Translation Theory Thread

[VFTF1]

The initial two posts plus my reply - and away we go. Everyone join in :

QUOTE (VFTF1 @ Dec 25 2008, 04:35 PM) *

Insofar as "professional translators" prefer "explaining" things from the original language to us rather than giving us a "direct translation" - I think that this is a vice and a bad habit in the translations business. I think it is more important to get a literal translation, even if it sounds or reads strange in your language rather than getting the translator's interpretation of something.

Gubaba - you and Yellow know Japanese, so it is not surprising that you take issue with fan subs, because you immediately spot inconsistencies, errors - sloppiness that is the result of a rush job.

However - if we are simply speaking in general about which method of translation is better - then I would say that literal translation is the best, while interpretive translation is the worse. Here is why:

For those of us who do not know Japanese (and in general for readers/viewers who do not know the original language), it is not simply a matter of words being different, but very often a matter of being confronted with a different intonation, way of expression, vocals, structure - everything that is inherent in linguistic form which to a large extent actually determines content.

If we who do not know the original language are not given the opportunity to be confronted with the strangeness of this language through literal translation, then we will not come as close as possible to the original work, but instead what we will get is a professional translator's opinion of the work.

I believe that the translator should be invisible - neutral to the extent of not even caring whether something is grammatically correct, let alone stylistically pleasent in english (or whatever the language is that things are being translated into). I think the reader/viewer should have the opportunity to say "huh!? What?!" and take that shock and explore the linguistic discrepencies.

Without those discrepencies, lots of things will be glosed over - and we'll end up thinking that we've seen a movie or read a book when what we've really seen and read is a translator's interpretation thereof.

So - I'm not going to argue that there are not sloppy dubs out there - but whenever I have compared subs to dubs - I have prefered the subs - and lots of times it was precisely because the subs were "wierder" and more raw and more strange and hard to fathom - this gave me a clue that something more was being said than what the dub hinted at - and that is good - it expands the possibilities for thinking things through.

Pete

Naturally, I disagree. happy.gif

Unless the languages involved are extremely close (Spanish and Portuguese for example), a very literal translation will always falsify the tone of the work; no matter how "faithful" the translator is trying to be, there are no one-to-one correspondences from Japanese to English, and so choices must be made in order to make the work comprehensible. No matter what, you're getting the work as interpreted by the translator.

Think of it like playing a Bach cello piece or something. Sure, there's the sheet music. You can tell five cellists to play the piece EXACTLY as it appears on paper, in order to be as faithful to Bach as possible. But those five versions will all sound subtly different, no matter how precise the players are. There's simply no way around it.

Too-literal translations also tend to become comprehensible ONLY to people who know both langages, as well. To cite an extreme example, the Japanese word "hiyoko" is used to mean "rookie," "greenhorn," "newbie," stuff like that. Literally, it means "fledgling" or "chick." There are (AFAIK) two basic fansubs of Macross Zero. One has Focker say, "I'll bring both the VF-0 and those fledglings back." It's okay, but still, Focker saying "fledgling" sounds kinda weird (to me, at least). The other fansub has him saying, "I'll bring them both back. The VF-0, and those chicks." Now we all know Roy's quite handy with the ladies, but the true meaning is lost to anyone who doesn't know that the word used was "hiyoko" and what its secondary meaning is. That's not a translation, that's just a mess.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'm done spouting off on translation theory here. If you're still not convinced, please PM me. (Or we can start a new thread, if you prefer.)

I think we agree, but simply do not understand as of yet why...to whit:

Unless the languages involved are extremely close (Spanish and Portuguese for example), a very literal translation will always falsify the tone of the work

Exactly- and my point is that it should be left falsified, to allow us to experience a bit of the "strangeness" of a foreign way of expressing humanity and the world.

there are no one-to-one correspondences from Japanese to English, and so choices must be made in order to make the work comprehensible.

"choices" must be made - yes - but not "a choice" - that's the beauty of literal translation. Like the NGE TV series we discussed, so too literal translation does not pretend to be the final word, the final say - it is one of many "choices" and does not shy away from being strange because of it.

A translation should show us that we have many choices. Interpretive translations chose for us - giving us only the interpretting translator's choice.

A good literal translation of a book - for example - will often have just as many pages in footnotes as it has in actual text for the book.

Think of it like playing a Bach cello piece or something. Sure, there's the sheet music. You can tell five cellists to play the piece EXACTLY as it appears on paper, in order to be as faithful to Bach as possible. But those five versions will all sound subtly different, no matter how precise the players are. There's simply no way around it.

I agree.

So why not let listeners hear all five of the different intepretations rather than forcing them to hear one? A good translator will want to give his reader/audience the broadest possible horizon - even if it means sacrificing style and grammar.

Too-literal translations also tend to become comprehensible ONLY to people who know both langages, as well. To cite an extreme example, the Japanese word "hiyoko" is used to mean "rookie," "greenhorn," "newbie," stuff like that. Literally, it means "fledgling" or "chick." There are (AFAIK) two basic fansubs of Macross Zero. One has Focker say, "I'll bring both the VF-0 and those fledglings back." It's okay, but still, Focker saying "fledgling" sounds kinda weird (to me, at least). The other fansub has him saying, "I'll bring them both back. The VF-0, and those chicks." Now we all know Roy's quite handy with the ladies, but the true meaning is lost to anyone who doesn't know that the word used was "hiyoko" and what its secondary meaning is. That's not a translation, that's just a mess.

And a too interpretive translation can have Machiavelli saying in the original italian "and his virtue could be seen in the act of killing his friends once they had ceased to be useful" only to be rendered "and his proficiency could be seen in the act of killing his friends once they had ceased to be useful" while Machiavelli writes elsewhere of Christian virtue, using the exact same word as when describing the virtue of murder; and the translator (the "professional translator") doesn't give us the chance to be shocked - like Machiavelli's contemporaries were - by reading someone speak of the virtue of murder as though he were talking about the virtue of religion.

Point?

Point is: your example only serves to illustrate my point. A good translation should bring up comments just like the one you made - it should bring up questions about what certain words mean. It should actually be HARD on people. It should ultimately convey to them that they need to learn the foreign language to really begin to understand.

Of course every discussion will always basically end up with "well you need to learn the original language to get it" - and that's good. And a great way to learn is by discussing literal translations.

This is better than having a smooth interpretive translation which ends up with people saying "I understand" - even if they don't.

Pete

[Gubaba]

So why not let listeners hear all five of the different intepretations rather than forcing them to hear one? A good translator will want to give his reader/audience the broadest possible horizon - even if it means sacrificing style and grammar.

Sure. That's why there are always new translations of "Anna Karenina" or "Don Quixote" coming out, and the more the merrier. I'm not sure we need five different possible translations of Pani Poni Dash, though. I think Animeigo did it best with Urusei Yatsura: going with one perfectly fine English translation in the sub, and including liner notes to explain references, translation choices, stuff like that.

That said (and I think you'll agree with me here), I find the on-screen fansub notes to be generally distracting. While it's nice to have a note in Macross Frontier episode one explaining the "smoke and idiots both rise" proverb, I really don't need Shinsen Subs telling me that "Fold Sickness" is like motion sickness. First, because that information isn't in the original work, and second because, well...how the hell do they know?

I have a similar view of the Zentradi language. Often when it's spoken in Macross, there are Japanese subtitles explaining the meaning. I fthat case, great, translate it into English, please. Other times, Zentradi is spoken and there are no Japanese subtitles...in which case, I say leave it be. The standard subs for DYRL have this problem, which is especially noticeable in the Max and Millia dogfight. Millia keeps speaking Zentradi ("Yack!" "Debrandekan!" etc.) and there are no Japanese subtitles. The subs put words like "Unbelievable!" and "Shit!" in her mouth...why did the translator think we were too dumb to follow?

And a too interpretive translation can have Machiavelli saying in the original italian "and his virtue could be seen in the act of killing his friends once they had ceased to be useful" only to be rendered "and his proficiency could be seen in the act of killing his friends once they had ceased to be useful" while Machiavelli writes elsewhere of Christian virtue, using the exact same word as when describing the virtue of murder; and the translator (the "professional translator") doesn't give us the chance to be shocked - like Machiavelli's contemporaries were - by reading someone speak of the virtue of murder as though he were talking about the virtue of religion.

Well...that's clearly not a translation done as rigorously as it should have been done. Some translations are too tame, or the translator doesn't understand the author's aims (or maybe the translator DOES understand, but backs away from that understanding for whatever reason), or the translation is simply...bad. It happens.

Point?

Point is: your example only serves to illustrate my point. A good translation should bring up comments just like the one you made - it should bring up questions about what certain words mean. It should actually be HARD on people. It should ultimately convey to them that they need to learn the foreign language to really begin to understand.

Of course every discussion will always basically end up with "well you need to learn the original language to get it" - and that's good. And a great way to learn is by discussing literal translations.

This is better than having a smooth interpretive translation which ends up with people saying "I understand" - even if they don't.

Pete

Hmmm...I think you have a very good point here, and I more or less agree with you, except for one thing: not everyone wants to be a linguist; sometimes people just want to sit down and enjoy a good anime without working too hard. I can understand enough Japanese that getting the gist of what was going on in Frontier didn't cause THAT much of a problem (a lot of the more detailed stuff passed me by, though), but it's tiring to watch it that way. I know it's good for me, gets my mind working, imprints more Japanese on my brain, blah blah blah...but it's not fun. And that's what anime is for, right? It's not like they deliberately put it in Japanese to force English speakers to confront cultural and linguistic differences, it's there to be enjoyed. And I think that a too-literal translation leaves the average viewer without an understanding of the work, and consequently, less enjoyment.

(Mark Twain did a brilliant piece where he had "The Jumping Frog of Calaveras Country" translated into French, and then translated literally back into English. It makes almost no sense. I'm sure it's probably somewhere on the many and varied internets if you want to check it out. But you don't even have to go that far...Babel Fish translations are as close to literal as you can get, and they're almost useless without an understanding of the original language.)

[VFTF1]

Ah - Gubaba - I knew you'd resort to the "but what if you just want it for entertainment value" line

You are of course right - I would just say to that, that the two (entertainment and amusement) aren't mutually exclussive. After all, I am certainly not arguing against DUBs in the sense that "they should not exist" nor am I arguing ONLY for the existence of meticulously literal subs (to the point of being mind-boggling).

If anything, I guess my case stemmed from disagreeing with the spirit, if not the content, of Yellowlightman's argument in the other thread. He seemed very insistent on why subs are all bad - so I just had the inclination to point out why sometimes literal subs have some good points to them.

As to the Twain piece -I'll check it out; always something new

Oh well - I hope Yellow also writes his views on this subject, because the problem with us two is that our arguments always boil down to:

"What to eat first? The cheesburger or the french fries?" and end with "eat both together, interchangeabily."

And to paraphrase you: where's the fun in that?

Pete

[ChrisG]

I think a lot of people don't understand the difference between translation and transliteration. I also think the idea that stilted literal translations that sacrifice English grammar for "purity" are an idea born completely out of fansubs. Grammar exists for a reason - so that we can understand things. If you were reading a Japanese novel translated into English and it was totally dry and lifeless, you wouldn't enjoy reading it. The same applies to anime or any other foreign filmed work. For lack of understanding the language, we have to go by the subtitles to understand not just what's being said, but the tone. If everything you read in a subtitle track sounds stilted and unnatural in English, that'll affect your enjoyment of the show. I think any professional translator would say the point of translation is to make something work in another language other than its original one - not being a stenographer giving some dry transcript. This necessarily means having an "interpretation," whether people like that or not.

[Deacon Blues]

...that's the beauty of literal translation...

See this is quite interesting... there is no such thing as what you just said. Literal translation is just wrong, plain and simple. I'll give you a perfect example: idioms. In your world of literal translations, Japanese idioms simply would not make sense whatsoever in English when translated literally. I'll cite an example:

「晴れているのに雨が・・・まるで狐の嫁入りだね。」

Raining even though the sun is out... just like a sun shower.

狐の嫁入り literally means "a fox becomes a bride". So your version of a "beautiful literal translation" would be something like... "Raining even though the sun is out... just like a fox becoming a bride." Hah, I think not. I suppose quite a few people are "confused" by the act of translation, so I'll clarify some things based on a recent presentation I did:

What is translation? Translation consists of producing in the target language, the closest natural equivalent of the source language meaning. First with respect to the meaning and second with respect to style. Translating is more than just replacing a word with its equivalent in another language: sentences and ideas must be manipulated to flow with the same coherence as those in the original so that the translation reads as though it originated in the target language. Some subjects may be more difficult than others to translate because words or passages may have multiple meanings that make several translations possible, this is natural. The success of a translation is nearly always dependent on the smallest words: prepositions, articles. However, nouns are also essential. Anyone can translate nouns, but not necessarily successfully. Nonetheless, translation creates a specific kind of distance: the reader never forgets that what is being read is a translation.

A common misconception that many people have is that translators very rarely “hear” or “are in tune” with their translation. A translator senses the original from the outside, but can never truly become one with it like the author had. This is mainly seen with poetry. A translator, as someone said, is “outside the language forest of the source, calling in.” Nonetheless, the translator can be and must be on the inside of his or her translation, and through time as a result, may begin to hear certain things in the original that were not readily perceived when they first started.

Fidelity and transparency are two qualities that have been regarded as ideals to be striven for in translation, particularly literary translation. These two ideals are often at odds. Fidelity refers to the extent that a translation accurately portrays the meaning of the source language. This also means that it does not add to nor subtract from it, does not intensify or weaken any part of it nor does it distort it. Transparency pertains to the extent to which a translation appears to a native speaker of the target language to have originally been written in that language, and conforms to the language's grammatical, syntactic and idiomatic conventions. A translation that meets the first criterion is said to be a "faithful translation"; a translation that meets the second criterion, an "idiomatic translation." The two qualities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The first thing to realize is that translators have their own way that they approach translations and they each bring with them a completely different set of experiences and ideas which will affect their translation in the end. But it's important to realize that just because translators will translate things differently does not necessarily make one more "right" or more "wrong" than any other translation. Once translators recognize that they have their own voice, they need to try and minimize the effect that voice has on the finished product. They shouldn't sacrifice the integrity of the translation just because their voice comes through in the translation. Instead they should use their experiences to help them come up with the best translation possible.

I highly recommend the book "Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation" by Umberto Eco. That will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Deacon Blues

[taksraven]

I thought that the whole dub vs. sub thing was absolutely dead now we have this miracle format called "DVD" and we can simply have both on the one disk.

ADV bothered to have a dub version of Gatchaman when they released the first season a few years back, but I always watch the sub instead. BUT, I prefer the dub of the original GITS. I can make a choice between the two and I do.

Where's the argument?

Lets face it, this argument was only valid with VHS.

Taksraven

[Bri]

"choices" must be made - yes - but not "a choice" - that's the beauty of literal translation. Like the NGE TV series we discussed, so too literal translation does not pretend to be the final word, the final say - it is one of many "choices" and does not shy away from being strange because of it.

A translation should show us that we have many choices. Interpretive translations chose for us - giving us only the interpretting translator's choice.

A good literal translation of a book - for example - will often have just as many pages in footnotes as it has in actual text for the book.

Literal translations can also take away that choice from the reader/viewer. A literal translation cannot convey emotions, meanings, cultural contexts etc that are implied but not written down in the original text and are understood by the native speaker. Adding that into footnotes only postpones the interpretation part but results in a less readable text. Worse, literal translations can actually change the meaning of what is said as certain word combinations have different meanings or evoke different feelings in different languages.

For example if I were to ask some one to close a door for me in my own native language the literal English translation would be like this: Close the door. It is a neutral message in my language but for a English native speaker in this would come across as a command and downright rude. A translator would understand the difference and translate it like: Would you mind closing the door, please. Which is far closer to the original intent of the message. It becomes even more troublesome by adding in footnotes for every change like this, as it would make the text unreadable and more suited for academic scholars then someone trying to watch an anime.

[Gubaba]

I thought that the whole dub vs. sub thing was absolutely dead now we have this miracle format called "DVD" and we can simply have both on the one disk.

ADV bothered to have a dub version of Gatchaman when they released the first season a few years back, but I always watch the sub instead. BUT, I prefer the dub of the original GITS. I can make a choice between the two and I do.

Where's the argument?

Lets face it, this argument was only valid with VHS.

Taksraven

Umm...I don'na think-a this thread means wha' you think it means.

Literal translations can also take away that choice from the reader/viewer. A literal translation cannot convey emotions, meanings, cultural contexts etc that are implied but not written down in the original text and are understood by the native speaker. Adding that into footnotes only postpones the interpretation part but results in a less readable text. Worse, literal translations can actually change the meaning of what is said as certain word combinations have different meanings or evoke different feelings in different languages.

For example if I were to ask some one to close a door for me in my own native language the literal English translation would be like this: Close the door. It is a neutral message in my language but for a English native speaker in this would come across as a command and downright rude. A translator would understand the difference and translate it like: Would you mind closing the door, please. Which is far closer to the original intent of the message. It becomes even more troublesome by adding in footnotes for every change like this, as it would make the text unreadable and more suited for academic scholars then someone trying to watch an anime.

Of course I agree, and it's one of the toughest aspects of translation. To take the End of Evangelion as an example, the English sub (and dub) dropped an F-bomb in the first scene ("I'm so f***ed up"), which apparently caused a lot of people grief. To me, it seemed a perfect solution to a tough problem...how to you convey that Shinji went from using "Boku" (the "I" in Japanese used almost exclusively by young boys) to "Ore" (the slangier, more macho version of "I," also used by Basara)? Simple...have him swear, which pretty aptly shows the change from child to teenager. A literal translation would have had him say "I'm the worst" or something, which completely loses the main point. Yes, it's anime. Yes, a lot of the scripts are rushed, careless, or just plain poorly written. But sometimes there's nuance and subtlety that must be addressed.

[taksraven]

Umm...I don'na think-a this thread means wha' you think it means.

Please. I saw the bit in the heading that said "Literal or Interpretive Translations" but I ignored that for the moment because I also saw the part that said "sub or dub" and wanted to address that issue. Give me some credit please.

Taskraven

[Bri]

Of course I agree, and it's one of the toughest aspects of translation. To take the End of Evangelion as an example, the English sub (and dub) dropped an F-bomb in the first scene ("I'm so f***ed up"), which apparently caused a lot of people grief. To me, it seemed a perfect solution to a tough problem...how to you convey that Shinji went from using "Boku" (the "I" in Japanese used almost exclusively by young boys) to "Ore" (the slangier, more macho version of "I," also used by Basara)? Simple...have him swear, which pretty aptly shows the change from child to teenager. A literal translation would have had him say "I'm the worst" or something, which completely loses the main point. Yes, it's anime. Yes, a lot of the scripts are rushed, careless, or just plain poorly written. But sometimes there's nuance and subtlety that must be addressed.

A clever find by the translator indeed. As the thread kind of ties in with the one about NGE:

This anime must have been a nightmare to translate with it's heavy focus on symbolism and psychological development. The relations between the childeren and the adults is another problem as it is shown from a Japanse perspective assuming knowledge on what is normal in that society. The people who translated the show (regardless of dub or sub) could not have escaped making choices about interpretation, even if they had wanted to. Literal translations make sense in technical or simple text but not here.

[Gubaba]

Please. I saw the bit in the heading that said "Literal or Interpretive Translations" but I ignored that for the moment because I also saw the part that said "sub or dub" and wanted to address that issue. Give me some credit please.

Taskraven

Does it actually say "sub vs. dub" in the heading...?

Why, so it does! Sorry, I completely missed that.

A clever find by the translator indeed. As the thread kind of ties in with the one about NGE:

This anime must have been a nightmare to translate with it's heavy focus on symbolism and psychological development. The relations between the childeren and the adults is another problem as it is shown from a Japanse perspective assuming knowledge on what is normal in that society. The people who translated the show (regardless of dub or sub) could not have escaped making choices about interpretation, even if they had wanted to. Literal translations make sense in technical or simple text but not here.

It sounds like translating the movie was insane. If we're to believe the audio commentary, they had three translators working separately to try to squeeze every possible reading out of the (quite ambiguous) dialogue. Even then, one HUGE error managed to creep into the final draft, and the translation of the final line sacrifices a certain amount of "naturalness" (i.e. it doesn't sound like something Asuka would actually say) in favor of leaving the meaning as open to interpretation as it was in the Japanese version.

Oh, and the dub was crap, but that's neither here nor there, really.

[mikeszekely]

The debate about fidelity/formal equivalence (trying to keep the translation as literal as possible) and transparency/dynamic equivalence (taking liberties to try to more clearly convey the meaning) in translation is neither new nor unique to anime. As has been mentioned, this is often an issue with literature or religious texts, and it often leads to many translations. Complicating the issue is that the line between formal and dynamic equivalence is quite often subjective and blurry, and it's often left to the reader to sample a little of multiple translations and try to pick the one that feels right to them. Of course, while this is often an option with books, and perhaps with fansubs, commercial anime is often a take-it-or-leave-it deal (which really renders the topic somewhat moot, doesn't it?).

All I can tell you is that I personally like a balance between fidelity and transparency that leans a little toward fidelity, at least in subtitles. When it comes to dubs, I'll allow a bit more leeway for the fact that dubs have to set to mouth movements, and is sometimes meant for a localized TV broadcast and aimed at a younger or more casual audience. Not to mention that, when watching a dub, I don't have the Japanese to compare it to to know if it's really off. But for subtitles, I prefer the subs to be fairly faithful to the original Japanese, barring obvious edits for the very different grammar. If a Japanese idiom is going to be replaced with an English equivalent, I do like to have a note to explain the actual Japanese idiom, or if the Japanese idiom is used I do like an explanation in case I'm not familiar with it (either way is fine). I'm also okay with making some changes for the sake of flow. I mean, almost every anime will, at some point, have a girl crying out for her older brother. And the Japanese will always be, "Oniichan," "Oniisan," "Niisan," or "Oniisama," and nine times out of ten I'm going to want to read that as "Bro," "Big Bro," or whatever the brother's name happens to be. I happen to understand the Japanese culture behind their choice of wording just fine, but in English we just don't have girls addressing their older brothers as "Big Brother," or "Elder Brother," or "Older Brother" or whatever.

[Gubaba]

The debate about fidelity/formal equivalence (trying to keep the translation as literal as possible) and transparency/dynamic equivalence (taking liberties to try to more clearly convey the meaning) in translation is neither new nor unique to anime. As has been mentioned, this is often an issue with literature or religious texts, and it often leads to many translations. Complicating the issue is that the line between formal and dynamic equivalence is quite often subjective and blurry, and it's often left to the reader to sample a little of multiple translations and try to pick the one that feels right to them. Of course, while this is often an option with books, and perhaps with fansubs, commercial anime is often a take-it-or-leave-it deal (which really renders the topic somewhat moot, doesn't it?).

All I can tell you is that I personally like a balance between fidelity and transparency that leans a little toward fidelity, at least in subtitles. When it comes to dubs, I'll allow a bit more leeway for the fact that dubs have to set to mouth movements, and is sometimes meant for a localized TV broadcast and aimed at a younger or more casual audience. Not to mention that, when watching a dub, I don't have the Japanese to compare it to to know if it's really off. But for subtitles, I prefer the subs to be fairly faithful to the original Japanese, barring obvious edits for the very different grammar. If a Japanese idiom is going to be replaced with an English equivalent, I do like to have a note to explain the actual Japanese idiom, or if the Japanese idiom is used I do like an explanation in case I'm not familiar with it (either way is fine). I'm also okay with making some changes for the sake of flow. I mean, almost every anime will, at some point, have a girl crying out for her older brother. And the Japanese will always be, "Oniichan," "Oniisan," "Niisan," or "Oniisama," and nine times out of ten I'm going to want to read that as "Bro," "Big Bro," or whatever the brother's name happens to be. I happen to understand the Japanese culture behind their choice of wording just fine, but in English we just don't have girls addressing their older brothers as "Big Brother," or "Elder Brother," or "Older Brother" or whatever.

I definitely agree with your last point, esPECially in something like Macross, where it's pretty clear that not everyone in the show is Japanese. In other words, I think it's okay to have Hikaru calling Focker "Senpai" in the subs (and the Animeigo subs do just that), but less okay for Luka to be saying "Michel Senpai." "San," "Kun," "Chan," etc. can usually be left out and it's perfectly okay.

[VFTF1]

「晴れているのに雨が・・・まるで狐の嫁入りだね。」

Raining even though the sun is out... just like a sun shower.

狐の嫁入り literally means "a fox becomes a bride". So your version of a "beautiful literal translation" would be something like... "Raining even though the sun is out... just like a fox becoming a bride." Hah, I think not. I suppose quite a few people are "confused" by the act of translation, so I'll clarify some things based on a recent presentation I did:

I prefer "raining even though the sun is out...just like a fox becoming a bride" to "raining even though the sun is out...just like a sun shower."

Why?

Because the second rendition sounds pretty banal, whereas the first - literal - rendition gives you food for thought - and actually DOES make sense. A fox is cunnin and dangerous and can eat you - and often times this is the nature of women, and yet men take them to be brides, because women can often manipulate men into looking away from their fox-like nature, and not seeing the risk involved.

This is like "raining even though the sun is out" because the presence of the sun makes you almost inclined to forget the rain, like the persistence of a woman makes you almost forget that she could be manipulating you and be dangerous as a fox.

The fact that it sounds "wierd" in english is all the more reason to give the literal translation; it's funner then to think about the relations between foxes and women and sun and rain. Otherwise, with the "dumbed down" translation - all you get is a pretty banal idiom, and clearly the comparison is more sophisticated than that.

As someone who doesn't know Japanese; I would be more interested in getting that more sophisticated strange translation and thinking about how Japanese culture looks on foxs and women, then getting the banal translation that has a seemingly more "normal" ring to it.

Literal translations can also take away that choice from the reader/viewer. A literal translation cannot convey emotions, meanings, cultural contexts etc that are implied but not written down in the original text and are understood by the native speaker. Adding that into footnotes only postpones the interpretation part but results in a less readable text. Worse, literal translations can actually change the meaning of what is said as certain word combinations have different meanings or evoke different feelings in different languages.

For example if I were to ask some one to close a door for me in my own native language the literal English translation would be like this: Close the door. It is a neutral message in my language but for a English native speaker in this would come across as a command and downright rude. A translator would understand the difference and translate it like: Would you mind closing the door, please. Which is far closer to the original intent of the message. It becomes even more troublesome by adding in footnotes for every change like this, as it would make the text unreadable and more suited for academic scholars then someone trying to watch an anime.

Literal translation is not flawless, and you are right about all of the pitfalls and risks you mention. However, my argument has always been that literal translation is preferable precisely because it does not hide its' flaws. Interpretive, stylistic translations pretend to serve you something that has no problems, no strangeness and sounds nice and is easily understood. However, this takes you even further away from experiencing the original intention of the work than a literal translations full of problems would. So, it is precisely because literal translations are flawed and imperfect that they are preferable - their flaws and imperfections point to differences in culture and language which can only lead us to learn more. In order to learn, we need to see a problem or a riddle first. Only literal translations show you the riddles.

As to the example of "close the door" - from the point of view of strict english grammar - you are correct, because "close the door" is a "command." But, in english, the "command" form might be called "command" but it does not literally mean that it is always a command in the sense of 'DO IT NOW!!!' - it is simply a form of speaking, and does not suggest compulsion, or the threat of force.

I would say that in translating from your language into English, it would be best to just leave it at "close the door" - even if the context might make it sound strange - let people experience the strangeness. Let them look at the context and wonder about it. Let them try to extrapolate from the strangeness the question of why, in Dutch (I assume that is your language?) it is fine to just say "close the door" rather than adding "please" or "could you/would you."

Again - the argument I am making in favor of literal translation is not that it is flawless because it is so literal, nor that there are not issues of choice and interpretation involved even when trying to be literal - only that this is preferable to pretending that there are no problems.

As to the notion that this would only be good for academic texts - I personally think this opinion gives too little credit to anime as an artistic form.

I thought that the whole dub vs. sub thing was absolutely dead now we have this miracle format called "DVD" and we can simply have both on the one disk.

One would think that, until one has the experience of throwing on a DVD with the girlfriend/wife. "Subs." "No dubs." "No subs." "No dubs." "Well then you can watch your damn subs and I'm going to sleep." "oh, ok sweetheart, don't get mad, we can watch dubs...."

Actually - in Poland - it's even worse: there's a THIRD option.

In Poland, every single foreign movie has the option of a narrative voice over. So basically - everyone speaks the original language in the movie but there is this LOUD MALE VOICE talking in Polish the whole time.

It's psychotic and completely ruins every film, but it's tradition and the way Poles have done their movies for the past 50 years... I personally can't stand it because it's the same freakin' guy talking the entire time - indeendent of whether it's a woman character speaking, and independent of scene.

And the narrative voice makes no attempt to reflect intonation or context. You could be watching an intense erotic scene and the narrative voice just drones on in monotone: "Yes yes harder."

You could be watching someone screaming in pain as they die, and the narrative voice just drones in monotone: "Oh it hurts. Oh God ack."

So - this is partially why I also prefer subs...

Pete

[Keith]

Subtitles with original Japanese language superior, english dubs inferior, end of story! If you want to watch somethign animated with english dialogue, go watch superfiends, or some other such garbage (Batman TAS excluded).

[Gubaba]

[Long post above]

I'm still not convinced; by translating idioms literally (unless you have some kind of footnote), it seems to me that you're STILL falsifying the work by adding that level of weirdness that isn't present to the original audience.

Having suffered through far too many Hong Kong DVDs, I can say with some certainty that having the Queen and King fan with the scratchy voice from an early episode of Macross 7 shout "What the fool you make me?" instead of, say, "What the hell are you talking about?" did nothing to help me appreciate the "foreignness" of the Japanese language, and nothing to help me revel in the intricacies of Japanese to Chinese to English translation difficulties. Instead, it just made me curse the ineptness of translation by computer.

Ditto having to deal with Focker being called Fuxutokka and Shin saying "What is a city?" instead of "Cities, huh?" in Macross Zero. If I hadn't understood what he was saying in Japanese, I would have been seriously confused. Ditto the HK version of the 20th Anniversary DVD I got...do YOU know what they mean by "Chando Blue"? (For the answer, see below.)

Idioms can be fun, informative, and enlightening...but what about dull grammatical problems?

(Admittedly, "What the fool you make me?" is a stunningly great bit of Engrish, and I'm kind of glad I came across it.)

˙ıpɐɹʇuǝz :sı ɹǝʍsuɐ ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ ǝɥʇ

[Keith]

HK subs translations are not in any way shape or form representative of a "literal" translation of anything, and as such should be kept out of this topic.

Also, go watch your Street Sharks if you want to see animation with english dialogue!

[VFTF1]

Gubsy:

I'm still not convinced; by translating idioms literally (unless you have some kind of footnote), it seems to me that you're STILL falsifying the work by adding that level of weirdness that isn't present to the original audience.

Well - perhaps you are trying to convince yourself of something that even I am not convinced of, and am not trying to convince you or anyone else of. First, I already noted that in the case of literal translations, it usually is necessary to have not merely "some kind of footnote," but usually footnotes spanning almost the same number of pages as the original work [and I suppose in the case of anime you would need a text document of footnotes to go with the episode].

Secondly, of course you're still falsifying the work just by translating it from one language to the next - literally or not; and you have made an excellent point that even the "wierdness" of the literal translation is not the same as the wierdness of the original language itself.

However:

a) Perhaps what is key here is moderation. If the text is TOO literal, then it could be simply uninteligible; not wierd and interesting, but simply sloppy, ungrammatical, poorly concieved and having absolutely no value whatsoever. Likewise - if the text is TOO interpretive and stylized, then the fact that it can be input by the reader so easily makes it very dangerous because it makes the reader think he is simply understanding a simple thing and keeps him blind to any more complex matters inherent in this thing.

b) Please notice - if we are going to start talking about the extent to which a translation (literal or otherwise) is a falsification of the original language - that the the original language itself is also a falsification of the thing.

To give an example - remember the teaching of Sara's father from Macross Zero? He taught Sara that long ago, there was only one word for lief - and then there became many words - and even though in the beginning, these many different words might have been merely different ways of looking at the same thing, then at one point, the words did not become different ways of looking at the thing, but only different ways of looking at one another: that is, different translations of one another. The words had less and less to do with the thing they attempted to signify and more to do with themselves - and the truth of the lief was lost.

Another example, this time non-Macross. Consider the word "penny." Is it round? Is it copper? No -yet it signifies something that has these properties. But at the same time as it reveals certain properties of a thing, it also closes our view from the essence of the thing - because we start seeing not the penny, but merely the word penny which holds in it a certain amount of properties (usually as defined by a dictionary). At some point - words become paramount and language, which is supposed to help shed light on the world, becomes the biggest enemy to seeing things as they are.

(now you know why I love Macross Zero and Sarah Nome:) )...

So - the point?

Translation is always a lie - it always falsifies. My whole point is not to be afraid of this conclusion and not to aspire towards the safety of "a broad consensus" of "dubbed works" which forever close us from the problem we are discussing. Much better to have a thousand versions of an anime episode then just one.

Also - the phrase you bring up - What the fool you make me? - sounds perfectly fine to me. I am not very multilingual. I only know two languages fluently, and one language half-heartedly (I managed to pick up three French chicks in Micigan once, and take them all to dinner, and speak passable French to them the whole time... I don't know whether they were just being polite or not - but I think if my French is sufficient to engage the atttention of three girls, then it's a-OK French!)...

Anyways - from my knowledge of languages (very limited) - this statement "what the fool you make me? - is actually a very typical way of putting things in non-english. Language is a playful thing. I mean - look at the "correct" version in English: "Just what Kind of fool do you take me for?" - if we were to be very literal about this (correct) version, then we would have to suppose that someone is literally taking (into their hands? Into their pocket? Into a suitcase?) another person....for something? It makes no sense.

Yet to our english-ears - it makes perfect sense. Every language has such phrases which, if looked at dryly, are actually ridiculous but taken for granted in the convention fo the given language.

So - no - I wouldn't be shocked or ill at ease to read "what the fool you make me?" in a sub. It would put a smile on my face and I would start thinking about how amusing and different structure is in the Japanese language, that it sounds like that.

In Polish, we say (translating literaly from "What kind of fool do you take me for?"): "For what fool me have?" - the reason it's not "for what fool me have you?" is because in Polish the "you" is inherent in the conjugation of the "have" - in English you don't really have such conjugations - you almost always need to insert a you, he, she, it, we etc.

"What the hell are you talking about" - on the other hand - is very far away from "what kind of fool do you take me for" - which is closer to "what the fool you make me?"

As for Shin's "What is City?" instead of "a city, huh?" - again - for me, this is not "wierd." In Polish, you can say "what is a city?" but you can also use the word "what" to mean "a city huh?" (literally: City what?) because "what" can be used a bit like "huh" since in Polish "what" is a two-letter word and pretty catchy ("co").

I'm sure that other people who know a few languages have similar stories they could tell of wierdness in their local dialects vs. english.

Again: my whole point is that it's far better to have all these various subs to consider and talk about - look how much I'm learning from you guys about Japanese thanks to it - than if we were all right now discussing the english dub of Macross with no reference to original Japanese dialogue.

The very fact that you Japanese speakers keep giving me examples of "bad subs" just proves my point - because the examples serve to teach me more about what is being said, what is meant by the language, and what the problems and things to be wary of in the story with regard to translation are.

Pete

[sketchley]

Wow... mega posts.

Simply put, if you want a literal translation, look at the results from any machine translation. Translation inherently means modification to the target language.

Subtitles increases the level of simplification. How's that? The translation has to fit on the screen, be in terminology that is easy to read quickly, and all of the translation must be able to be read within seconds.

In other words, subtitles on moving pictures are the most basic translation possible. Translations of a novel or some other reproduction that has the space and the target audience has the time will result in the most accurate translations.

I'm looking at this two ways: Japanese to English & English to Japanese. There are a plethora of examples of Japanese subtitles of English movies where only the most basic essence of the dialogue has been translated. There have even been times when I complained to the wife that a whole layer of meaning, which I considered important to either the plot or character development, is lacking in the translation.

So, if you want an "accurate" translation, do what us non-Japanese in Japan are doing: understanding Japanese and skipping everything to do with translation altogether.

[mikeszekely]

Anyways - from my knowledge of languages (very limited) - this statement "what the fool you make me? - is actually a very typical way of putting things in non-english. Language is a playful thing. I mean - look at the "correct" version in English: "Just what Kind of fool do you take me for?" - if we were to be very literal about this (correct) version, then we would have to suppose that someone is literally taking (into their hands? Into their pocket? Into a suitcase?) another person....for something? It makes no sense.

Yet to our english-ears - it makes perfect sense. Every language has such phrases which, if looked at dryly, are actually ridiculous but taken for granted in the convention fo the given language.

So - no - I wouldn't be shocked or ill at ease to read "what the fool you make me?" in a sub. It would put a smile on my face and I would start thinking about how amusing and different structure is in the Japanese language, that it sounds like that.

In Polish, we say (translating literaly from "What kind of fool do you take me for?"): "For what fool me have?" - the reason it's not "for what fool me have you?" is because in Polish the "you" is inherent in the conjugation of the "have" - in English you don't really have such conjugations - you almost always need to insert a you, he, she, it, we etc.

"What the hell are you talking about" - on the other hand - is very far away from "what kind of fool do you take me for" - which is closer to "what the fool you make me?"

As for Shin's "What is City?" instead of "a city, huh?" - again - for me, this is not "wierd." In Polish, you can say "what is a city?" but you can also use the word "what" to mean "a city huh?" (literally: City what?) because "what" can be used a bit like "huh" since in Polish "what" is a two-letter word and pretty catchy ("co").

I'm sure that other people who know a few languages have similar stories they could tell of wierdness in their local dialects vs. english.

The problem with your ideas is that you give reasons for why those those grammar issues are okay because that grammar works in Polish. However, the translations aren't being presented in Polish, they're being presented in English. For the first example, I agree that "What the hell are you talking about?" is pretty far from "what the fool do you make me?". But "what the fool do you make me" is gibberish without making a second mental translation into more proper English. "What kind of fool do you take me for?" is okay, or maybe even something like "are you making fun of me?" would be very close to expressing the original idea, but the differences in grammar between Japanese and English isn't something that should be on your mind when casually watching anime. While watching television is often useful for a moderate-to-advanced student of a language to give his or herself a little practice and pick up some slang, it's certainly not the place for a grammar lesson.

As for the whole "What is city?", it's closer to "What is a city?" than anything else in English (where "what" and "huh" are hardly equivalents). Coming out of Sara or Mao's mouth would have most people wondering if they actually didn't know what a city was, but Shin certainly knew. So leaving it as "What is city?" or translating it to "What is a city?" doesn't make sense in English.

Arguments about the falsification of meaning through translation obscures the point... that the point of translation is to take a spoken or written idea and make it understood in another language. Very literal translations often fail to do that without the audience having a background understanding of the original language and culture.

To that end, I think we actually agree more than we disagree. We both think that idioms should be translated more literally with an explanation than replaced with some English idiom that wasn't spoken. We both lean toward literal translations, but you yourself have admitted that moderation is necessary. This is what I was advocating in my first post... that the translation should stick close to what's being said, but that allowances must be made to make it presentable in the non-native language.

I'm looking at this two ways: Japanese to English & English to Japanese. There are a plethora of examples of Japanese subtitles of English movies where only the most basic essence of the dialogue has been translated. There have even been times when I complained to the wife that a whole layer of meaning, which I considered important to either the plot or character development, is lacking in the translation.

And it's that subtext that I think allowances should be made for.

So, if you want an "accurate" translation, do what us non-Japanese in Japan are doing: understanding Japanese and skipping everything to do with translation altogether.

"Anime" is not a genre, and I do not regard it as a hobby. At the risk of offending probably everyone on these boards, lumping all anime into one collective to be adored, and learning Japanese over that collective smacks of obsession. I will not deny VFTF1's claim that anime is an artform, but it is an artform only in the sense that any other story, including western animation and television series, are an artform, and it's a mistake to put anime on a pedestal. I would no more claim to be an anime fan than I would claim to be a fan of all American animation. Yeah, I joined these boards way back in the day because I'm a fan of Macross, but I think I'm a fan of Macross because I love good sci-fi, not because I love anime at large. Learn a language because you want to broaden your horizons or really experience a foreign culture, sure, but to watch anime?

[ChrisG]

Also - the phrase you bring up - What the fool you make me? - sounds perfectly fine to me. I am not very multilingual. I only know two languages fluently, and one language half-heartedly (I managed to pick up three French chicks in Micigan once, and take them all to dinner, and speak passable French to them the whole time... I don't know whether they were just being polite or not - but I think if my French is sufficient to engage the atttention of three girls, then it's a-OK French!)...

Anyways - from my knowledge of languages (very limited) - this statement "what the fool you make me? - is actually a very typical way of putting things in non-english.

Well, we're not talking about non-English, are we? It does not sound perfectly fine at all, and any native English speaker will tell you that it's completely wrong to think so. Also, in your previous post about the Japanese idiom, you mention preferring the nonsensical "fox becoming a bride" translation to the one that makes more sense. From what I gather from this thread, by "literal translation" you really want there to be some kind of exotic, foreign weirdness in a translation to give it some special quality that makes it stand out. If that's the case, YOU are the one who is falsifying the real intent of a work, because you want something to be there that isn't there originally.

[VFTF1]

Well, we're not talking about non-English, are we? It does not sound perfectly fine at all, and any native English speaker will tell you that it's completely wrong to think so

I'm a native English speaker and I don't think it's wrong to think so.

From what I gather from this thread, by "literal translation" you really want there to be some kind of exotic, foreign weirdness in a translation to give it some special quality that makes it stand out

If that's the impression you got, then I guess I have some explaining to do. Of course I realize that there's little point in a translation which intentionally tries to complicate things. Where ever it is possible for the translation to be coherent, both in terms of form and content, then obviously this is a good thing. So - no - I don't want wierdness unless it is warrented by the situation.

If that's the case, YOU are the one who is falsifying the real intent of a work, because you want something to be there that isn't there originally.

You're absolutely right that this is one of the risks and pitfalls that await anyone who ventures into translations with the idea that they are somehow going to "preserve original intent." Especially when, lots of times, they see "intent" that was never in the original work in the first place.

So - I agree - this is a risk. But again, I repeat - with dubs, one doesn't even have the chance to see whether or not something is being falsified - one is simply spoon fed somebody's translation - not just verbal, but audible (spic?) - tone, voice...

If I had to be very brief in stating my view it would be:

"I agree with Kieth."

But since Kieth isn't doing much explaining of why he holds his opinion, then I am trying to explain why I hold mine instead of just saying subs rule/dubs suxorz

Pete

[sketchley]

And it's that subtext that I think allowances should be made for.

I agree. BUT, given the constraints, it is nigh impossible.

"Anime" is not a genre, and I do not regard it as a hobby. At the risk of offending probably everyone on these boards, lumping all anime into one collective to be adored, and learning Japanese over that collective smacks of obsession.

? Where is this coming from?

Learn a language because you want to broaden your horizons or really experience a foreign culture, sure, (...)

The point I was trying to make, thank you.

[Bri]

Some interesting comments have been made. In the first place I don't think we should focus on the sub/dub argument as it's been debated to death in the past. Most if not all participants in this dicussion sofar prefer subs. But what makes it interesting is the way subs convey information. If I may be so free to condense VTF1s argument to a position that holds that he wants a translation that is as close as possible to the original words spoken by the Japanse and if this results in some distortions and/or weird sounding english then that is acceptable. Footnotes can and should be used to make sure the context of the message comes across. This can be done by an accompanying text with the DVD.

The other position states imo that deviatation in subs of the original text is less important than staying close to the meaning. The story or understanding of the anime takes precedence over the actual words used. Especially in stories where the original text is ambigious or even testing for native speakers.

There would be good reasons for either posistion depending on your point of view. If you have a lingual or cultural interest that exceeds the scope of the anime and you want to know how it fits in then position one looks more atractive. But if you want to have the same viewing experience as (or as close as possible to that) a native speaker, when first seeing the anime - then position two is your bet. To be fair, we often start in positions two: "What the heck did just happen to character A" and after seeign a show or movie more then once we may drift towards position one: "So this and that happened, but why did the character A act like he or she did"

I would agree that the number of translations out there is a good thing. In fairness I do think that anime that have had serious influence on anime history could benifit from a more literaly translated version. A bit like the criterion editions of movies that have been important for film history. The medium is not really suited for complex explanations (excluding audio commentaries maybe) so we end up with accompanying reference works. This would quickly place such DVDs in a niche for people with a broader interest in Japan and or it's language and scholars. Hence my earlier comment on academics.

As a final point I think anime should be considered an art-form, or at least a regional expression of the art-form animation. I feel it's as distinct from real-life action television/film as painting is from photography. Anime and a interest in Japan go hand in hand but I think people who see anime as a hobby are no different from those who are interested in a single period or style in art history.

[ChrisG]

I'm a native English speaker and I don't think it's wrong to think so.

No offense, but if that's your belief as a native English speaker, you really need to brush up on your grammar. I'm not just talking out of my ass here - I'm a reporter by trade, and the statement makes zero sense and just doesn't work. "What the fool you make me" is not right, regardless of how you think it may sound.

[VFTF1]

No offense, but if that's your belief as a native English speaker, you really need to brush up on your grammar. I'm not just talking out of my ass here - I'm a reporter by trade, and the statement makes zero sense and just doesn't work. "What the fool you make me" is not right, regardless of how you think it may sound.

None taken.

Maybe I have, once again, not been clear about what I mean. Of course "what the fool you make me" is completely "wrong" from the point of view of grammar. I can also see how, at some level, you could argue that it makes no sense. I can certainly see that, looking at the sentence from the point of view of a reporter, where you need to make things clear and to the point for as broad an audience as possible (I'm assuming that you don't work in some arcane niche reporting on the minute details of...say...fly fishing...which might give you some lee-way), the sentence does indeed make "zero sense."

However, what I was trying to indicate was that, given how sentences are structured in other languages, one becomes accustomed to juggling words and allowing the mind to have them played with. I used the example of knowing one other language fluently, and a third at a moderately adequate level - but perhaps a better example will suffice:

I hope that others can confirm what I am about to write (otherwise I'll feel very alone:) ) - but:

If you have ever lived in, and especially worked in a foreign country, and in particular - if you have had to communicate in english with people from numerous different countries (not just the foreign country you happen to be living/working in), then you will discover - I think - that being a stickler for english grammar and propriety can be a drawback, or, at the very least, it becomes necessary to tolerate variations of the english language.

I have worked with people from various parts of the world and we would always communicate in english. My english is American, and more specifically, midwestern. My counterparts would be from various corners of the world and it would have been very rude of me to interrupt them at every turn to correct their grammar or even say things like "can you repeat that?"

There are doctors, lawyers - experts in many fields who have a truly vast store of knowledge in their field but only a rudimentary grasp of english; and even if they have a very good grasp of english, they still make what we would consider grammatical errors and slips of the tongue due to their background.

Now - imagine for a moment that you have this aforementioned international setting without any Americans (or Brits or Aussies) - aka - without any native english speakers. Imagine that you have folks from China, Israel, Pakistan, Columbia and numerous other places all interacting and speaking the one language that is most commonly used in our world: english.

What do you think is going to happen to that language? It will be twisted, convoluted and changed in many ways that will be appalling for a native English speaker brought up to "spell properly" and who has a basic understanding of grammar.

Yet - for these foreigners who use english to communicate amongst themselves, their "mistakes" will simply be new and different conventions.

And now think of this situation: a foreign lawyer is telling you something important in english. You basically understand him and get the gist of his point, but some of his sentences are twisted. Do you scold him for bad grammar? Do you demand that he repeat himself and feign ignorance until he realizes that he is speaking with errors?

That would be highly embarassing imo. At some point - you just accept that english is no longer simply an American language, or British or Canadian - it is now in many ways a global language and grammar and style is now more dynamic than ever.

Of course this doesn't mean that you toss all rules out the window and that there are no longer standards of excellence in written and spoken english - but certainly it would be unhealthy to be excessively rigid - I think - in terms of what we accept as proper english.

But then again - as usual - I probably have the minority view on this too. In fact, sometimes, when I have let people know that they are making persistent mistakes in english only after a longer acquaintance and when pressed with questions like "so - how is my english?" - then they are suddenly upset that I didn't mention their mistakes earlier, because they consider it embarassing that they are making these mistakes.

But honestly - people make so many crazy mistakes, and there are so many twisted versions of english that it just would be impossible to correct them all. Instead, I just try to understand what is being said - even if it sound wacko...

Pete

[Gubaba]

Gad, there's tons to reply to here...this thread is eating up my time off...

HK subs translations are not in any way shape or form representative of a "literal" translation of anything, and as such should be kept out of this topic.

Point taken.

Gubsy:

Well - perhaps you are trying to convince yourself of something that even I am not convinced of, and am not trying to convince you or anyone else of. First, I already noted that in the case of literal translations, it usually is necessary to have not merely "some kind of footnote," but usually footnotes spanning almost the same number of pages as the original work [and I suppose in the case of anime you would need a text document of footnotes to go with the episode].

Secondly, of course you're still falsifying the work just by translating it from one language to the next - literally or not; and you have made an excellent point that even the "wierdness" of the literal translation is not the same as the wierdness of the original language itself.

However:

a) Perhaps what is key here is moderation. If the text is TOO literal, then it could be simply uninteligible; not wierd and interesting, but simply sloppy, ungrammatical, poorly concieved and having absolutely no value whatsoever. Likewise - if the text is TOO interpretive and stylized, then the fact that it can be input by the reader so easily makes it very dangerous because it makes the reader think he is simply understanding a simple thing and keeps him blind to any more complex matters inherent in this thing.

b) Please notice - if we are going to start talking about the extent to which a translation (literal or otherwise) is a falsification of the original language - that the the original language itself is also a falsification of the thing.

To give an example - remember the teaching of Sara's father from Macross Zero? He taught Sara that long ago, there was only one word for lief - and then there became many words - and even though in the beginning, these many different words might have been merely different ways of looking at the same thing, then at one point, the words did not become different ways of looking at the thing, but only different ways of looking at one another: that is, different translations of one another. The words had less and less to do with the thing they attempted to signify and more to do with themselves - and the truth of the lief was lost.

Another example, this time non-Macross. Consider the word "penny." Is it round? Is it copper? No -yet it signifies something that has these properties. But at the same time as it reveals certain properties of a thing, it also closes our view from the essence of the thing - because we start seeing not the penny, but merely the word penny which holds in it a certain amount of properties (usually as defined by a dictionary). At some point - words become paramount and language, which is supposed to help shed light on the world, becomes the biggest enemy to seeing things as they are.

(now you know why I love Macross Zero and Sarah Nome:) )...

So - the point?

Translation is always a lie - it always falsifies. My whole point is not to be afraid of this conclusion and not to aspire towards the safety of "a broad consensus" of "dubbed works" which forever close us from the problem we are discussing. Much better to have a thousand versions of an anime episode then just one.

Also - the phrase you bring up - What the fool you make me? - sounds perfectly fine to me. I am not very multilingual. I only know two languages fluently, and one language half-heartedly (I managed to pick up three French chicks in Micigan once, and take them all to dinner, and speak passable French to them the whole time... I don't know whether they were just being polite or not - but I think if my French is sufficient to engage the atttention of three girls, then it's a-OK French!)...

*snip*

Again: my whole point is that it's far better to have all these various subs to consider and talk about - look how much I'm learning from you guys about Japanese thanks to it - than if we were all right now discussing the english dub of Macross with no reference to original Japanese dialogue.

The very fact that you Japanese speakers keep giving me examples of "bad subs" just proves my point - because the examples serve to teach me more about what is being said, what is meant by the language, and what the problems and things to be wary of in the story with regard to translation are.

Pete

Man, you're taking me back to my college Plato and Aristotle courses with that "penny" stuff...

I think we agree more than we disagree. I remember reading Artisophanes's "The Clouds" in school, and getting annoyed because Socrates was talking about songs with mountain themes, and the translator substituted whatever was in the original Greek with things like "On Top of Old Smokey" and "She'll Be Coming Round the Mountain." I would've preferred that he put the original song titles and informed us through footnotes that they were songs of the period. The translator must be sensitive to the world of the story and not intorduce jarring elements, even if they're more familiar. I would expect a higher "level of weirdness" or exotica from an anime set in 11th Century Kyoto than I would set in present day New York.

It's a delicate balancing act, no matter how literal you're trying to be. I don't hold my translations up as paragons of beauty, truth, and perfection, but I do try to be as faithful as possible. In my (still unfinished...man, I've got a lot do!) translation of the "Nyan Tra" liner notes, I felt that I needed to add a little bit of information to make a certain point (that the seven-colored carrots are no longer being produced) clearer...they never came out and SAID it, but it was heavily implied. But then, Japanese can handle some forms of ambiguity better than English can. A number of things implicit in the original must be made explicit in English if the meaning is to come across. I don't think I was really falsifying the information...I was merely presenting the same information in a different language.

Poetry, on the other hand, WILL ALWAYS be falsified by translation, since there are so few words in a poem that every single one carries enormous weight. Most anime scripts don't achieve that level of sophistication, though.

So, if you want an "accurate" translation, do what us non-Japanese in Japan are doing: understanding Japanese and skipping everything to do with translation altogether.

...he said smugly. (And I agree, also smugly. )

"Anime" is not a genre, and I do not regard it as a hobby. At the risk of offending probably everyone on these boards, lumping all anime into one collective to be adored, and learning Japanese over that collective smacks of obsession. I will not deny VFTF1's claim that anime is an artform, but it is an artform only in the sense that any other story, including western animation and television series, are an artform, and it's a mistake to put anime on a pedestal. I would no more claim to be an anime fan than I would claim to be a fan of all American animation. Yeah, I joined these boards way back in the day because I'm a fan of Macross, but I think I'm a fan of Macross because I love good sci-fi, not because I love anime at large. Learn a language because you want to broaden your horizons or really experience a foreign culture, sure, but to watch anime?

I agree. Anime is a medium, not a body of work. And while I have a lot of respect (and love) for erudite, scholarly, "difficult" approaches to things, I'm not sure the general anime or SF fan wants that, or would tolerate it. Imagine if your average romance novel set in 18th Century Ireland or something had TONS of notes and background information on the culture and history, and a painstaking analysis of Gaelic. Some women would eat it, but I think most would get impatient waiting for the hunky guy to rip the woman's bodice and stick his purple warrior into her delicate flower, and that book would end up in the trash can. I think the same is true for anime, and that's okay.

Again, I think the best example of a scholarly (but fun) approach is Animeigo's "Urusei Yatsura" collections. TONS of information about culture and translation, presented in such a way that the viewer can take or leave it, depending on his or her level of interest. But I don't think all anime would benefit from this approach. I don't think we need ten different translations of or copious liner notes for, say, "Fight! Iczer-One" in order to soak up all the subtleties in the dialogue.

[VFTF1]

Gubaba:

Man, you're taking me back to my college Plato and Aristotle courses with that "penny" stuff...

I think we agree more than we disagree. I remember reading Artisophanes's "The Clouds" in school, and getting annoyed because Socrates was talking about songs with mountain themes, and the translator substituted whatever was in the original Greek with things like "On Top of Old Smokey" and "She'll Be Coming Round the Mountain."

That is really atrocious given the importance that Mountains play in Plato's work. Particularly in the Laws he specifically has the Athenian Stranger ruminate on how a better world would be born after all of humanity were flooded and only "the Mountain Men" survived and came down from the mountains into the vallies with new laws modeled on philosophy.

Even though the Clouds are a comedy, comedy does not mean "not taking the target seriously," so it would be very important to find the original songs that Aristophanes wrote about because they were probably a comment/gag about an important subject: namely Plato's view of Mountains and the life of Mountain Men.

In any event - I'm not surprised that you read this kind of stuff, since your good natured humor reveals a philosophical predisposition. Not to mention anybody who names themselves after a silent ball of furr has to be smart.

But I'll shut up now before we end up starting a Mutual Adoration Club, or whatever those things are called.

Pete

[ChrisG]

Maybe I have, once again, not been clear about what I mean. Of course "what the fool you make me" is completely "wrong" from the point of view of grammar. I can also see how, at some level, you could argue that it makes no sense. I can certainly see that, looking at the sentence from the point of view of a reporter, where you need to make things clear and to the point for as broad an audience as possible (I'm assuming that you don't work in some arcane niche reporting on the minute details of...say...fly fishing...which might give you some lee-way), the sentence does indeed make "zero sense."

However, what I was trying to indicate was that, given how sentences are structured in other languages, one becomes accustomed to juggling words and allowing the mind to have them played with. I used the example of knowing one other language fluently, and a third at a moderately adequate level - but perhaps a better example will suffice:

I hope that others can confirm what I am about to write (otherwise I'll feel very alone:) ) - but:

If you have ever lived in, and especially worked in a foreign country, and in particular - if you have had to communicate in english with people from numerous different countries (not just the foreign country you happen to be living/working in), then you will discover - I think - that being a stickler for english grammar and propriety can be a drawback, or, at the very least, it becomes necessary to tolerate variations of the english language.

I have worked with people from various parts of the world and we would always communicate in english. My english is American, and more specifically, midwestern. My counterparts would be from various corners of the world and it would have been very rude of me to interrupt them at every turn to correct their grammar or even say things like "can you repeat that?"

We're talking about two entirely different fields though here. I know what the statement is trying to say, even though it's written as nonsense. But that's not acceptable if I were watching/reading a professional translation (which the original example of an HK wasn't, but the sake of this example, let's just assume it is). That's not the same at all as conversing with a foreigner who may have some grammatical reversals when trying to speak English. I know what they're trying to say, and I'm not going to try to force them to speak my language correctly beyond their ability (I'd also hope they'd extend me the same courtesy if I were speaking their language). But casual conversation, and the inherent grammatical errors that people commit, has no relation the professional translating and shouldn't be equated as such.

[VFTF1]

We're talking about two entirely different fields though here. I know what the statement is trying to say, even though it's written as nonsense. But that's not acceptable if I were watching/reading a professional translation (which the original example of an HK wasn't, but the sake of this example, let's just assume it is). That's not the same at all as conversing with a foreigner who may have some grammatical reversals when trying to speak English. I know what they're trying to say, and I'm not going to try to force them to speak my language correctly beyond their ability (I'd also hope they'd extend me the same courtesy if I were speaking their language). But casual conversation, and the inherent grammatical errors that people commit, has no relation the professional translating and shouldn't be equated as such.

Again - you're absolutely right.

But

We're also not talking about professional translations, but fan subs - or at least I thought we were (are we?).

Most anime, as far as I can tell, is subbed by fans because it is not licensed outside of Japan and even if an anime eventually gets licensed, fans still sub it long before it officialy debutes in their country.

Now, I think that for unpaid lovers of anime, most of these fan subs are pretty decent - at least the ones I've watched. I deduce this on the basis of my being able to come on this board and hold discussions about the anime in question with people who understand the original Japanese, and overall we seem to be on the same page and have "heard/seen" the same words in the anime which meant the same things to us.

But I wouldn't demand of anime that it be professional like a translating company that does movies and books for money.

I'm just saying that in general, if a fan is subbing an anime, then I would generally prefer that (within reason) they try to give me a literal translation rather than a flowery, stylistic interpretation.

Nothing more than that

Pete

[Deacon Blues]

I prefer "raining even though the sun is out...just like a fox becoming a bride" to "raining even though the sun is out...just like a sun shower."

Fine, I'll pose for you another idiom, one that will make no sense whatsoever when translated into English.

「そんな小さな子にコンピュータを買い与えるなんて、猫に小判だ。」

Buying a computer for a small child like that is simply a waste.

Literal translation: Buying a computer for a small child like that is like gold coins to a cat.

Does that make sense in English? No! Do you understand that the idiom means "like casting pearls before swine"? Hell no! I could give you a whole slew of other idioms (entrusting a cat with a dried bonito, a meowing cat catches no rats, have an injury on one's shin-- which is an idiom for having a shady past), and you can try and figure out what they mean, but you can't. It's just that simple.

If you want things translated literally, this is how they would read:

僕は行くつもりだ。

Literal: I TOP NOM go intend COP. (I go intend.)

Actual: I intend to go.

TOP = topic marker

NOM = nominalizer

COP = copula

The same can be said for contextual situations. If I were to say 僕はうなぎだ。I'm saying (literally) "I am an eel." That's your literal translation. But, given the context of the situation it's more of "I've decided on eel" or "I want to order eel." The translation range is vast an infinite when the sentence is stand alone, but in your situation you want literal, so you'll get "I am an eel." which does not fit into a NORMAL conversation if you are watching something subbed.

Translation is always a lie - it always falsifies. My whole point is not to be afraid of this conclusion and not to aspire towards the safety of "a broad consensus" of "dubbed works" which forever close us from the problem we are discussing. Much better to have a thousand versions of an anime episode then just one.

I suggest rereading what I said earlier since you seemed to have glossed over it. But then if translation is a lie then if I said to you 「お前は相変わらずアホだし」, then it wouldn't mean "And you're just as retarded as always" then would it?

b) Please notice - if we are going to start talking about the extent to which a translation (literal or otherwise) is a falsification of the original language - that the the original language itself is also a falsification of the thing.

So basically if I were to translate something from English into Japanese, the Japanese would be a falsification of the original?

As someone who doesn't know Japanese;

This, sir, just blows every argument you have out of the water. All of your points are hereby moot. Quit arguing for something that you clearly have no basis or background in yet claim is correct.

[wolfx]

Man...lotsa tl;dr here.

Fine, I'll pose for you another idiom, one that will make no sense whatsoever when translated into English.

「そんな小さな子にコンピュータを買い与えるなんて、猫に小判だ。」

Buying a computer for a small child like that is simply a waste.

Literal translation: Buying a computer for a small child like that is like gold coins to a cat.

Does that make sense in English? No! Do you understand that the idiom means "like casting pearls before swine"? Hell no! I could give you a whole slew of other idioms (entrusting a cat with a dried bonito, a meowing cat catches no rats, have an injury on one's shin-- which is an idiom for having a shady past), and you can try and figure out what they mean, but you can't. It's just that simple.

That made total sense to me.....strange. Cats have no use for gold coins hence the message was conveyed through the idiom. I don't need some sub to "spell it out" to me what the idiom means but sometimes a typeset explaining the above would be helpful for those who can't understand idioms.

I for one prefer a more literal translation and if it warrants it, a typeset explanation of what it means. Please do not give examples of baddddd typesets like "Keikakuu Doori" typeset: "Keikakuu Doori means Just As Planned" as those are obviously not needed.

I can understand why some people would prefer a less literal translation but a translation that makes sense to english speakers and championing it as something professional translators do. But it is my humble opinion that if you're going to watch anime as a hobby and you'll be watching alot of it in your spare time, why complain what fansubs are doing since it gives more information (although some may say redundant) than what "professional subs" are going to translate? There's lotsa fun stuff to be had especially when Japanese puns and jokes are translated and explained to viewers rather than giving an english equivalent that in no way translates to what the characters are saying. If that's the case, i'd rather watch dubs but I'm not a dub person. Off the top of my head from Kannagi, when Nagi says "Stekki No Sticku" and goes on to laugh loudly to herself at the lame joke....translators will just put "Nice Stick" and viewers will be "uhhh what's so funny?" But if translated with some notes, it will make more sense to viewers why it was funny.

[Keith]

My views on this matter are 4 fold.

1.Artistic Integrity: I feel that in 100% of the time, it's an innevitability that in the course of "overdubbing" something into another language, it's impossible to replicate the production as it was originally intended by the creative staff. I've listened to more than my share of dubs, and compared them with the original audio tracks. In doing so I've found each and every time, the emotion put in by the actors puts an entirely different spin on what's going on. It happens to varrying degree's, on let's say a Robotech (worst end of the spectrum0 to Cowboy Bebop (a tolerable end of the spectrum), but no matter what, the differences are there. If you are watching something dubbed into another language, you are not watching the same thing as it was originally intended when it was created. On the same token, if you are watching something with translation subtitles, those subtitles "may" not give you 100% (or in HK subs, anything even remotely close) of a translation of what's going on, but regardless, you're hearing the inflection of those actors portraying those characters as the production staff intended them to be. The decided upon attitudes & personalities of those characters. A great recent example, Gurren Lagann. I don't care what anyone says, dub Kamina is NOT Kamina. Even with a bad translation, subtitles can say "mappy hith bey" for the entire run of the program, but the character saying whatever they're saying, in whatever language they're saying it, is a very specific integral part of what's going on.

2.Cultural Tolerance: To me, anyone who says something to the effect of "I can't enjoy/pay attention to/etc something that isnt't in "my" native language is a racist. They're intollerent of other cultures to some degree, and as such have no business even watching something foreign in the first place. If you're going to watch anime, accept it for what it is, good & bad. With big bouncing tits & giant mecha comes a whole wonderous language, 99% of which I can't even begin to understand, but love none the less, because it allows evrything else that comes with it to exist. And in my 20 some years of watching anime subtitled, I've picked up a few words here and there, and can catch when certain things aren't even remotely translated correctly in subtitles. Hell, a few years ago, a local cable (or perhaps a UHF?) station wuld have a weekly block of Japanese variety shows. Understanding the few words that I did, I could pick up occasional bits of sketch story, while my girlfriend understanding none of the language, still enjoyed it for the general comedy of what's going on (I think the show was called Wararu Inu, which roughly translated as Laughing Dog), and we caught that show every week until it sadly dissapeared. But back to the point, why should something be changed into something it's not (from a Japanese language production, to an English language production) just because someone can't handle that a language other than their own is being spoken. As I've said previously, if you want to watch something animated that's in English, watch Rubic The Amazing Cube.

A sidenote of something that would be acceptable, if a company like HG decided they loved the Macross concept, but wanted to do an English language production version of it, they should pay to license the property for a new production. i.e. a show like Exosquad. Inferior to its inspired roots, yet clearly heavily influenced by, and a decent production in its own rights. It's the difference between remaking "The Day The Earth Stood Still" with the new changes to the story, hgih SFX budget, & whatnot, or just overdubbing the original with the voices of modern actors. Both are bad, but one is herressay.

3.Subtitles superior, dubs inferior: Emotions & inflection are universal. Happy is happy, sad is sad, mad is mad, etc. The fine details like puns or pop culture references can be drastically different & mean entirely different things in different cultures yes, but the delivery of those things is universal. I'm not saying there aren't bad actors in Japan, sure there are lots of them. But the ratio of bad actors in animatio iin the U.S. & Japan isn't even remotely propertionately close. U.S. dub actors are on the same acting scale with porn stars (in acting, not having sex, though possably both in individual cases I'm sure) most of the time. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. It's a professional level of believability that goes into performances. More often than not, Japanes seiyuu are professional & serious about what they're doing, and it shows in their work. Most of the time dub actors are hacks who either through bad direction, or lack of talent, don't come close to making me believe that they care what they're doing, or are immersed into their character. There may be those who feel more comfortable with them because they're saying things in a language that they can understand, but as far as i go, I care more about the way they're saying it, than what they're saying.

4.Artistic Integrity-B-Or How Some Chump Can Pretend He's A Writer By Fudging With Someone Elses Work: Macek being a prime example, but rampant in the dub industry to some extent in all dubs, the practice of "localization" is little more than some guy re-writing another guys work, in a way that he thinks others will find it culturally relivent. Prime Example: Robotech. Secondary examples including all dub changes where some joke was changed into another joke because the subject matter was considered too 'foreign."

And that's why I dont' like dubs!

[VFTF1]

「そんな小さな子にコンピュータを買い与えるなんて、猫に小判だ。」

Buying a computer for a small child like that is simply a waste.

Literal translation: Buying a computer for a small child like that is like gold coins to a cat.

Does that make sense in English? No!

Umm... of course it makes sense.

Small children are incapable of using computers - therefore it is a waste to buy them one.

Cats have no use for any medium of exchange, including gold coins, so giving them to a cat is also a waste.

Hence giving a computer to a child IS like giving gold coins to a cat and the literal translation is perfectly sensible here.

Do you understand that the idiom means "like casting pearls before swine"? Hell no! I could give you a whole slew of other idioms (entrusting a cat with a dried bonito, a meowing cat catches no rats, have an injury on one's shin-- which is an idiom for having a shady past), and you can try and figure out what they mean, but you can't. It's just that simple.

"Entrusting a Cat with a dried bonito" ---- what's a bonito?

"A meowing cat catches no rats" ---> makes perfect sense - he catches no rats because his meowing lets the rats know where he is so he looses the element of surprise. Apply this to humans and it could mean something like: If all you do is complain, you will never succeed.

"Have an injury on ones' shin" (shady past) ---> agan makes perfect sense - it brings to mind bad little boys coming home to mom, swearing up and down that they were good, but the injuries on their shins show that they were fighting/playing roughly/doing something that got them dirty/injured/something they shouldn't have done.

Trying to figure out what idioms means has nothing to do with language, but with the thought presented in the idiom. As soon as you know the literal translation, you can begin thinking about what it means.

I don't think idioms are always going to be clear cut and to the point - they wouldn't be idioms then.

And idiom is not something like "touch the hot stove and you get burned" - that's merely a statement of fact. To my mind, idioms are (like the ones you presented) comparissons of seemingly outlandish examples which do end up having something to do with one another.

b) Please notice - if we are going to start talking about the extent to which a translation (literal or otherwise) is a falsification of the original language - that the the original language itself is also a falsification of the thing.

So basically if I were to translate something from English into Japanese, the Japanese would be a falsification of the original?

No. All language is a falsification of the original. Any language is always a falsification of reality to some extent. Words supposedly signify things, but often times the words cover up the things they are trying to uncover for us.

QUOTE

As someone who doesn't know Japanese;

This, sir, just blows every argument you have out of the water. All of your points are hereby moot. Quit arguing for something that you clearly have no basis or background in yet claim is correct.

How am I supposed to learn anything if I don't pose questions and arguments?

If people are who are ignorant are supposed to "quit arguing" - then how do you expect them to get smarter?

Kieth:

Artistic Integrity: I feel that in 100% of the time, it's an innevitability that in the course of "overdubbing" something into another language, it's impossible to replicate the production as it was originally intended by the creative staff. I've listened to more than my share of dubs, and compared them with the original audio tracks. In doing so I've found each and every time, the emotion put in by the actors puts an entirely different spin on what's going on. It happens to varrying degree's, on let's say a Robotech (worst end of the spectrum0 to Cowboy Bebop (a tolerable end of the spectrum), but no matter what, the differences are there. If you are watching something dubbed into another language, you are not watching the same thing as it was originally intended when it was created. On the same token, if you are watching something with translation subtitles, those subtitles "may" not give you 100% (or in HK subs, anything even remotely close) of a translation of what's going on, but regardless, you're hearing the inflection of those actors portraying those characters as the production staff intended them to be. The decided upon attitudes & personalities of those characters. A great recent example, Gurren Lagann. I don't care what anyone says, dub Kamina is NOT Kamina. Even with a bad translation, subtitles can say "mappy hith bey" for the entire run of the program, but the character saying whatever they're saying, in whatever language they're saying it, is a very specific integral part of what's going on.

I'm happy you exist to write what I apparently am unable to write despite writing so much. I TOTALLY agree.

Pete

Edited December 27, 2008 by VFTF1

[Deacon Blues]

"Entrusting a Cat with a dried bonito" ---- what's a bonito?

Well there ya go... classic example number one that a literally translated idiom doesn't work -- you don't know what a bonito is.

"A meowing cat catches no rats" ---> makes perfect sense - he catches no rats because his meowing lets the rats know where he is so he looses the element of surprise. Apply this to humans and it could mean something like: If all you do is complain, you will never succeed.

No, sorry but your inference here is wrong. This means "to talk a good show" or "be all talk".

"Have an injury on ones' shin" (shady past) ---> agan makes perfect sense - it brings to mind bad little boys coming home to mom, swearing up and down that they were good, but the injuries on their shins show that they were fighting/playing roughly/doing something that got them dirty/injured/something they shouldn't have done.

Again, you are incorrect. This is referring to a past you are hiding, not something that "just" happened. There's no way around that one.

Trying to figure out what idioms means has nothing to do with language, but with the thought presented in the idiom. As soon as you know the literal translation, you can begin thinking about what it means.

Has nothing to do with the language? What? As I've show you with the literal translations of idioms, you have no idea how they are used, as I pointed out above.

I don't think idioms are always going to be clear cut and to the point - they wouldn't be idioms then.

Just goes to prove that they aren't meant to be translated literally.

No. All language is a falsification of the original. Any language is always a falsification of reality to some extent. Words supposedly signify things, but often times the words cover up the things they are trying to uncover for us.

A falsification of reality? Can I get the number of your pot dealer? Words cover up things only if you are lying, the fact that I'm explaining things doesn't mean I'm covering something up. If I say "Hi, my name is Deacon. Nice to meet you." exactly what am I falsifying by saying that?

How am I supposed to learn anything if I don't pose questions and arguments?

Seriously, I don't know how old you are or anything, but if you can take a even a years worth of the Japanese language, it'll help just a smidgen.

And just out of curiosity's sake, since "hajimemashite" is translated as "How do you do?" the literal translation would be: "This is the first time." You think that sounds natural in everyday conversation?