DO YOU KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT?
When people find a reason to criticise the translation work of others: whether their reasoning is clear and backed up by well-elucidated arguments (which may or may not originate from themselves) or vague and offhanded and based on claims that can only be described as convoluted, they may claim that the person who did it didn’t know what they were talking about (even if they know that the original content is someone else’s). Myself, I can appreciate as much as any other translator that an approach to translation which is merely finding a way to write grammatically correct sentences that (“must”) work in the original, without any serious and sober consideration of the subject matter in question, is anything but advisable. But somehow I have recently ended up pondering how much one could start and sustain a fully-fledged conversation of the topic of not knowing what one is talking about.
If we’re talking about translation and accuracy therein, I’m not even talking about allusion to the (very true) fact that even very small things like how the addition or removal of a single letter or a punctuation mark can greatly change the meaning of a sentence. At the risk of sounding like I don’t know what I’m talking about, with but a passion for nonsense which, well, just doesn’t make sense, there follows two distinct, rather different examples of people not knowing what they’re talking about – my claim is that there are parallels of this concept, however generalised it may sound, between these examples and translation when it’s poorly done.
Example 1: everyone’s heard of Internet scams, including the ones where you get sent an email from someone notifying you about a very large sum of money of 6-8 figures and that they are waiting for you to send certain details to them so that you may collect it. They say all kinds of things in desperate bizarre attempts to make them sound legitimate and important and more credible, mentioning everyone from government and bank officials to the FBI to the IMF to the United Nations (What? Like they handle financial transactions for members of the public!) and the names of fictitious Internet scam investigation units. There have been times when I have kept long emails from these people which I find hilarious because, while they leave me hopelessly confused, I do know that they are from scammers and that they essentially absolutely do not know what they’re talking about (not that it’s about anything true, of course); but it’s not enough to say that. Think about it: they couldn’t care less if I don’t (and they probably knowingly wouldn’t me to, in a manner of speaking). Consider this point: it would indeed take a lot on part my part to memorise this (and I did choose this example because of its absurd length):
“Good day,
I am Mr. Michael William, staff of International Private Banking at NEDBANK SOUTH AFRICA. I am contacting you concerning a deceased customer and an investment he placed under our banks management some years ago. I would respectfully request that you keep the contents of this mail confidential and respect the integrity of the information you come by as a result of this mail.
I contacted you independently of our investigation and no one is informed of this communication. I would like to intimate you with certain facts that I believe would be of interest to you. In 2006, the subject matter came to our bank to engage in business discussions with our private banking division. He informed us that he had a financial portfolio of $21,350,000:00 (Twenty One Million Three Hundred And Fifty Thousand United States Dollars) Only), which he wished to have us turn over (invest) on his behalf.
I was the officer assigned to his case, I was made numerous suggestions in line with my duties as the de-facto chief operations officer of the private banking sector, especially given the volume of funds he wished to put into our bank. We met on numerous occasions prior to any investments being placed. I encouraged him to consider various options with prime ratings.
Based on my advice, we spun the money around various opportunities and made attractive margins for our first months of operation, the accrued profit and interest stood at this point at over two Four Hundred Thousand United States Dollars, this margin was not the full potential of the fund but he desired low risk guaranteed returns on investments.
In mid 2007, he asked that the money be liquidated because he needed to make an urgent investment requiring cash payments here in South Africa. He directed that I liquidate the funds and deposit it with a security firm. I informed him that NEDBANK would have to make special arrangements to have this done and in order not to circumvent due process, the bank would have to make a 1 % deduction from the funds to cater for banking and statutory charges. He complained about the charges but later came around when I explained to him the complexities of the task he was asking of us. Cash movement across boarders has become especially strict since the incidents of 9/11. I contacted my affiliate in here in South Africa and made the funds available to the security firm.
I undertook all the processes and made sure I followed his precise instructions to the letter and had the funds deposited to the security consultancy firm, Corporate Securities Co. Corporate Securities Co is a specialist private firm that accepts deposits from high net worth individuals and blue chip corporations that handle valuable products or undertake transactions that need immediate access to cash. This small and highly private organization is familiar especially to the highly placed and well-connected organizations. In line with Instructions, the money was deposited with Corporate Securities Co. The deceased told me he wanted the money there in anticipation of his arrival from Norway later.
This was the last communication we had, this transpired around 29th September 2007. In June 2009, we got a call from Corporate Securities Co informing us of the activity of that particular portfolio. This was an astounding position as far as I was concerned, given the fact that I managed the private banking sector I was the only one who knew about the deposit at Corporate Securities Co, and I could not understand why the deceased had not come forward to claim his deposit. I made futile efforts to locate the deceased. I immediately passed the task of locating him to the internal investigations department of NEDBANK. Later on, information started to trickle in, apparently our client was dead. A person who suited his description was declared dead of a heart attack in Cannes, South of France.
We were soon enough able to identify the body and cause of death was confirmed. The bank immediately launched an investigation into possible surviving next of kin to alert about the situation and also to come forward to claim his estate. If you are familiar with private banking affairs, those who patronize our services usually prefer anonymity, but also some levels of detachment from conventional processes. In his bio-data form, he listed no next of kin. In the field of private banking opening an account with us means no one will know of its existence, accounts are rarely held under a name; depositors use numbers and codes to make the accounts anonymous. This bank also gives the choice to depositors of having their mail sent to them or held at the bank itself, ensuring that there are no traces of the account and as I said, rarely do they nominate next of kin.
Private banking clients apart from not nominating next of kin also usually in most cases leave wills in our care, in this case; the deceased died without a testament .In line with our internal processes for account holders who have passed away, we instituted our own Investigations in good faith to determine who should have right to claim the estate. This investigation has for the past years been unfruitful. We have scanned every continent and used our private investigation affiliate companies to get to the root of the problem. It is this investigation that resulted in my being furnished with your details as a possible relative of the deceased. My official capacity dictates that I am the only party to supervise the investigation and the only party to receive the results of the investigation. What this means, you being the last batch of names we have considered, is that our dear late fellow died with no known or identifiable family member. This leaves me as the only person with the full picture of what the prevailing situation is in relation to the deposit and the late beneficiary of the deposit.
According to practice, Corporate Securities Co will by the end of this financial year broadcast a request for statements of claim to NEDBANK, failing to receive viable claims they will most probably revert the deposit back to NEDBANK. This will result in the money entering the NEDBANK accounting system and the portfolio will be out of my hands and out of the private banking division. This will not happen if I have my way. What I wish to relate to you will smack of unethical practice but I want you to understand something. It is only an outsider to the banking world who finds the internal politics of the banking world aberrational.
The world of private banking especially is fraught with huge rewards for those who occupy certain offices and oversee certain portfolios. You should have begun by now to put together the general direction of what I propose. I alone have the deposit details and they will release the deposit to no one unless I instruct them to do so. I alone know of the existence of this deposit for as far as NEDBANK is concerned, the transaction with our late customer concluded when I sent the funds to Corporate Securities Co, all outstanding interactions in relation to the file are just customer services and due process. Corporate Securities Co has no single idea of what the history or nature of the deposit. They are simply awaiting instructions to release the deposit to any party that comes forward. This is the situation. This bank has spent great amounts of money trying to track this mans family; they have investigated for months and have found no family. The investigation has come to an end. My proposal; you share similar details to the late fellow; I am prepared to place you in a position to instruct Corporate Securities Co to release the deposit to you as the closest surviving relation. Upon receipt of the deposit, I am prepared to share the money with you in half. That is: I will simply nominate you as the next of kin and have them release the deposit to you.
We share the proceeds 50/50.I would have gone ahead to ask the funds be released to me, but that would have drawn a straight line to me and my involvement in claiming the deposit. I assure you that I could have the deposit released to you within a few days. I will simply inform the bank of the final closing of the file relating to the deceased I will then officially communicate with Corporate Securities Co and instruct them to release the deposit to you. With these two things: all is done. The alternative would be for us to have Corporate Securities Co direct the funds to another bank with you as account holder. This way there will be no need for you to think of receiving the money from Corporate Securities Co. We can fine-tune this based on our interactions. I am aware of the consequences of this proposal. I ask that if you find no interest in this project that you should discard this mail. I ask that you do not be vindictive and destructive. If my offer is of no appeal to you, delete this message and forget I ever contacted you. Do not destroy my career because you do not approve of my proposal.
These types of opportunities only come ones’ way once in a lifetime. I cannot let this chance pass me by, for once I find myself in total control of my destiny. These chances won’t pass me by. I ask that you do not destroy my chance, if you will not work with me let me know and let me move on with my life but do not destroy me. I am a family man and this is an opportunity to provide them with new opportunities. There is a reward for this project and it is a task well worth undertaking. I have evaluated the risks and the only risk I have here is from you refusing to work with me and alerting my bank. Let share the blessing. If you find yourself able to work with me, contact me through this email account: [undisclosed email]
If you give me positive signals, I will initiate this process towards a conclusion. I wish to inform you that should you contact me via official channels; I will deny knowing you and about this project. I repeat, I do not want you contacting me through my official phone lines nor do I want you contacting me through our official email account.
I await your response.
Mr. Michael William.
Ph: [undisclosed phone nr.]
Email: [undisclosed email]”
Just look at that. I think that’s a shining case in point, don’t you? It’s almost as if they want you to be confused beyond measure (maybe they do if that’s what it takes to leave you unable to know how to follow any option but to do as they say… and then you’re robbed).
Example 2 of what’s mentioned in the first paragraph: the Welsh rapper Ruffstylz has a track called “Desire” with plenty of lyrics of a rather nonsensical and essentially demented nature. For example, don’t ask me what I’m supposed to make sense of from the lines, “I can make my feet spin until I’m walking on whirlwinds, and play a game where I’m trying to run away from myself and actually win!” What could he be talking about?
[A pause until your laughter from reading that has died down.]
Moving on: not knowing what you’re talking about is hardly a million miles away from distorted truth. I mean, what do you have to say about something like media spin? Or largely unnatural and unconfident representation of facts, whether or not any strict element of selection applies?
And let’s not forget that it’s easy to claim and even believe that something doesn’t make sense and or the person who writes / says it doesn’t know what they’re talking about if it is to be believed that the material in question has nothing to do with the person reading / hearing it (and the person writing / saying it as well, most likely).
Another relevant point: consider the likeliness / extent of and logic behind one being detached from the truth when you consider this: in the South Park episode “The Hobbit”, the bit where Wendy talks about how people can “start to believe their own bulls**t.”
At this point I have to ask: what would be the best way to measure an appreciation and understanding of when people don’t know what they’re talking about? I wonder if what it is is, more likely than anything else, having what could be loosely defined as a quasi-addiction to seeing “things” (i.e. statements) that are correct, and correct in se. As opposed to an addiction to statements which make no sense – there’s a blue leopard in my kitchen that can drive a car; I sing a barcarolle every time I buy a pickaxe in WHSmiths; it would be great if whales could fly, even though they don’t have wings; if Hitler dyed his blonde, would people have thought that he was very talented at origami? My point exactly. But I will mention this: it seems to me that anyone would be most comfortable in translation work when they fully agree that the words of what they are writing could not be twisted and misused / used as an instrument of misrepresentation of whatever. This is certainly more likely to be the case when translating, say, a menu, compared to translating, say, a press release about a famous person.
How good are you at willing to associate yourself with the vague and unspecified (that which might deserve to be called mysterious)? Do you know that lawyers can be skilled at creating false memories in their opponents, somehow? And do you of anyone who might be disposed to trying to find reasons to be confident in their looking for reason in that which is vague and unspecified, or does that count as trying to make sense out of nonsense and, as such, as insanity? Do you think I would make a good theologian – a person who is an expert in the unknowable, with all the qualifications to prove it?
I just hope that, in this comment, I haven’t shown too much of an infatuation which doesn’t make sense (whether I know what I’m talking about or not). But I will say this: if you’re doing a translation job with your income and your reputation on the line (“for as real as it gets”, if you will), which I have inevitably become accustomed to, then there’s a good chance you will be compelled to consult other sources for assurance that you are doing a good job – in the modern day, doing online research is a very common example of what I mean by this. And there have been times when I myself have been encouraged to use words in translation work that I would normally never use – so what can I say in light of something like that? Well, when you consider that there is definitely a purpose of information to be recognised when it comes to producing a translation of something for someone… I have compared “unsure translation” with teaching that which you know to be unverified.
Does promoting equal rights for Jews count as “combating anti-Semitism”? Or have I just run the risk of sounding ignorant despite my good intentions?