So I’m a translator by profession, and, at the risk of sounding boastful, my foreign language skills are better than those of a lot of people. Although technically what I specialise in is “languages”, I find myself believing that the subject of communication, in the real world, matters when producing translation work of the right quality level that will do the job. It’s a broad topic, I know – one that is easy to talk about in terms that are vague, where points are not necessarily backed up by solid arguments – but nevertheless an essential one.
In this comment I want to touch on the subject of writing for oneself. Don’t we agree that people get attached to their own writing? I think we do – certainly if the public policies that the French have had prohibiting the use of franglais are anything to go by. And I think that people say that a person’s writing reveals stuff about them (look at the basic concept of style, after all), and that this includes the expressions they use to say very mundane things. I find that, in a way, communication is like fighting. You may do it well or badly. Everyone may be right or wrong. But whatever your reason for doing it, what matters that you will inevitably reveal who you are when doing it. Always was the case, always will be.
We’ve always kept records of our lives, and this includes when we write comments that are not meant for anyone’s consumption but our own; like diary entries or private memos. Of course, the exact content of these is as varied as can be, but I don’t think I’m being fatuous when I claim that it’s common for people to write messages meant for no-one’s consumption but their own which, on some level, wouldn’t make any actual sense to anyone but themselves – maybe they are not MEANT to make any actual sense to anyone but themselves. (Hey, I was a teenager once – and I was born with an autism condition). But I think anyone would agree that it is possible that someone could write a message meant only for their own private consumption only to find, when they came back to it at a later time, that they agreed that it has lost the meaning or significance it once had. I also believe that one could write a message meant only for their own private consumption in a way that is less than articulate where, when they come to back it at a later time, they find that they have problems reading it even though they know they wrote it!
This is an entry taken from the book “The 176 Stupidest Things Ever Done” (Ross and Kathryn Petras):
“ON PROFESSORS, CRITICAL:
The editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica contacted the head of a major Western university history department. They sent him a historical article that had been in the encyclopaedia for years and asked him if he would be interested in revising it.
The professor promptly sent the article back with a biting note, turning down the request and commenting that the article was “inaccurate… badly disorganized and full of errors.”
At this point, the editors wondered who had written such a weak article. They went through their files and came up with the name – it had been written by the professor himself, many years before.”
What do you do with your life?
Myself, I haven’t forgotten the time I attempted a RHYMING English translation of part of a French song in what I regard as an audacious piece of business marketing (scroll down to 3rd October 2011). But one thing I wanted to include in my latest comment is a translation of something else, written specifically for myself and my own ends (business interests, even though I won’t be paid for it), but I am happy to let anyone read it. And this translation is a translation into French, of “that speech by the angry kid in the Greenpeace advert”.
Here goes:
La communauté scientifique a publié un rapport qui indique qu’il n’y aucune doute que le monde s’échauffe. Le réchauffement climatique est le résultat de choses que vous – les adultes – faites… et de choses que vous ne faites pas. Si on ne fait pas de mesures drastiques bientôt, quand je serai adulte, il n’y aura pas de poissons dans la mer. Les forêts tropicales et l’air pur seront des choses historiques. Les calottes polaires seront disparues; les océans s’éleveront; des pays entiers disparaîtront. La vie se changera, et en de façons que vous ne pouvez pas même imaginer. On pourraît connaître de la famine… des épidémies globales… l’espérance de vie sera plus courte. …Et on ne parle pas seulement du “futur”. On parle de “mon futur”.
Mais vous, les adultes, vous connaissez ceci depuis des années, n’est-ce pas? Et vous avez pu faire quelque chose pour combattre ce problème, mais ça n’a pas été le cas. Vous pouvez dire, “Ce n’est pas mon problème”. Vous pouvez dire, “Je ne serai pas en ce monde en 50 années.” Mais maintenant, vous ne pouvez dire, “Je ne savais pas.”
Dès aujourd’hui, les lignes sont dessinés. Il faut choisir un côté. Soit vous êtes pour mon futur, soit vous êtes contre. Vous êtes un ami, ou un ennemi. Aujourd’hui je ne suis qu’un enfant, mais les choses seront différentes demain. Ceci est la dernière fois que je parle à vous les adultes. Vous avez eu votre chance pour résoudre ce problème, et maintenant nous avons la nôtre. Nous ne serons pas timides, nous ne serons pas traités avec condescendence, et personne ne nous niera notre futur.
Now you can compare that to the French version provided by Greenpeace themselves, said by the same kid, interestingly enough. The title of this video is “its-not-too-late”. I watched it myself and some of the differences I noticed are as follows:
Right at the start, the verb “publier” is in the perfect tense in my version but in the present tense in the official Greenpeace version.
The Greenpeace version says “Il n’y aura plus un seul poisson dans la mer” – “there won’t be a single fish left in the sea”. My version doesn’t put it like that.
Whereas my version talks about the “ocean” rising, the official Greenpeace version talks about the “level of the ocean” rising.
At the beginning of the second paragraph, the official Greenpeace version says “Mais je ne vous apprend rien, n’est pas?” Think of this as, “But I’m not telling you anything new, am I?” and compare this with the phrase with the word “surprise” in the English version. With my version, the “surprise” is supposed to be recognised from the “n’est-ce pas” bit.
Compare “you could have done something about it but you haven’t” with “you could have done something to combat this problem, but this hasn’t been the case” (the English translation of my version) and both with “you could have done something to remedy it, but you have done nothing” (the English translation of the official Greenpeace version).
As usual, you can say what you want and let me know what you think, and if you’re French, hey, so much the better.
Maybe you’re wondering: does any of this actually have any parallels with my actual translation work? I fully accept that there are other translators who know things that I don’t – for example, some translators are proven “technical specialists” or “medical specialists” whereas I’m not (well, not yet anyway). But I want to end this by leaving all past and prospective clients of mine with a “thought for the day” – you should know who you are if I did not acquire you through an agency, but I’m not naming names. However I write my translations, I suggest that I know them to be good enough for professional purposes if they convey the correct information and in a way where anyone else’s unguided retelling of it would sound credible even if they didn’t have the option of quoting from my work directly whenever they wanted.