4 ms·
I don't think translation is even a solved problem for a human fluent in both languages. The ideal is to write what the original author would have written, if t
by philh 13y ago
I don't think translation is even a solved problem for a human fluent in both languages. The ideal is to write what the original author would have written, if they were writing fluently in the target language. Sometimes that means they would have written something that doesn't have the same literal meaning. If a pun doesn't work in the target language, a fluent writer would have used a different pun, but how do you know which?
Even if you want to preserve literal meaning, an example that comes to mind, but which I can't quickly source: IIRC the original Metroid manual, in Japanese, referred to Samus with a gender-neutral pronoun. In English, you basically can't do that without calling attention to it. 'They' and 'he/she' are unusual enough to read awkwardly; 'it' and 'he' would be incorrect; and 'she' would give away the twist. Whatever you choose, you're losing something, and it's a judgment call as to what.
- whiddershins 13y agoI believe that technically, in English, "he" is the correct gender neutral pronoun. It just feels wrong so people commonly try to find other options.
- _delirium 13y agoIt's been surprisingly fluid over the history of English. One interesting bit to read about is the history of "singular they", i.e. the use of "they" in sentences such as "if a person wishes to gain access, they must enter the code". This was fairly common in pre-19th-century English, then fell out of favor in the 19th and early 20th centuries as grammarians considered it incorrect ("they" was deemed solely a plural pronoun), and now it's making a comeback as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. The construction "he or she" also has usage going back centuries, as a different approach to that. And as you note, the use of "he" as a stand-in pronoun is also traditional, but falling a bit out of favor lately. Overall I don't think there is one correct answer for how English deals with that situation; it varies across writers and eras.
- malnourish 13y agoAs _delirium said, the singular "they" has been making a comeback and will likely earn its place in academic writing in a generation.
- Houshalter 13y agoUntil we get human level AI that's going to be impossible. But decent translation of "normal" writing is certainly possible and "good enough".
- bodhi 13y ago> The ideal is to write what the original author would have written, if they were writing fluently in the target language. [...] If a pun doesn't work in the target language, a fluent writer would have used a different pun, but how do you know which? Umberto Eco, in Mouse Or Rat?[1], describes two different approaches to translation, (I'm paraphrasing here) source vs. target. Your example is a good one, but it actually only touches on grammatical differences. There are cultural differences too. For example, if I'm translating a cricket (the sport)-themed story from Australian English into Japanese, do I retain the cricket references, and have the meaning be unintelligible to Japanese readers with no knowledge of cricket? This is what Eco refers to as source translation, which is closer to a literal translation. Or I could change the cricket references to baseball, which is more appropriate in a Japanese context, and Eco refers to as target translation. The purpose here is to convey the feeling, more than remaining true to the literal meaning of the original text. [1]: http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Mouse_Or_Rat.html?id=I4FtQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Mouse_Or_Rat.html?id=...