sucks

>>24114825
Speaks to the benefit of multiple translations of a text. Different approaches to translation are appropriate in different contexts, I don't think the idea of a singular, crystalline transformation of a text from one language to another is a useful way of thinking about things.

All these words to produce a morass of oversimplifications
Your publisher's preferences differ from the preferences of the general public which differs from the preferences of those who want to know, as accurately as possible, what the original work contains and tries to convey, many such cases
>>24114842
True, but of course there is the problem of malicious/false translation as a propaganda tool (which can be surprisingly subtle and sophisticated), and artificially popularized while more accurate translations are made obscure and less-accessible

>>24114870
That's like reacting to a post about how much a fucking bubonic plague sucks by saying 'that's a oversimplification; the rats carrying the bubonic plague has other diseases so even if you didn't get bubonic plague you might get another disease.' Alright that analogy is strained but yeah obviously. Well, you don't seem to have the insight to realize a publisher's preferences will align almost exactly with a general public's since that's who is buying their shit, and you also lacked the insight to realize that a throng of unhappy people will drown out the few people dedicated to accuracy.

>>24114825
>correspondence < coherence

There's no obligation to slavishly pattern the syntax on the alien original language in 'literal' paraphrase-- you translate the idea, and find solutions that echo and rhyme with the original, even in sounds if possible thereafter. There are many ways to skin a cat, but not all of them give you edible meat and tannable hides. Publishers just want their own proprietary copywritable version that's passable-- and unfortunately egghead academics with zero literary nous are the default choice.


>If the AI produces dry prose which repeats the same adjective 500 times it'll be slapped and told to try again, so it will

As a tool, it will vitiate mediocrity in translation (NPCs that cannot apprehend and inspect the text and its content like a jewler with his loupe)-- what will be paid for is that last 5% of substantive and line editing taking a view of the totality of the work.

File: kornheiser.png (232 KB, 453x333)

232 KB PNG

>>24114825
I'm not reading all of that, but which Tony Kornheiser book is your pic from?

>>24114886
>Well, you don't seem to have the insight to realize a publisher's preferences will align almost exactly with a general public's
lol, lmao
>you also lacked the insight to realize that a throng of unhappy people will drown out the few people dedicated to accuracy
there is no basis for this aspersion in what I actually said
midwit whining + dishonesty means I can just laugh at you and move on

I don't think I've seen people actually view and judge translations like this, outside of /lit/ retards who tend to be English monoglots.

I noticed a few differences in a novel I read in the original and in the translation
They were generally pretty minor

>>24114825
>Why is it that translations must be judged not by careful comparison between the source to the result, with accuracy and faithfulness and so on placed above all else, but by how well it reads independently?
Because everyone who buys whatever they translated is going to read it independently (except presumably some rare literary critics fluent in both languages).
>Let's say an author is a stupid fuck who uses the same adjective 500 times. I, as a humble and logical translator, elect to translate the adjected in the same way 500 times.
How many synonyms for that adjective does the source language have? How many does your target language have?
>Fair enough, let me just translate them into curt, dry lines of English and- OOOOOOH no wait I forgot that makes me fucking lazy and bad, I need to write evocative and gripping prose
Skill issue, read Hemingway.
>So the translator's burden is to not only be a good translator, but to be an excellent writer
Newsflash: translation is a form of writing.

>>24117391
>How many synonyms for that adjective does the source language have? How many does your target language have?
It doesn't really matter; this is a tempting thought process, but even if a word had, for example, 0 synonyms in English, an author would not be expected to use it repeatedly. For example, if the word 'grim' had no synonyms in English, and then an author used grim 500 times, the thought would not be "oh well that word has no synonyms it can't be helped," the thought would be "use some different fucking words." So even if in the target language the word had 20 synonyms and 1 in English, English would be expected to do better; nobody buys "well in the target language it had a bunch of synonyms the author chose not to use."
>Skill issue, read Hemingway.
I assure you, not every shitty writer is Hemingway and not all shitty prose is appreciated by audiences on the level of Hemingway.
>Newsflash: translation is a form of writing.
Completely shallow statement not worth replying to; actually comprehend what you're reading and reply to it cogently, don't try to make witty gotchas.

>>24114825
>doensn't understand that different languages have different aesthetic sensibilities

>>24118093
Not an argument. You're leaning way too much on subjective blanket statements. Languages can have bad writers who write poorly regardless of different aesthetics.

>>24114825
>"Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful, if it is faithful it is most certainly not beautiful."

Douglas Hofstadter wrote a delightful book on literary translation called Le Ton beau de Marot. Is anyone familiar with his approach to translation?

what language(s) do you translate, anon?

do you have any translation work you can share you're particularly proud of?

how do you feel about the concept of "untranslatable" writers, or statements like "poetry is what is lost in translation?"

literary translation fascinates me anon I'm all ears

>>24118394
Japanese to English.
I don't particularly want to share anything I've done though I have definitely had moments of pride.

Untranslateable writers: There are absolutely writers who lean into the unique strengths of their own language such that any translation will fundamentally be unrecognizable. In the case of Japanese, for instance, it's not uncommon for speakers of the language to develop a fascination with kanji and the inherent beauty of their aesthetics, so a lot of their writing might be about the composition of certain words which of course cannot be conveyed with English letters. There would have to be pages of translation notes depicting the kanji and explaining the usage, which would be beyond transformative to the text. It might be similar to imagine trying to translate Shakespeare's iambic pentameter into a language which has exclusively stressed syllables; the meaning of the sentences may be conveyed, but the actual flow and quality of the text would surely be obliterated.

This is definitely a gradient though. You can produce a functional translation of any author. The question of whether something is 'untranslateable' is purely on how much subjective value one puts on what is lost in translation. For example, someone who doesn't care about the rhythm of iambic pentameter won't particularly mind its absence in translation. Someone only interested in plot won't care when all the nuances and symbolism in 'kanji' is lost. But I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea if that what makes an author unique is impossible to directly represent in another language then they are 'untranslateable.'

As for your quote: I think it is very insightful. There is a wide range of poetry, but in general we can say it is the crystallization of playing with language: in English we rhyme just because it's a bit difficult and unnatural to do yet it sounds nice, we aim for unique works, we play with structure and format, etc. One interesting thing is that since all Japanese words end with a vowel (except those which end in 'n'), it is PISS EASY to rhyme in Japanese. It's happens naturally all the time and doesn't sound particularly special to them. So they barely bother to rhyme in poetry if at all. That, we can say, is lost in translation; rhymes may be what makes a poem special in English, but then in translation they mean nothing, while in reverse a Japanese poem specifically lacking rhymes may be special for it, then in turn sound bad in English. I think it would be very meaningful to consider every translated book one reads to be lacking the poetry of the original, with any poetry one sees to be a unique construction of the translation. Almost every time they praise a line in a translation, they are praising a line made up by the translator, because lines translated faithfully tend to lack in poetry and go unnoticed, while lines made up with the inventive mind of a translator for fun tend to be full of poetry.

>>24114825
Is this specific to fiction/literature? I thought in philosophy the translator is expected to be as literal as possible (with the exception of when the author is an early modern German who introduces clauses into subclauses ad nauseum, in which case the translators are expected to reduce that somewhat).