On translations (a reply to a locked thread)

[LanternWaste]

Doggone it! A reasonable (as far as I know) thread got locked before I could make a response, and I'm just not going to let my reply go to waste, because translating another languages in today's political climate is very topical and relevant. So I'm just repost my response which makes one point with two examples and no summation (and the crowd rejoiced...).


I agree. Translations are a tricky animal-- especially when looking a contemporary translations that are overshadowed by political biases.

I think we've all heard the story about Premier Khrushchev banging his show on the table at a U.N. meeting and saying, "...we will bury you." Well, some years back I was reading a translation of a Russian (post-communist regime) college textbook relating that same story. Turns out (according to this textbook) that Khrushchev was merely saying something to the effect of, "...we will be there long after your country has died of its own volition, and we will be there when you are buried".

Quite a difference from "We will bury you" mantra the Premier was vilified with. One is aggressive and posturing, while the other is a position statement (maybe still posturing, yet not aggressive at all).

Another example of how a translation can be garbled, even when the wording is precisely and accurately translated-- One summer I was in Hungary. I was staying with a young lady who spoke fluent, but not conversational English. A situation arose that prompted me to say, "well.. the shoe is on the other foot now." She looked at me very strangely for some time and asked, "why do you speak of shoes and feet?"

That's when I realized that many of our colloquialisms simply will not translate, regardless of how accurate the translation may be (It's also colored my re-readings of various translations of the Bible, but that's a story for a different epoch).

Does one translate the words themselves, or the meaning of the words together? Do cultural differences make any differences? Is there more context to a statement or story not included in the translation? These are questions I think we should ask ourselves any time we read or hear something originally written or said in a language foriegn to our own.

That's all. Now back to your regularly scheduled posts.... :)

[wtmusic]

1. Why do you speak of "posts" and "thread"?

:D

[sinkingfeeling]

2. I think you were replying to my post that I didn't trust 'official' translations

of Farsi.

[Dr.Phool]

3. And do you have socks with those shoes?

[Jackpine Radical]

4. And if socks have toes,

why don't mittens have fingers?

[madinmaryland]

5. My wife uses cliches all of the time.

It's interesting to watch children get confused by these, as they understand everything literally!

[Karenina]

6. You make a VERY IMPORTANT point.

Communication intent is inextricably tied to context. Translation is crucial in understanding the difference between an opinion and a threat.
Americans, particularly, seize the sound bite with glee and consistently REFUSE to consider the subtleties of language. It's a problem...

[Igel]

7. The Khrushchev blip was ambiguous.

My vas pokhoronim. Hence the problem: It literally means "we will bury you", and in the face of politics a translator usually retreats into something that's more or less lexeme by lexeme, keeping the word choice and number as similar to the source as possible--assuming that this doesn't constitute a mistranslation. The usual translation catches the ambiguity perfectly.

Khrushchev later said he meant just that Soviet communism would last longer than Western capitalism. But there was a shitstorm between the utterance and his "repudiation" of what the West said he meant. The truth is gone, completely unascertainable. Those that were hostile to the USSR said it was a threat; those conciliatory said otherwise. The Soviet press at the time took it as a bold, provocative statement; but then again, they had to, and both meanings of "we will bury you" were firmly embedded in Soviet political doctrine.

ATA guidelines say to go word-by-word when you can on their certification tests; you have to choose the right word (think "register", not just meaning), and you have to make sure that information flow is the same. But recasting entire sentences is generally considered a bad thing, not because it makes grading the tests hard, but because it *can* yield bad translations. Bad translators recast sentences to produce bad translations and hide their inability to do a good translation. But idioms and some phrases just don't do the word-by-word business; then, when possible, you translate by idiom, but you always translate the meaning.

Now, there's a cultural component, and the question of whether one translates to produce the same response from the reader/listener as from a native speaker of the source language. One notorious (?) translation company tries to provide translations that read like originals; some translation theorists agree with him. The translators are to fill in whatever cultural information is needed and make them what an American would have written in the other guy's shoes. One editor I had insisted that words similar to the words in the source language be used, even if they were archaic or sound damned strange in English. And some scholars argue that part of a good translation is making sure what's foreign sounds foreign.

As another editor said, however: "Ambiguity is your friend."

[scisyhp1]

9. There is no ambiguity in "My vas pokhoronim".

It is an often used Russian expression meaning simply "we will attend your
funeral" or "we will outlive you". In Rusian "to bury" does mean both (i)
literally put into the ground and (ii) attend a funeral ceremony, but only
the lattar meaning is a colloqialism which implies no hostility and is used
almost always jokingly.

[Ms. Clio]

12. thank you for some clarity amidst the usual long-winded obfuscation

[Coexist]

8. I read a book once (fiction), which contained an interesting passage

regarding "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" from the bible.

He was discussing with another preacher how the word for "camel" also can be translated to mean "coarse thread."

I don't know if that is true or not, but how it changes the passage! Given the choice between something that is tricky or difficult - or something that is quite impossible, I can see how many left their fortunes to the church before taking vows at the end of their lives in the Middle Ages.

Does anyone know if the above premise is true? Can the word have the second meaning?

Thanks in advance.

[eridani]

14. I've actually seen that explanation

Apparently it could have been a transcription error of a single letter that changed from "rope" or "heavy thread" to "camel". Similar to misreading "cat" and "cut". You could put heavy thread through a needle, albeit with great difficulty. Makes far more sense as a metaphor that way.

[nashville_brook]

10. "monolanguage centric" -- like monoseasonal-centric

"April is the creullest month" has no meaning to a native Floridian.

That meaning shifts with cultural reference has no meaning to monocultural Americans. we pick the meaning we prefer and go with it.

now more than ever translations are manipulated for political gain. the thread you reference had to do with the translations of leaders on the international stage -- imagine for a moment how BUSH'S words fall on the ears of other cultures with their own language centricism. how the fuck does "i'm the decider" translate into Farsi? or any other inflammatory babble he spews. it's terrifying to think how other cultures might be interpreting his ramblings. we hope against hope that other countries struggle to understand -- to gain contextual meaning -- before they take action on some blather this administration spills in the international press.

it's my hope against hope that we take the same care -- but i KNOW that isn't going to happen. it's too difficult. prejudice that can't be scaled with murky language. where there is ambiguity, the "reader" interprets according to their "needs." to do otherwise would be an act far too generous. it might result in backing down from a fight, and lord, we can't have that.

[populistdriven]

11. the iranian translation about israel was completely wrong - there was a thread somewhere...

[Fovea]

13. The classic story about Machine translation

involves a sentence from the Wall Street Journal translated by an application into Japanese, thence back into English.

The twice translated string was--
'Guests mail large tumor'
The target string--

'Company posts sizable growth.'

[eridani]

15. Or the classic English to Russian to English--

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak = The vodka is good but the meat is rotten.

[REP]

16. Another Classic:

Out of sight, out of mind = invisible, insane

[piesRsquare]

17. Please post more of these!

Those cracked me up!

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

18. I learned this as a child of an immigrant

Life as an immigrants kid was always entertaining! My mother always got all of the little sayings wrong. "That's the way the cookie bounces..." is one that we still use today. My favoite however was when we were sitting outside a local gym and mom mother says to me "Look at all those men "pushing steel"!

[LeftishBrit]

19. I don't know if this is true or an urban legend...

but it's said that Jimmy Carter once visited Poland and made a speech which included a sentence to the effect that "I desire an understanding with the Poles". It got translated as "I desire the Poles carnally"!

It's also said that a British MP campaigned in a Chinese area of his town, with a slogan that began "Vote for Mr. X". Unfortunately this was translated by a not very competent translator so that it came out meaning, "Get Knotted, says Mr. X".

ETA: With most political speeches, I doubt that translations are the main source of misunderstanding. Context may be. A message that implies "I hate all members of country X and would like to kill them" may be merely unpleasant if a leader has no earthly means of attacking country X and is just grandstanding to show his own hardliners how tough he is; while it may be truly dangerous if the same leader has some real means of putting his threats into action.