Fish in Your Ear - Comments Chap 1 & 2

I mentioned in an earlier post that I was going to re-read the book (Is That a Fish in Your Ear?) and post some comments, so here goes.

The main topic of the book is: What is translation? and What is it that translation does?

Chapter 1 begins by saying that translation is difficult to study and to understand, because it varies in so many ways. A hundred translators could very well produce 100 different translations of the same text, while there would only be a tiny chance of any two out of those 100 translations being identical.

In short, translation isn't an exact science, but that's part of its charm.

Chapter 2 asks the question: Is translation avoidable/necessary?

Bellos says that three possibilities have been historically tested:

1) Learn all the languages of people with whom you have contact (e.g. India)

2) Everyone must speak one common language (e.g. Roman empire)

3) Ignore anyone who doesn’t speak your language (e.g. Albania post WWII)

Since the British Empire, English has emerged as a global language. But why?

- Common myth that it is “easier” to learn than others (false)

- Economic/military power played a role, but it also has survived by default (many others have fallen from use: French, German, Latin, etc.)

Attempts have been made at a “global” language: e.g. Esperanto

- It's unlikely ever to succeed without some other impetus (economic, military, scientific, etc.)

So translation is avoidable, but most likely necessary.

I'd love to hear other translators/interpreters thoughts. Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

-John