4 ms·

> be good at fighting DAE think this kind of translation is evidence of subtle racism? I find myself reacting negatively to such simplistic English, and reflec

> be good at fighting DAE think this kind of translation is evidence of subtle racism? I find myself reacting negatively to such simplistic English, and reflecting poorly on the speaker, until I remind myself that it's the translator's choice of words I'm reacting to, not whatever the speaker actually said. Moreover, I find translations like this are more often applied to certain languages than others, especially Chinese, and especially in this article. Supplemental theory: this very direct and literal style of translation may be common in the political sphere, which is perhaps why I associate it with translations of Chinese in particular. However, in this case the subtle racism or at least tendency to make Chinese leaders seem less intelligent does far more damage to recipients of these translations than to the original speakers, insofar as it leads them to underestimate their opponents. Or I may just be overreacting to a poor/style-lacking translation.

fisf 4y ago
I am rather concerned about the message, than the particular choice of words. Because the message is downright authoritarian and militaristic, aggressive -- no matter how eloquently it is formulated, it is inherently crude.
- kelipso 4y ago
  We must be prepared to defend ourselves at any time, talk softly and carry a big stick, department of defense, etc etc
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> I find myself reacting negatively to such simplistic English, and reflecting poorly on the speaker, until I remind myself that it's the translator's choice of words I'm reacting to, not whatever the speaker actually said. It turns out that you'll find this on globaltimes and chinadaily, and it is basically a literal translation of what was said/reported in Chinese that just doesn't come off very well in English. I think it is more of a cultural translation that isn't being done rather than any actual bias in the translation. And doing a cultural translation wouldn't be very accurate with what was said.
- firstlink 4y ago
  It seems more basic than "cultural translation", which suggests changing the literal meaning to match cultural norms. It's stylistic. I obviously can't speak to the accuracy of this relative to the original, but I would suggest "fight well" rather than "be good at fighting". I guess technically that could change the meaning, since "be good at fighting" only implies abstract skill whereas "fight well" implies applied skill. If someone with access to the original confirmed that no, really, the original only implied abstract skill and so this was a very careful translation which favored literal accuracy over very deeply ingrained stylistic requirements, that would be one thing; but I must confess I'm very skeptical that this is the case. What would need to be the case for this to be a "good" translation would be that there is a free choice of terminology in the original dialect to distinguish these two cases, and the "abstract skill" case was used. Otherwise, it was the translator's choice to use the stylistically lacking translation, and that could be bias.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    I don't think translators get to make these kinds of calls at all. > Otherwise, it was the translator's choice to use the stylistically lacking translation, and that could be bias. Again, all you have to do is read China's own pro-CPC English translations in the English media they ship to the world to figure out that there isn't any particular bias from the article on this point. Or you could argue that the way China teaches English translations isn't very good, which is valid. I'm pretty sure in either case the translator was probably trained in a mainland Chinese university.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I sometimes order things directly from China off Aliexpress et al, and I can say that that sounds more or less like the kinds of things they write (presumably native Chinese speakers with a decent grasp of English). They'll write things like, "this isn't great but it's cheap" or "if you want something perfect you'll need to spend a lot more money". I actually find it pretty refreshing coming from American culture where every interaction with some sort of product marketing just feels full of weasel words which makes me think I'm getting scammed.

fisf 4y ago

I am rather concerned about the message, than the particular choice of words. Because the message is downright authoritarian and militaristic, aggressive -- no matter how eloquently it is formulated, it is inherently crude.

kelipso 4y ago
We must be prepared to defend ourselves at any time, talk softly and carry a big stick, department of defense, etc etc

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> I find myself reacting negatively to such simplistic English, and reflecting poorly on the speaker, until I remind myself that it's the translator's choice of words I'm reacting to, not whatever the speaker actually said. It turns out that you'll find this on globaltimes and chinadaily, and it is basically a literal translation of what was said/reported in Chinese that just doesn't come off very well in English. I think it is more of a cultural translation that isn't being done rather than any actual bias in the translation. And doing a cultural translation wouldn't be very accurate with what was said.

firstlink 4y ago
It seems more basic than "cultural translation", which suggests changing the literal meaning to match cultural norms. It's stylistic. I obviously can't speak to the accuracy of this relative to the original, but I would suggest "fight well" rather than "be good at fighting". I guess technically that could change the meaning, since "be good at fighting" only implies abstract skill whereas "fight well" implies applied skill. If someone with access to the original confirmed that no, really, the original only implied abstract skill and so this was a very careful translation which favored literal accuracy over very deeply ingrained stylistic requirements, that would be one thing; but I must confess I'm very skeptical that this is the case. What would need to be the case for this to be a "good" translation would be that there is a free choice of terminology in the original dialect to distinguish these two cases, and the "abstract skill" case was used. Otherwise, it was the translator's choice to use the stylistically lacking translation, and that could be bias.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  I don't think translators get to make these kinds of calls at all. > Otherwise, it was the translator's choice to use the stylistically lacking translation, and that could be bias. Again, all you have to do is read China's own pro-CPC English translations in the English media they ship to the world to figure out that there isn't any particular bias from the article on this point. Or you could argue that the way China teaches English translations isn't very good, which is valid. I'm pretty sure in either case the translator was probably trained in a mainland Chinese university.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I sometimes order things directly from China off Aliexpress et al, and I can say that that sounds more or less like the kinds of things they write (presumably native Chinese speakers with a decent grasp of English). They'll write things like, "this isn't great but it's cheap" or "if you want something perfect you'll need to spend a lot more money". I actually find it pretty refreshing coming from American culture where every interaction with some sort of product marketing just feels full of weasel words which makes me think I'm getting scammed.