Talk:Translation

Since no one seems to be bothered that no link is included here to the term "meaning", a key issue in translation, may I shout that you should have it here. Having done that, you should then soon find out that meaning is not sasisfactorily defined from a translator's point of view, neither is it properly defined by linguists, by the way, not around here and there and everywhere anyway. Without claiming to know "the answer" may I suggest that you relate it to recursion, a mathematical term as well, which reveals the true nature of the process embedded in various layers of cognitive cience crap. In any case, no linguist is brave enough to relate his/her field of study/principle to subjects covering more materialistic processes in/aspects of life, because s/he would soon find themselves arriving at moral dilemmas, like a photographer witnessing drama in the street and hesitating between taking a picture or rescuing a victim. It may also take you to read John Ciardi' book: Good words for you (Harper and Row, 1987), especially page xix in the foreword where his poem, The Project is found. Recursion explains why, as he puts it: "... How little we really know of how much we fail." Apogr 19:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Problems in/caused by translation (into Hungarian) Translation may also be deemed to be a mental process whereby on the input of a text in L1 you produce an output in L2, usually in writing. The process takes place under several constraints, such as to the purpose, time available, the translator's knowledge, the tools used and the format and media of the text, etc. If the idea is to produce, as a result of the translation process, a mutation of the original text (usually fiction) by complying with the rules of retaining the original format or genre, you create a piece of translation that is recognised as a works of art on its own rights. Therefore, such translations are a subject of literary criticism, rather than seeing it as an information technology product that may be judged on the grounds of properly delivering a particular code/message in terms of accuracy, timeliness, completeness, reliability and authenticity. Most translations from English concern announcements, news and reports on facts, policies, novelties and innovations that may not have their equivalent wording readily available in the target language and thus they have to be created on an ad hoc basis. Since the totality of translation works is done in an unsystematic and uncoordinated fashion, despite various modern CAT tools that emphasise the importance of shared glossaries and dictionaries, the resulting condition is that L2, the target language is going through an unwanted and uneven transformation in terms of spelling, vocabulary, grammar and usage. Translation business in Hungary is up for grab and the works may be done by numerous, linguistically unqualified people who may not be aware of the problems of non-compliance with the rules of their native tongue. This may be understood better, if you consider that translation is not a listed profession in the Hungarian DOT, and localisation is another sign of not taking the issue seriously. In localisation the efforts made to sell the product abroad dominate the process, making self-defensive linguistic considerations thereby a low priority only.

Contents

1 comment 2 miscellaneous 3 placement of reference to fan translation 4 Removed Links 5 Untranslatable words

comment

see also translation memory, comment. Good editing job done! thank you: originator apogr

insert: localisation has been with us for a long time. It refelects the basic fact that translation is done under a number of constraints, some of which are difficult to resolve. Remember that the titles of movie films, the tranlation of poems, etc. are all examples of localisation, whereas the translation of software components, including on-screen instructions, user manuals, program specifications, etc., pose new constraints due to the economy on space of writing in the source language and the cut on the occurence of repeated phrases.

In contrast to the original defintion and wording of the concept of translation above, I am more inclined to describe this activity at the highest level of abstraction as an activity akin to copying, an other important and universal operation, with the difference that here the resulting copy deemed to be equivalent to the original has no resemblance to the original, yet believed to be equivalent for use in lieu of the source (primarily text) on the agreement by people that have sufficient insigth into and undersatnding of the universes of both languages. Apogr 09:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

" Computer and video games usually have Japanese as the source language and English as the target language." seems to be pretty centered around english speakers. It seems likely to me, that more people play computer games translated from English than from Japanase. Generally I think that sentence doesn't belong there -- Fuqnbastard 14:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

miscellaneous

This strikes me as needlessly snarky:

the translation of literary works, which are characterized by more "artistic" pretensions

A friend who is an interpreter for the deaf educated me regarding a subtle problem with this phrasing:

a distinction is made between translation, where both the source and target texts are written

Because there can be sign-language translations of taped performances, which are in turn taped, he prefers "fixed text to fixed text" for translation.

placement of reference to fan translation

I found "fan translation" listed under the "see also" under "Translation of religious texts". I suspect that was a mistake, perhaps an artifact of an earlier version of the page.

I wasn't sure where to put it, though, so I just stuck it under the main "see also" heading, since, as far as I know, no one really considers video games to be "religious texts" (although, come to think of it, I know some people who might appreciate the irony). --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed Links

I have removed the following links as they are in my opinion redundant (be bold!). My reasons are listed. If you think the reasoning is invalid or irrelevant then by all means re-instate the link, but I would appreciate if you could justify it here... --HappyDog 01:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Translation Services (http://www.translationtown.com) — A portal for translators and people looking for resources in translation.

  This is advertising, and not relevant to the article.

• The Altavista Babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com), online machine translation software

  This is one of the links in 'list of on-line translation resources'

• Google language tools (http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en)

  One of the items on the page is a translator, but we already have a list of on-line translators. Rest of page is Google-specific (e.g. view site in other languages)

• Open Source translation tools for South African languages (http://www.translate.org.za/)

  This doesn't seem relevant, particularly on an English language site.

• Translation Dictionaries (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/translation-english/)

  A hard-to-navigate site that has no instructions. I don't think we should link here even if it's relevant. Too confusing.

• Online dictionary (http://www.online-dictionary.biz) of English and 7 other European and Asian languages

  Seems too specific to include in the article. This is one of the borderline cases though. At the moment it might be useful, but a list of on-line dictionaries would be better and fairer.

The following links I have left. I have included them below, along with my reasoning.

• List of internet translators (http://www.babelfish.org/)

  A more complete list would be better, but until then this gives a good selection of translation resources to the reader.

• Internet Language Translation -- English, French, German, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, Czech & Italian (http://translation.langenberg.com/)

  This appears to be a meta-page which uses other translation engines. Very useful, though a better title could probably be found. Can this replace the first entry? Or is it favouring one site too much?

• Translation Journal (http://www.accurapid.com/journal)

  One for professional translators, I think. Don't know whether to keep or not, but have left for now.

• On the Relative (Un)translatability of Puns (http://www.multilingualwebmaster.com/library/puns_translation.html)

  An article about translation. Quite appropriate to an article on translation. Could do with some more examples like this.

• Directory of Translation Agencies & Freelance Translators (http://www.proz.com/)

  Can't tell if this is a commercial site or not. If it is a directory of translators and agencies it may have a place here.

• Wikipedia Translation — project to aid translation of articles in foreign Wikipedias into English. Sign up at Wikipedia:Translators available, or view a list of pending translations at Wikipedia:Translation into English.

  Useful to get people involved with translating Wikipedia.

Untranslatable words

It's rather disingenuous to fall back on word borrowing in an attempt to show that difficult-to-translate words can often be easily translated. The article additionally seems to have forgotten the criteria it set in the previous section, namely fidelity and transparency — pâté de foie gras meets neither of these. The argument that this is better than "inflamed liver paste" is a strawman: nobody would present the latter as an accurate translation. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Eequor)]] 01:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also wonder why it was translated as "inflamed", which seems to have little to do with either the product or the French name. I have changed it to "fat liver paste", in the hopes that someone later will try to fit in better with the explanation. I do think it's useful, however, to indicate that the names of typically foreign items are usually not translated. Lesgles 18:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)