I was just now using a small English-Russian/Russian-English dictionary--a fairly good and thorough one--and it made me think of how rare a truly good translation is. I suppose it's fair to say that a technical translation is really good when all the information from the source is represented clearly in the target language; after all, that's all that is expected. But I prefer a literary translation that conveys not only all the pieces but also the "feel" and emotional impact of the original. I'm not going to single out any examples now--I'm hoping you'll do that--but I will offer an example of why one word doesn't equal another, no matter what the dictionary says.
Ask a Russian how to say "understand" in Russian, and he/she will reply with "ponymat'". Germans will give you "verstehen"; Spaniards, "entender" or "comprender"; Arabs, "fahm". These words are rough equivalents of the concept of understanding. But a deep look into the history or etymology of the words will show that they aren't really expressing the same idea. "Understand" comes from "under + stand" and meant that, though I might not "get" your meaning, I will "stand under" you, or support (Latin: sub-portare) what you are saying. The German "verstehen" indicates, translating loosely, "I'll be there for you." The Spanish "comprender", and all its cognates (comprehend, etc.) is the best match to what we mean when we say "understanding" because it indicates a mutual (com-) grasping (prehens) of something. The Arabic "fahm" says something about opening up and making it easy to get at what's inside. In summary, "understand" is a poor word for what we mean when we say it . . . So, how can it be translated correctly? Short answer: translate the meaning.
That's the main problem I have with computer-assisted translation (CAT). The machine can't determine meaning; it can only give standard equivalents for words (plus some fixed phrases, in the case of the better software packages). A good CAT program can "learn" as it goes by adding to its recognized options those alternatives that a human gives it as acceptable, but it can't (yet?) handle nuance, level of speech, irony, sarcasm, or any of that other quirky stuff, and neither can an ill-prepared translator who relies on the dictionary.
What say you?
.jpg)
Comment Preview