Hi all - Here are a few more notes on the next chapters of the book:
Chapter 3 - Why do we call it “translation”?
Something doesn’t exist just because we have a word for it
(e.g. levitation)
Translation is both a thing and a process
Translation from the Latin means: “to bear across” “to carry
across”, but etymology of a word doesn’t necessarily equate with its current
meaning.
In other languages “translation” is called “turning”,
“transmitting”, “speaking after”
Considerable focus placed on the idea of “carrying over” meaning.
But what meaning?
Chapter 4 - Things people say about translation
The false wisdom of “A translation is no substitute for the
original”. Of course it is. That’s exactly what it is: a substitute for the
original.
People who make this claim are seeking to establish their
authority: i.e. that they are fit to judge the original and a translation
thereof, and to determine that the translation isn’t as good.
The only thing this adage does is “provide spurious cover
for the view that translation is second-rate”.
Chapter 5 - "Foreign-Soundingness"
How “foreign” should a translation sound?
Why do we praise a text that sounds as if it were originally
written in the target language?
Should translators leave parts of the text in the source
language to make it sound foreign?
If so, how much?
For Ancient Greeks, foreigners sounded like “va-va-va” when
they spoke (i.e. blah-blah-blah), which is why they called them “vavaros”, the
origin of “barbarians”.
“…foreign-soundingness of a translation can only reproduce
or reinforce what the receiving culture already imagines the foreign to be”.
Why should an author “sound” like his native tongue? Kafka
doesn’t sound German in German – he sounds like Kafka.
Foreign-soundingness is only possible when the target
audience is familiar with the source culture.
