WHEN YOU CAN’T OFFER “REAL” TRANSLATIONS AS MUCH AS AN INSIGHTFUL EQUIVALENT – THIS INVOLVES “DESIGNING”

This is how I will start this blog: there’s a translation company called Translation By Design, based in the United States. Now, having been reminded of them / their name, I must say that I never really thought of translations as something to be “designed”, at least from the outset (that is, until you have had a proper look at exactly what is to be translated – properly, of course), but I can see how there is “design work” – or at least parallels of it – expected of it when you are doing it for real and everyone else knows you are. For you can be a linguistic genius like me – I studied French and German and translation studies at three universities over a period of five years, after all – and still be frustrated at just how translation just isn’t always straightforward, however determined you may be to show the initiative elaborating the reasons.

That said, though, it is worth suggesting that those who never consider doing anything that is parallel to any kind of “design activity” during translation practice, are perhaps those most likely to get translation wrong or just be accused of doing translation work too literally. I mean, take this example (even if it is all hypothetical): suppose someone whose mother tongue was English but who was fluent in at least one other language, translated the speech of this girl in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYsi6Z6sXY8 into that language. Attempt to speculate what excuse could they possibly have for being blind enough to write in the new language something that actually hints at (non-existent) inter-family sexual relationships rather than the thing which should be (and, in most cases, is) more widely and readily appreciated for “smelling nice” – and the person who does this does not realise this.

But this blog isn’t actually about “translation as such” i.e. translation for which the methods are grounded solely in fixed ideas and principles even if they are proven – what I mean by this should become clear eventually. And I was hoping that this would come across as a relatively fun blog. Have a look at this…
Someone was once asked to translate a passage in French that went something like this, into English,

“Quest-ce que vous voulez ?” Pierre demanda à Marie.
Marie réponda, “Je n’aime pas te voir triste.”

Now, you don’t have to have a degree in French, like I do, to know that French has different words for “you” while English doesn’t. The English translation of the passage above that the person provided was essentially like this:

“What do you want?” Pierre asked Marie.
Marie responded, “I don’t like to see you sad,” as she gently took him by the hand.

It is easy to notice that there is no French original specifically for the “as she gently took him by the hand” bit – but it essentially hinges on the fact that Marie addressed Pierre as “tu”, the informal “you” in French, rather than “vous”, the formal “you”, while Pierre called Marie “vous”. I will admit that I never bothered to delve into the truth of the scenario – if it could be said that such a thing existed. Either way, as far as this is concerned, I would say that many will end up inclined to state that this suggests very specific things about both of these people, as well as the relationship between them; such as Marie is sympathetic and sensitive, they are close and trust each other and whatnot. Pierre is likely to be viewed as a young boy, and Marie as, say, maybe a teacher at his school. But what if – and I’m only saying if – the person who provided the English translation of that passage – which is by no means necessarily “wrong” in any way” – never considered that? As a professional translator determined to rise up the ranks, I insist that it is worth speculation.

To evaluate: can you imagine someone ever freely declaring that they have no idea what they are talking about and that they can’t be bothered to find out? Would they be expecting credit for their honesty? I don’t know. Do you?

I say that to say this: I just know that sometimes in translation work, it is impossible to provide an all-encompassing translation, only an insightful equivalent, as you create what you will in the new language. Here’s an example: when I was studying in Poitiers, I remember reading this joke written in French (scribbled on a wall in a pub toilet, if you must know): “Quand un verre est plein, on le vide ; quand il est vide, on en plaint.” Any French person will get it, and there’s a good chance that anyone whose mother tongue is not French but still has a good command of it, such as I do, will also get it… but my point here is that how can anyone suggest what the most apt translation of that in English (or, indeed, any other language) is? That could prove an interesting language-related subject, don’t you think?

Now, here’s the best bit. Not too long ago, I heard this conundrum on the radio:

“There’s a war going on, and a spy on one side is trying to sneak into an enemy installation. He is able to hide very close to the entrance, and eventually one enemy soldier comes up and the guard says to him ‘six’. The soldier replies, ‘three’, and the guard lets him in. The spy is able to catch this. A little later a second soldier comes up and the guard says to him ‘twelve’. The second soldier replies ‘six’ and then he is let in. The spy thinks he’s gotten it all figured out, and before too long he has approached the guard dressed as an enemy soldier; the guard says to him ‘ten’. The spy replies ‘five’ – and the guard then raises the alarm. Why is this?”

As it is, I was able to figure it out for myself. I’m going to retell this conundrum in French and German right here right now, with some slight variations pending. If you speak either or both of those languages, or can at least consult someone who does, maybe it will become clear eventually. (Hint: it has nothing to do with numbers or mathematics at all.)

French version:
“Une guerre se passe, et un espion d’un côté est en train d’essayer d’infiltrer une installation de ses ennemis. Il réussit à se cacher très près du point d’entrée. Après quelques temps un soldat ennemi s’approche, et le gardien lui dit ‘six’, auquel le soldat répond ‘trois’, après lequel le gardien lui permet d’entrer. L’espion attrape ceci. Plus tard, un deuxième soldat s’approche, et le gardien lui dit ‘huit’, auquel le soldat répond ‘quatre’, après lequel le gardien lui permet d’entrer. L’espion pense qu’il l’a compris. Après peu de temps il s’est approché du gardien déguisé comme soldat ennemi, et le gardien lui dit ‘dix’. L’espion répond ‘cinq’ – et le gardien sonne l’alarme. Pourquoi est-ce que ceci passe ?”

German version:
“Ein Krieg passiert, und einer Spion einer der Seiten versucht, eine feindliche Installation zu infiltrieren. Er gelingt, sich in eine dem Eingangspunkt sehr nahe versteckte Position zu befinden. Nach kurzer Zeit kommt einer feindlicher Soldat heran, und der Wächter sagt ihm ‘acht’. Der Soldat antwortet mit ‘vier’, und der Wächter erlaubt ihn einzugehen. Der Espion erwischt dies. Ein Weile später kommt einer zweiter Soldat heran, und der Wächter sagt ihm ‘sechzehn’. Dieser Soldat antwortet mit ‘acht’, und der Wächter erlaubt ihn einzugehen. Der Espion glaubt, dass er es ausgerechnet hat, und, nach kurzer Zeit, als feindlicher Soldat verkleidet, geht er den Wächter heran, und der Wächter sagt ihm ‘zehn’. Der Espion antwortet ‘fünf’ – und dann wird den Alarm ausgelöst worden. Warum?”

Have you gotten it yet? If you have, I’m not at all surprised, given that I think that people tend to think of letters as an alternative to numbers and arithmetic when the latter is ruled out (and I’m sure it works both ways, having said that).

Anyway, thanks for reading. The end. Ciao.