Recently in my work as a professional translator I have been focussing on pre-set expressions, and asking myself whether or not they go against the astute linguistic creativity I am ever ready to exemplify in my translation projects.
Although I agree that it is never a good idea to translate “literally” (even if a given literal translation would reflect the intended meaning of the original albeit in a weird and likely difficult-to-follow way), sometimes in my translation work, when I am writing English sentences that are translation sentences of something in French or German, I have no problem writing “help sentences” before I formally decide on and write down the one that is actually to be applied. In the earliest stages of the translation process, I am not too worried about writing a “rough” sentence that may well be “square-wheeled” as long as a) the individual sentence fragments are properly defined; and b) it reflects consideration of every single word in the original (after all, I don’t want to omit any information in my translation product) even if I am not utterly convinced that I have no need to revise the English translation meaning I have attributed to any word that I have acknowledged in the original. The application of an enhanced level of literacy to write a final translation version that is likely to be easily understood and followed by any reader – something that is essentially as reader-friendly as possible – can wait.
After all, when one is translating it cannot be over-emphasised how important it is to write something that doesn’t solely “make sense” only in the way that it is wholly correct language of the target language. It is important that the translation be loyal to the original in meaning, and the reader, who would normally be receptive to ideas suggested in the translated text to at least some extent, should be able to clearly grasp ideas that are credible considering the subject matter and know that they have grasped them, together with being able to re-identify independently exactly what bits in the translation document instilled in them the convictions in question. Hence, the art of real translation indeed extends beyond the art of language – beyond resolving to get your grammar or word order or punctuation etc. correct; beyond being eager to see what you think when you decide to try stating a given idea this way, or seeing what happens when you use that linguistic construction. I’m talking about the requirement that those who do it be in touch with the “art” of experience and the kind of imagination that can probably only be described as a commitment to and pursuit of common sense.
Once again I find myself echoing a point that I have seen stated in more than one place: the prevalent assertion that the best translations are the ones which don’t read like translations. It may seem like a paradox, but who wouldn’t say that that’s the case. I believe that anyone who has read something in their mother tongue before being told or finding out that it was actually a translation from another language and being surprised by the same, would vouch for the truth in that. The “help sentences” I mentioned in the first paragraph are sentences which, while they are (at least in my case) the output of careful consideration of what I read in the original material and they “make sense” on both on a level of proper language in the translated material and at the level of common sense as far as the subject matter is concerned, ultimately may (just may) still be “too literal”, and what this means is that it is likely that one would (correctly) guess that it is a translation of something else.
Call this a generalisation, but some people are more suspecting than others when it comes to reading something that is a translation i.e. being able to judge that something that they are reading which is a translation of something, is indeed a translation, without any prior suggestion of the same beforehand. But when I talk of people being “suspecting” here, let me also proclaim the idea that one can also be “suspecting” or “unsuspecting” with regard to the subject matter that is supposed to be imparted in something they are reading which is a translation of something (whether or not they know or suspect that said material is indeed translation material is irrelevant) – or maybe it would better to say “wary” or “non-wary”. I would suggest that my best work is when I have mustered a translation which would be capable of convincing someone about its subject matter when they are NOT wary of it – I would encourage anyone to cherish and think about that one.
I suppose the perfect translator doesn’t exist. But however highly any of my clients may think of me, I would just do well to remember certain common expressions in English when translating certain things from French or German into English. Even if it is the case that literal translations (can) work – and not “work” in that the text in question CAN be understood (with effort) even if the particular words make it genuinely peculiar and / or hard to follow – time and again, after I have finished translated something I find myself recalling a certain English expression that is pretty much a “default” expression, which it somehow seems silly that I didn’t initially appropriate as my translation of a certain bit in the original. It’s just that I agree that, sometimes in translation work, it is actually well worth considering the use of certain individual words in the translated material whose equivalents are NOT present at the corresponding place in the original material, or purposely omitting certain individual words in the original material, not to include their equivalents in the translation material. In a nutshell, it’s about paraphrasing for the sake of effect and clarity. For example, it was only recently that I learned that it is said that the phrase “Revenge is a dish best served cold” is said to have originated from the French novel “Les Liaisons Dangereuses” by Choderlos de Laclos; on its Wikipedia article one can read the French phrase “La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid”. Translating that phrase literally would result in one ending up with “Revenge is a dish that it is eaten cold” (if not “Revenge is a dish which eats itself cold”, which any native speaker of English can see makes no sense). English “Revenge is a dish best served cold” is but a product of paraphrasing and it’s not hard to argue that it is more effective than “Revenge is a dish which is eaten cold”.
But, to go back to the subject of my work, I have noticed an improved ability to think of parallels of this independently when I am translating something for someone else who we both know has put their faith in me to do it right. And this is what has been the source of my income from October 2008 to this day…
Look at these examples, taken from certain past translation jobs:
German: “Brandschutztüren”
This German word literally means “fire protection doors“, which I suppose works well enough as it is true that everyone knows that they are a safety thing, and that they are not there for the so-called “protection of fire”! But “fire doors” is the more commonly used expression in English – it just didn’t strike me straight away, for some reason.
German: “Die Türen müssen immer geschlossen sein und dürfen nicht unterkeilt oder arretiert werden.”
English: “The doors must be kept closed and may not be wedged or locked.”
The German sentence, “Die Türen müssen immer geschlossen sein” may mean, “The doors must always be closed”, but I felt that to say “kept closed” better reflected commitment to safety / following the safety guidelines in place that are under discussion here.
German: “Jeder Externe muss von den internen Sunrise-Kontaktpersonen am Desk abgeholt und dort auch wieder verabschiedet werden. ”
English: “Every external person must be registered by the internal Sunrise contact persons at the desk, and dismissed at the same place.”
Misunderstandings can occur when someone is left with a conviction of something based on something that they have heard or read which is not the one that the speaker / writer sought to leave them with. The reason I included a comma after the word “desk” in the English version (even though there isn’t one after “Desk”in the German version) is that the registration and the dismissal would not happen at the same time. But that’s just what I think.
German: “Der Sortimentsumfang bietet mit acht unterschiedlichen Bürstensorten jedem Zahnzwischenraum die optimal angepasste und effektive Reinigung.”
English: “With eight different brush types, the range is able to muster the best adapted and most effective cleaning solution for every between-teeth place.”
In the English version I made a point of including the word “solution”.
German: “Das neue Ebnat Oral Care Sortiment lässt sich sehen.”
English: “The new Ebnat Oral Care range is impressive.”
The German version could be translated literally as “The new Ebnat Oral Care range lets itself be seen”, but as it’s a marketing text there is every reason to believe that it should be read as more than being about letting this product be seen; surely the marketer would want it to be read as like, “this product distinguishes itself.”
German: “bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils”
English: “Until proven otherwise”
The German word “Gegenteil” is composed of the words “Gegen”, meaning “against”, and “Teil”, meaning “apart”, but here it means nothing like “opposing part” or “opposing side”or anything like that. It is supposed to be understood as “until proof of the opposite ”. This is a reminder of how not all languages work the same way, and that some use constructions which are not found in others. I would have put “until proof of the opposite ” if not for the fact that, in my experience, “Until proven otherwise” is a much more common English expression.
German: “Die Standpunkte haben sich angenähert, indem in Deutschland voreheliche Vereinbarungen einer gewissen Inhaltskontrolle unterzogen werden und in England voreheliche Vereinbarungen ein Element bei der Beurteilung der finanziellen Folgen der Scheidung geworden sind.”
English: “The viewpoints became more aligned when pre-nuptial agreements in Germany became subject to certain content control regulations while in England pre-nuptial agreements became an element in assessing the financial impact of divorce.”
In this example, the Geman word “angenähert”, of “annähern”, refers to the viewpoints, and to say that viewpoints which become more aligned have as such become “closer” sort of works, but at the end of the day is just too literal, especially if you are not accustomed reading this sort of thing.
French: “Outre les éléments relevés précédemment…”
English: “In addition to the items noted above…”
This French example is taken from a French-to-English contract translation project. The clause “Outre les éléments relevés précédemment” is capable of misleading because it is not referring to items that were noted at some earlier point in time, but to items indicated earlier in the text of the document in question. Hence the paraphrasing “In addition to the items noted above” in the English translation.