Dear Colleagues,
I've read with great interest all and every comment in this thread. Very interesting indeed. In my opinion it's not a case of "adhering" to one way of translating or the other. As already stated, some translations need literality because of their subject/content, and some others demand some "recreation" from us (though writers as we all are, we are always at risk of "creating" a new piece that somehow resembles the original...)
In the cases of non-scientific/non-legal/non-technical works, i.e., when some freedom is permitted and even necessary, I wonder, however, Is our task to "EXPLAIN" what the author meant to say? We're supposed to TRANSLATE, i.e., give readers the chance to understand a text in a language they don't speak... It's already a big responsibility: We need to know both languages well, to make sure we're SAYING THE SAME, in the words of the target language (not in OUR words, though!) But, EXPLAIN the text? (When WE -you and I- read something in a language we understand, WHO EXPLAINS IT TO US?) If the original text is dark, unclear, ambiguous... why should we change that and make it clear for the readers?
What do you think? ;-)
Laura
|