|
Post by smith on Dec 1, 2014 21:00:06 GMT 9
The sentence emphasises the fact that the house is surrounded by trees. It's not the only possible translation of that sentence, something like "We backtracked through the trees to the steps of the Quiet Manor" or "We circled the house through the pines until we found ourselves back at the entrance" would be fine as well.
Wow, that's embarrassing. I think I must have misread 実業家 as 農業家. That will teach me for not triple-checking everything.
I looked over the sentence and I guess the 'growing in harmony with each other' isn't quite right, more like the plants were in 'harmony' with the building itself, most likely planted there after the house was built, placed with intent by a landscaper. It's also probably not a 'small cottage' either, more like a western style house with a cottage-like or even cabin-like feel.
A certain amount of paraphrasing (although 'paraphrasing' might not be the right word here) is essential to producing a readable translation. Translating a story literally will leave you with a stilted mess of a story. The irony here is that a literally translated story will actually lose most of the meaning of the original.
Though in this case I may have wandered too far from the source material, taken a few too many liberties and perhaps gotten a little carried away. I think I might give this story another edit, from beginning to end.
|
|
|
Post by smith on Dec 1, 2014 21:21:22 GMT 9
I'm only on to the second paragraph and I can already see a few things that could do with a change.
Heaven help me.
EDIT
So I just finished a re-edit of the story and to be honest, I did change quite a bit. Thanks to A.Rusterholz for pointing some of those issues out. (There was way more wrong with the story than just what he posted.)
|
|
|
Post by elipsett on Dec 2, 2014 10:15:48 GMT 9
A.Rusterholz, perhaps you could offer an alternate translation of the entire sentence, or at least specific words or phrases?
I think the important point here is to find the best (or at least one of the best) ways to translate the piece, not just point at problems. Everyone will have problems with posted pieces, because we all think and work differently, but if you could explain specifically what you object to and suggest alternatives, it would help produce a better translation. Which, IMHO, is the whole purpose of this site.
|
|
|
Post by smith on Dec 2, 2014 12:38:57 GMT 9
I've just realised something. Rusterholz, you've been posting as a guest. We are going to need you to register continue posting. This is not about you personally, but if we allow guests to post, eventually spam bots will start posting advertisements and the like. Another thing that can happen is that anyone could poster under the name Rusterholz (or any other name for that matter).
Allowing guests to post was a mistake on our behalf.
Registering is a simple process, all you need is a valid email address. The link to register is in the top right hand corner of the forum.
|
|
|
Post by rusterholz on Dec 2, 2014 16:55:03 GMT 9
A.Rusterholz, perhaps you could offer an alternate translation of the entire sentence, or at least specific words or phrases? I think the important point here is to find the best (or at least one of the best) ways to translate the piece, not just point at problems. Everyone will have problems with posted pieces, because we all think and work differently, but if you could explain specifically what you object to and suggest alternatives, it would help produce a better translation. Which, IMHO, is the whole purpose of this site. I agree, but I think it would be better to post first those sentences (words, phrases, or short passages) the translator doesn't understand.
A.Rusterholz
|
|
|
Post by rusterholz on Dec 2, 2014 17:33:36 GMT 9
I looked over the sentence and I guess the 'growing in harmony with each other' isn't quite right, more like the plants were in 'harmony' with the building itself, most likely planted there after the house was built, placed with intent by a landscaper. It's also probably not a 'small cottage' either, more like a western style house with a cottage-like or even cabin-like feel. My comment on this translation was as follows: "you don't understand the grammar of this sentence." I have read your revised translation but I still think that you don't understand, or can you explain why you ignore それは, また and 殊に? And do you know which house he is talking about? To answer that question first. Probably you don't believe me, but he is talking about the 'Quiet Manor".
The passage in question is: 「僕は実際震災のために取り返しのつかない打撃を受けた年少の実業家を想像そうぞうしていた。それはまた木蔦のからみついたコッテエジ風の西洋館と――殊に硝子ガラス窓の前に植えた棕櫚や芭蕉の幾株かと調和しているのに違いなかった。」
A = 「僕は実際震災のために取り返しのつかない打撃を受けた年少の実業家を想像そうぞうしていた。」
B = 「木蔦のからみついたコッテエジ風の西洋館」 B' = 「硝子ガラス窓の前に植えた棕櫚や芭蕉の幾株か」; B' refers to the same building, that is the house (Quiet Manor) he is looking at.
The basic structure is as follows: AはBと調和している。 Here it is a little bit more difficult: AはBと -- 殊にB'と 調和している (に違いなかった)。
And: それは is a reference to the sentence (A) before.
In other words => Such a businessman (his imagined businessman) would be in perfect harmony with B -- and especially with B'.
Seeing the house before him, he imagined the person who might have lived there. In this moment he thought that a young businessman fits best to this house (木蔦のからみついたコッテエジ風の西洋館、しかも硝子ガラス窓の前に棕櫚や芭蕉が植えてある西洋館). In other words, based on the real house he imagined the person who might have lived there.
You still might maintain that another understanding of this part is possible. But then you have to explain why he (standing in front of this 西洋館) suddenly starts to imagine another building. Reading your revised translation (I suddenly imagined a young professional taking a hit from an earthquake that he couldn’t fight back against. A nice western style house, overgrown with ivy. There would have been palm trees and hardy banana plants outside the windows, placed in perfect harmony with the house.) I can't understand what connection there should be between the man and the house.
By the way, because there are some palm trees and hardy banana plants in front of this Quiet Manor' I don't think that it is located in a forest.
A.Rusterholz
|
|
|
Post by smith on Dec 2, 2014 19:10:53 GMT 9
Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Probably the first thing you should know is I do agree with you on most of your points after revising the piece. I definitely posted it before it was done. It was full of stupid little mistakes a few typos and I actually managed to miss an entire sentence. I'll definitely have to give the next story a double edit.
The author is clearly imagining the Quiet Manor itself, or rather what the Quiet Manor would have looked like just as the quake struck, or perhaps even a house just like the Quiet Manor, but the author never explicitly states that. I thought my wording was clear-yet-vague enough, though. The reader would 'get it' without having it spelled out for them.
To be honest, it's pretty obvious. An author wouldn't mention a man getting hit by an earthquake in one sentence and then mention a house and its garden in the other unless they were connected. It wouldn't make sense. Again, you don't need to ram these details down the reader's throat. But then again maybe I'll think of a different way to word that sentence.
I don't think that the presence of palm and hardy banana trees means that there is no way the house is surrounded by a forest. However on re-reading the piece I did tone down the a lot of the 'forest' talk, again because while the author talks about pines and other trees, he never explicitly makes reference to the home being in a forest. The house is surrounded by trees, but enough trees to be a full-blown forest? Maybe not. But then again, who knows? The only person who really knows where that house is and what it looks like is Akutagawa himself. I definately got the impression that the house was out in the country side, surrounded by some kind of woodland.
As for the grammar point. I think you might just be right about that one. I'll have to roll it around in my head for a while to think of a better wording in English, but I do think I will end up changing it.
Now that we have that all sorted out, I should tell you that your last post really is the kind of feedback we are looking for. You found a problem, explained what you thought was wrong and the offered an explanation and an alternative translation. Do mind your tone when you give feedback, however. We wouldn't want to chase away any new members.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Dec 2, 2014 21:03:24 GMT 9
I totally agree with Rusterholz' comments at the bottom of p. 1.
The first one should be along the lines of---
"We made our way back under the shadows of the pine trees to the front entrance of the Tranquil Inn." The second one should be along the lines of---
"The boy's business-dad, irreparably devastated in an actual disaster, floated on my mind."
As for the third one, "違いないなかった" means "must have been"; "would have been" means "だっただろう," which is more ambiguous and less acute in the intensity of conjecture. .
*** Overall, I recommend "close-reading." Translation, even literary translation, is not (and should not be) feeling-based but rigorously analytical. Grammatical, semantic, syntactical, etc. analysis is a must, on top of which comes your interpretation as a translator. If you play fast and loose with that foundation, then the upshot will certainly be nothing more than a rickety house of cards.
|
|
|
Post by smith on Dec 2, 2014 22:08:57 GMT 9
Pretty good translation as well, and "Tranquil" is another good way to put 悠々, however the word "inn" would imply that it is a business, a small hotel that caters to travellers. I was under the impression that the house was his personal home-away-from-home. I love the translation "floated in my mind". However "The boy's business-dad" leaves me scratching my head, could you expand on that? It certainly is a tricky game to play. Translate to literally and you find yourself with an unreadable mess. If you don't translate literally enough, then you find yourself with the kinds of mistakes I've made in this translation. Though this is a much bigger topic than this single translation. It could do with it's own thread in the general discussion forum. EDIT: I went ahead and made a thread about it - shortstoriesjapan.boards.net/thread/23/literary-translation-literallink
|
|
|
Post by elipsett on Dec 3, 2014 9:29:31 GMT 9
Hmm... I think I have to object to that. If the source were logical that approach would work, but a lot of literature (certainly not only Japanese, but certainly more common in Japanese) is feeling-based, not logical. It may not follow reasonable guidelines of vocabulary, grammar, structure, logical or temporal continuity, or anything else. The translator certainly has to make an effort to analyze the source, and understand what the author is trying to say, but except for instructions on how to fill a bathtub or something, translator interpretation is unavoidable. And since the cultural and author-specific material that isn't even on the page is critical in determining the author's message, I think it's pretty clear that every translator will come up with a different interpretation, to some extent.
That isn't to say that every translation is correct, obviously. There are some things that are clearly just wrong, regardless of interpretation, but there are an infinitude of things that simply will not parse and must rely on feeling, intuition, telepathy, whatever, to try and get into the author's head better.
|
|
|
Post by rusterholz on Dec 3, 2014 13:44:34 GMT 9
Hmm... I think I have to object to that. If the source were logical that approach would work, but a lot of literature (certainly not only Japanese, but certainly more common in Japanese) is feeling-based, not logical. It may not follow reasonable guidelines of vocabulary, grammar, structure, logical or temporal continuity, or anything else. The translator certainly has to make an effort to analyze the source, and understand what the author is trying to say, but except for instructions on how to fill a bathtub or something, translator interpretation is unavoidable. And since the cultural and author-specific material that isn't even on the page is critical in determining the author's message, I think it's pretty clear that every translator will come up with a different interpretation, to some extent. That isn't to say that every translation is correct, obviously. There are some things that are clearly just wrong, regardless of interpretation, but there are an infinitude of things that simply will not parse and must rely on feeling, intuition, telepathy, whatever, to try and get into the author's head better.
At first, I thought that you were kidding, but ....
I want to pick up three passages:
1. What are your criteria for deciding if a story is 'feeling-based' (and not logical) or not 'feeling-based' (and logical). Do you think that 悠々荘 is feeling-based?
2.
It = literature? Japanese literature? Sometimes a short phrase is like that but never a whole story. Anyway, you can and should analyse analytically the text you want to translate (I think that was Mike's point).
3.
Do you think that telepathy (direct communication of thoughts or feelings from one person {=author} to another {=translator} without using speech and writing) works even if the author is already dead? (That is an urgent question because all of the authors you find in Aozorabunko are dead.)
A.Rusterholz
|
|
|
Post by rusterholz on Dec 3, 2014 13:57:59 GMT 9
Two other reasons why your overall-feel-approach doesn't work.
1. You start the introduction with "A dreamy little piece ...", which reflects (I guess) your impression of this work. A don't think that Akutagawa wrote a "dreamy piece" in the year he committed suicide. The time of the year (october) and other things make clear that it is about 虚しさ。
2. I asked: "Why do you translate 僕等三人は at the beginning of the story with 'a couple of friends' and at the end with 'the three of us'?"
Your answer was: "The story started off with quite a casual tone, so I translated it as 'a couple of friends', however by the end of the story, the tone of piece had gotten a bit more serious which is why I went with 'the three of us' as it I felt it sounded a little less casual."
For Akutagawa it was obviously important to mention the number of persons involved in this story. 'I' the storyteller, and his two friends S and T. I little bit research on the background of this story would have made clear, that Akutagawa is talking about a (fictional) walk with his real friends (斎藤茂吉(=S)and 土屋文明(=T)in 鵠沼。
A.Rusterholz
|
|
|
Post by elipsett on Dec 3, 2014 21:36:44 GMT 9
Hmm... I think I have to object to that. If the source were logical that approach would work, but a lot of literature (certainly not only Japanese, but certainly more common in Japanese) is feeling-based, not logical. It may not follow reasonable guidelines of vocabulary, grammar, structure, logical or temporal continuity, or anything else. The translator certainly has to make an effort to analyze the source, and understand what the author is trying to say, but except for instructions on how to fill a bathtub or something, translator interpretation is unavoidable. And since the cultural and author-specific material that isn't even on the page is critical in determining the author's message, I think it's pretty clear that every translator will come up with a different interpretation, to some extent. That isn't to say that every translation is correct, obviously. There are some things that are clearly just wrong, regardless of interpretation, but there are an infinitude of things that simply will not parse and must rely on feeling, intuition, telepathy, whatever, to try and get into the author's head better.
At first, I thought that you were kidding, but ....
I want to pick up three passages:
1. What are your criteria for deciding if a story is 'feeling-based' (and not logical) or not 'feeling-based' (and logical). Do you think that 悠々荘 is feeling-based?
2.
It = literature? Japanese literature? Sometimes a short phrase is like that but never a whole story. Anyway, you can and should analyse analytically the text you want to translate (I think that was Mike's point).
3.
Do you think that telepathy (direct communication of thoughts or feelings from one person {=author} to another {=translator} without using speech and writing) works even if the author is already dead? (That is an urgent question because all of the authors you find in Aozorabunko are dead.)
A.Rusterholz
Um, if you analyze my comment, I think you'll find that I said it is important "to analyze the source, and understand what the author is trying to say." I also said that "a lot of literature (certainly not only Japanese, but certainly more common in Japanese) is feeling-based, not logical," implying that there is also a lot of literature that is not feeling-based. Is your point 3 a serious question?
|
|
|
Post by smith on Dec 3, 2014 22:08:59 GMT 9
That is your interpretation. It differs slightly from mine, but that's OK. It doesn't mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong, just that we interpreted the piece in different ways. There is nothing wrong with that.
That's quite interesting. Maybe you would have mentioned the names of those people had you translated the piece. I chose not to, as the Author chose not to. Again, we both approach this aspect in different ways, and that's just fine.
|
|
|
Post by elipsett on Dec 3, 2014 22:24:21 GMT 9
That's quite interesting. Maybe you would have mentioned the names of those people had you translated the piece. I chose not to, as the Author chose not to. Again, we both approach this aspect in different ways, and that's just fine. I have agree with the decision NOT to insert names. We can suspect that Dazai meant those people, but only Dazai would know the truth of the matter. Leaving it as S and T also leaves the meaning open to reader interpretation; specifying the names limits the interpretation to a single possibility, which may not have been what Dazai meant. The initials are clearly more accurate to the Japanese, reducing the amount of creative input (=possible error) by the translator.
|
|