mgorny-nyan (he) :autism:🙀🚂🐧 on Nostr: Sometimes I hear the following quote repeated (in Poland): "#Translation is like a ...
Sometimes I hear the following quote repeated (in Poland): "#Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful." (Polish internets claim George Bernard Shaw as the author, English speaking claim Евге́ний Алекса́ндрович Евтуше́нко, and most likely neither of them, see: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/75716/what-is-the-history-of-translation-is-like-a-woman-quote ). However, I disagree with that. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a faithful translation, just like two languages aren't equivalent to each other.
Every text has many layers. There are the words of the author, their literal meaning, but also the author's intention. Sometimes there's a double entendre, a word play. Then rhymes, the rhythm, sounds, syntax. All kinds of experiences carried through language; not just through the meaning, but also the audiovisual form. And then, there's the recipient, who can perceive other layers, other meanings that the author never intended, but that also have their own value and that can be lost in translation.
That's why I don't think that any translation can be truly faithful. The translator is not a machine that converts foreign words into a familiar language. They are a recipient and a creator. They take the role of the reader, sometimes many different kinds of readers at the same time, and simultaneously the role of the author. They have to create a translation that's going to read well, yet keep as many meanings of the original as possible. They need to choose what to keep, and what to lose as irrelevant. It's a hard choice, and it's easy to make a mistake.
It's also worth to include translator's comments, explaining the context, other possible meanings. Sometimes you cite the original, and explain what's lost in translation.
Besides, it's worth nothing that this kind of comments are precisely what makes "amateur" subtitles different from "professional". These "amateurs" often care about creating the best translation, rather than just rubber stamping the movie for release.
Every text has many layers. There are the words of the author, their literal meaning, but also the author's intention. Sometimes there's a double entendre, a word play. Then rhymes, the rhythm, sounds, syntax. All kinds of experiences carried through language; not just through the meaning, but also the audiovisual form. And then, there's the recipient, who can perceive other layers, other meanings that the author never intended, but that also have their own value and that can be lost in translation.
That's why I don't think that any translation can be truly faithful. The translator is not a machine that converts foreign words into a familiar language. They are a recipient and a creator. They take the role of the reader, sometimes many different kinds of readers at the same time, and simultaneously the role of the author. They have to create a translation that's going to read well, yet keep as many meanings of the original as possible. They need to choose what to keep, and what to lose as irrelevant. It's a hard choice, and it's easy to make a mistake.
It's also worth to include translator's comments, explaining the context, other possible meanings. Sometimes you cite the original, and explain what's lost in translation.
Besides, it's worth nothing that this kind of comments are precisely what makes "amateur" subtitles different from "professional". These "amateurs" often care about creating the best translation, rather than just rubber stamping the movie for release.