >> >> distortion that can lead to a professional association certified
>> >> >> >> translator suddenly becoming an uncertified translator, if you
>take
>> >my
>> >> >> >> meaning. Clients aren't paying for paraphrasing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >In what country?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In any country in which I have worked as a translator.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You obviously haven't heard of 'dynamic equivalence'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I certainly have - but paraphrasing isn't dynamic equivalence. In
>> >> >> your "parable" the intended message of the client was drastically
>> >> >> changed as a result of paraphrase. The point of dynamic equivalence
>> >> >> is to replace highly idiomatic or culturally specific (and therefore
>> >> >> poorly interchangeable) terms with terms which, while having
>different
>> >> >> literal meanings, carry roughly the same nuance. Thus, one would
>not
>> >> >> translate the Japanese term "kusojiji" as "stinky grandfather" in
>> >> >> English - although the literal meaning is obviously intended as an
>> >> >> insult, it doesn't have any particular meaning. "Old fart" would be
>> >> >> closer to the intended meaning - and of course would not be
>translated
>> >> >> as "furui he" in Japanese since it doesn't really mean anything
>> >> >> (although the intent is obvious).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Naturally, dynamic equivalence can be applied to larger
>constructions
>> >> >> as well, but the intent of the original author should never be
>> >> >> changed. This is why interpreters often serve as cultural
>consultants
>> >> >> for their clients - cutting off inappropriate modes of communication
>> >> >> before they start. I have on more than one occasion advised clients
>> >> >> on the most culturally appropriate approach to a meeting, and of
>> >> >> course I always use dynamic equivalence to properly render the
>> >> >> client's idioms where I think it's appropriate.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But actually changing the client's meaning? That would be a lie.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> K
>> >> >
>> >> >In this case, it involved the use of higher skills. Would you rather
>lie
>> >or
>> >> >be an accessory to murder?
>> >>
>> >> I would rather stop interpreting and recommend to the client he
>> >> moderate his language as the terms he is using are likely to provoke a
>> >> violent reaction in his audience than violate my contract (and
>> >> possibly commit fraud depending on local laws) by presenting a
>> >> translation that is not true to both the literal meaning and intent of
>> >> the original.
>> >>
>> >> But then I require clients to provide me with a precis of
>> >> presentations/speeches ahead of time, followed by a consultation on
>> >> appropriate modes of delivery for the audience. I don't personally
>> >> know a translator who doesn't follow this procedure for public
>> >> speaking engagements.
>> >> --
>> >> K
>> >
>> >This guy worked for the factory. What could he do?
>>
>> So, to get things straight, he wasn't a professional translator but
>> someone who happened to be able to speak both languages with some
>> proficiency? Or do you mean he *was* a professional, but receiving
>> his pay cheque from the factory rather than from the speaker?
>>
>> In the first case, it would have behooved him to ask for a copy of the
>> "speech" in advance so that it could be translated line by line, with
>> the two of them alternating (original first, of course). This is what
>> I've seen done in other circumstances. The only alternative is to
>> simply ask the speaker to pause at logical points and then provide a
>> summary of what was said in the target language. Note that this isn't
>> translation: it's a brief summary of what the bilingual individual
>> understands the speaker to have meant.
>>
>> In the second case, he may have been employed by the factory but at
>> that moment in time his job was to serve the needs of the foreign
>> guest; as such the guest is temporarily his client and deserves the
>> same level of service as any other client.
>>
>> You're right, in that circumstance, knowing what to do and how to do
>> it without letting anyone get unnecessarily offended (or injured!) is
>> a very complex and difficult problem.
>>
>> That's why full time professional interpreters ask so much for their
>> services.
>>
>> (I only rarely serve as an interpreter, and translate sporadically, so
>> I don't count as a full-time professional interpreter FWIW)
>> --
>> K
>>
>> While the cat's away, the mice can play.
>> Proverb of Unknown Origin
>>
>
>I can tell you something, a text translator has to have only a fraction of
>the diplomacy and interpersonal skill that a business facilitator who is
>translating does.
This is something I already know - as I said, I *do* serve as an
interpreter, I just don't do it often. In the past, I have had to do
it more often than I do now.
>
>This guy felt embarrassed about it afterwards, but I said to him, Alexey,
>you did the right thing. It was part of his loyalty to the chief not to let
>the chief wreck the entire project andf put his own health at risk. Later
>on, it was others such as me and the general director locally who explained
>to him about not talking that way.
In the moral sense of wanting to prevent an unnecessary altercation,
his goal was the right thing. There are better ways of achieving it
unless you have been paid to be a simultaneous translator, a job you
couldn't pay me enough to do.
--
K
I don't know. I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference.
--Jack Kerouac
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 |
|