|
Post by elipsett on Jan 7, 2015 23:38:07 GMT 9
I stand corrected! Not to mention quite impressed! It could still be as I suggest, but given the age of the book you cite, I think your solution is most likely. You've convinced me. hmm. Gutenberg has the French version online, but not the English. The French does not list any of the reasonable words for Union (union, syndicat, syndicale). www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14156/pg14156.htmlRegardless of the fact they are not included, though (or that I can't locate them if they are), I still agree with you that this is probably what Dazai is referring to. Even if it was not a specific, factual reference to an included word, it was almost surely a reference to the work as a collection of that type of thing.
|
|
|
Post by elipsett on Jan 7, 2015 23:46:43 GMT 9
Bierce I'm familiar with; have a copy on my shelf, in fact. But it does not list union, either...
Even if Dazai was referring to a specific word, though, it may not have been union... could have been any word with a similar meaning that he translated into Japanese, and then you translated into union. Could be impossible to actually pin it down, and I don't think it matters as far as the work is concerned. You translated it correctly the first time, and I missed the reference entirely.
|
|
|
Post by elipsett on Jan 7, 2015 23:59:14 GMT 9
Hey, I'm no editor! ... I just try to check the translation! I don't recall any terrible mistakes, but I wasn't really looking for them. Fortunately we can revise the work later, too, after it goes up on the stories page.
|
|
|
Post by smith on Jan 8, 2015 0:18:07 GMT 9
smith Thank you for your feedback as per usual. As to the line-breaks that you suggested, I don't think it logical to chop up the quote based solely on the question marks. Here, "Let's drink" works as a line-break. This is really a conversation between Yamagawa and the new writer, except that what the latter is saying is omitted; only the protagonist's words are written. In regard to the archaisms, I thought that, since Hemingway (well-known for his simple, plain writing) uses such archaic personal pronouns as "thou" and "thee" in snatches of dialogue between soldiers in "For Whom the Bell Tolls," this kind of pseudo-archaism would produce a somewhat humorous effect here as well. P.S. There aren't any grammatical errors/word misusages that you can see in this translation? P.P.S I'll wait and welcome more feedback from the community. Put the line breaks wherever you feel they would be best. As long as the passage isn't a huge wall-o'-text then you will be fine. Your use of archaisms does actually have the effect you were hoping for (similar to Hemingway), however it might be better to try and find words that aren't quite as archaic as the ones you have used. Using stark contrast for humour does work, and it works quite well, but it wont work on a reader who doesn't understand the words used in the first place. But, again, this is completely up to you. I've read the passage twice now and didn't notice any grammatical mistakes. I might give it another read tomorrow morning after a stiff cup of coffee, but I'm not sure I'll find anything. It reads very smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by smith on Jan 9, 2015 14:40:15 GMT 9
Alright, this translation has been posted to the site proper. Thanks Mike! I'll get busy adding definitions to the database.
|
|
|
Post by emilytiger on Jan 13, 2015 16:25:37 GMT 9
By the way, the story switches between first and third person every so often. Is that intentional? The first time I saw an "I" I figured it was an error, but after reading the whole thing more closely I'm not so sure. I was reading this story today and just noticed this as well, but when comparing to the Japanese I don't see a reason it would change to first person. "Trying to redeem the flat flattery, I pulled into my recall his rhapsodic essay on Mozart, then carefully insinuated my way into his favor, murmurring [sic]." お世辞の失敗を取りかえそうとして、山名先生のモオツアルト礼讃らいさんの或る小論文を思い出し、おそるおそるひとりごとみたいに呟つぶやいて先生におもねる。 --- On a separate note, did anyone else find the sudden switch to present tense here jarring? "Ouch! The young man curled up his lip in the cover of night. He is a university student in Tokyo, but has neither a school uniform nor a cap; just a blouson and a suit to match. He gets no financial support from his parents, so, at one time, he eked out his living by doing shoe-polishing, and at another, selling lottery tickets. But these days, here’s how he scrabbles a living: officially an editing assistant at a publishing house, he’s involved also in some shady business here and there, so he has more money than you would deduce from his circumstances." I've found tense can really turn into a struggle for me sometimes, but this is probably how I would change it. Does that make sense? (Genuinely asking.) "Ouch! The young man curled up his lip under the cover of night. He was a university student in Tokyo, but had neither uniform nor cap; just a blouson and a suit to match. He received virtually no financial support from his parents, so for a time he eked out his living polishing shoes; another time, he sold lottery tickets. Just then, he was officially an editing assistant at a publishing house, but he was also involved in some shady business here and there, so he had more money than you would have deduced from his circumstances."
|
|
|
Post by elipsett on Jan 13, 2015 21:46:41 GMT 9
Tense, gender, and quantity can all be undefined in Japanese, which really gives the translator quite a bit of flexibility. And earns him (or her) plenty of criticism! I needed to know the gender of a minor, one-scene character in a Japanese novel I was translating years ago (like, 25? 30? years ago...) and asked the author, who replied he had never even considered it and I should feel free to choose whatever I preferred!
|
|