3 ms·

This already happened for a long time with translations, I assume because it's easier to get away with mistranslation of originals. It's common to translate a p

This already happened for a long time with translations, I assume because it's easier to get away with mistranslation of originals. It's common to translate a phrase into the most current version of the phrase in the target language and to update the translation regularly. To me this always felt very noticeable, doing this requires an impressive level of entitlement to take a great work of literature and add your own artistry on top of it. I vaguely imagine you should get hard prison time for violating great works of literature like that, but that's just me. It's akin to defacing paintings or statues to hide genitalia which happened in the past.

tivert 3y ago
> This already happened for a long time with translations, I assume because it's easier to get away with mistranslation of originals. It's common to translate a phrase into the most current version of the phrase in the target language and to update the translation regularly. To me this always felt very noticeable, doing this requires an impressive level of entitlement to take a great work of literature and add your own artistry on top of it. Isn't that "impressive level of entitlement" a basic requirement for translation? It does take artistry to make a translation. Even if you're not going for a literary result, there are always going to be meanings that exist (or can be expressed efficiently) on one language but not the other. Then there are idioms and cultural references.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Indeed, to the point where translations are often known relative to their translator because the translator is often part of what makes a given edition of a work.
burnished 3y ago
My understanding was that this is a requirement of translation, specifically because many things do not translate literally? Like wordplay, or idioms, or euphemisms.
watwut 3y ago
> It's common to translate a phrase into the most current version of the phrase in the target language That is correct way of translating and not an violation. If the original author wrote the book with contemporary style, pleasant to read to people at the time, proper translation will produce contemporary text. There is no reason to use archaisms or outdated language in translation if the original author was not using archaisms or outdated language.
arp242 3y ago
Translations are a tricky thing in general. For example this article mentions "queer" and it's very hard to translate, or "gay" to give another well-known example. I dislike changing these sort of words because they have a particular "old-fashioned feeling" to them, and if you change the word then you change that "feeling". But I wouldn't know how to translate that to Dutch; there simple aren't archaic words that mean the same, AFAIK, so you will have to convey that feeling in another way. Or what more often happens is that it will just get lost – and that's okay as a translation will never be the same as the original in any case. (Aside: I also think that no one is "offended" by these sort of words, as they deliberately co-opted archaic words for their movements; everyone understands that older writings will use these words in their original meaning and no one has a problem with that. If you do, then you're a rather queer person IMO.)
UncleMeat 3y ago
It is not possible to translate a work without adding yourself to it. There is no neutral or flat translation option. "Traduttore, traditore," as has been said for centuries. You can think that a particular translation is poor, but there isn't a choice between a translation that does and does not add the artistry of the translator.

tivert 3y ago

> This already happened for a long time with translations, I assume because it's easier to get away with mistranslation of originals. It's common to translate a phrase into the most current version of the phrase in the target language and to update the translation regularly. To me this always felt very noticeable, doing this requires an impressive level of entitlement to take a great work of literature and add your own artistry on top of it. Isn't that "impressive level of entitlement" a basic requirement for translation? It does take artistry to make a translation. Even if you're not going for a literary result, there are always going to be meanings that exist (or can be expressed efficiently) on one language but not the other. Then there are idioms and cultural references.

vidarh 3y ago
Indeed, to the point where translations are often known relative to their translator because the translator is often part of what makes a given edition of a work.

burnished 3y ago

My understanding was that this is a requirement of translation, specifically because many things do not translate literally? Like wordplay, or idioms, or euphemisms.

watwut 3y ago

> It's common to translate a phrase into the most current version of the phrase in the target language That is correct way of translating and not an violation. If the original author wrote the book with contemporary style, pleasant to read to people at the time, proper translation will produce contemporary text. There is no reason to use archaisms or outdated language in translation if the original author was not using archaisms or outdated language.

arp242 3y ago

Translations are a tricky thing in general. For example this article mentions "queer" and it's very hard to translate, or "gay" to give another well-known example. I dislike changing these sort of words because they have a particular "old-fashioned feeling" to them, and if you change the word then you change that "feeling". But I wouldn't know how to translate that to Dutch; there simple aren't archaic words that mean the same, AFAIK, so you will have to convey that feeling in another way. Or what more often happens is that it will just get lost – and that's okay as a translation will never be the same as the original in any case. (Aside: I also think that no one is "offended" by these sort of words, as they deliberately co-opted archaic words for their movements; everyone understands that older writings will use these words in their original meaning and no one has a problem with that. If you do, then you're a rather queer person IMO.)

UncleMeat 3y ago

It is not possible to translate a work without adding yourself to it. There is no neutral or flat translation option. "Traduttore, traditore," as has been said for centuries. You can think that a particular translation is poor, but there isn't a choice between a translation that does and does not add the artistry of the translator.