Hello Faisal Al-Doori ,

Even within the same language many concepts are hard to translate into the same language by paraphrasing, for example. In fact, humor many times employs this irreversibility to good effect. For a time, I worked for an engineering firm and one of my jobs consisted of finding, purchasing, and distributing engineering standards such those produced by ANSI, ASTM, IEC, DIN, etc. When I communicated with members of the firm by e-mail, I always ended my message with the following tagline: "Call me when you have no standards."

For a time and, perhaps, even now, one of the tests for machine language translation efficacy was the reversibiltiy test. Give the machine translator a sentence or paragraph in, say, English to translate into, say, Arabic, then reverse the process, i.e., feed the Arabic translation as input to create an output in English. Do you obtain the original English sentence or paragraph?

Another stumbling block with the expression of ideas and concepts is punctuation. Are you familiar with the book by Lynne Truss entitled "Eats, Shoots & Leaves", which as the cover art shows has an entirely different meaning when it is entitled "Eats Shoots & Leaves". The over use of personal pronouns can also render writing impenetrable.

Regards,

Tom Cuff

Dear Thomas Cuff

So you are with the second choice .. Thank you for your interesting examples especially that of reversed translation.. best regards

Dear Faisal

For me, there always a core meaning in a text, but it will never be translated intact. Semantic loss or gain results inevitably. Core is created in the original text by the producer, but it never is guaranteed by any translator. Think of culture terms, puns, metaphors, to name just few.

Regards

I think that the specific translation process occurs if institutional factors are taken into account, as well as political, sociological, socio-linguistic, psycho-linguistic, and semantic-cognitive in terms of the decoding processing of a text to be able to "give way" to its expression in another different language.

Dear Mahdi

I agree with you.. something between.. regards

Dear Juana

So implicitly you are with the second choice as I think.. regards

of course!

Dear Dr Faisal Al-Doori As a man specialized in English, you know that no one is capable of achieving 100% equivalency (Notice, I am not using "equivalence"). Not the best translators in the world can. No language would yield a meaning quite intrinsic to that specific language can safely be said to have its equivalent in another language. Several factors contribute in this, at the top of which is culture-specific factors!

May I cite just one quick example since Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena has contributed to the discussion and ask:

Is "Deo volente" exactly equivalent to "God willing" & our "Insha'Allah"?

Best regards!

"Deus super partes" ....appreciated Ahmed T Hussein

Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena:

anzi, sono d'accordo

Dear Dr Ahmed

Yes so they said translation is a betrayal. But the question is that some critics say that there is no even core meaning to be transmitted. Regards

Continuing with my previous intervention, I think that for the specific process of translation, it is also necessary to take into account the "hermeneutical aspects", seen, both from the side of the "hypotheses of expression", and from the "comparative psychology" between both languages, as well as the "pragmatic structure" of the original text (TO), its trans-coding process, the ability to notice or not "on the fly" the equivalences, and the confrontation of the textual “corpora" of both languages ​​for statistical purposes based on frequency data. Don José Ortega y Gasset was not completely misguided when he affirmed that a given translator begins to translate from the “authentic language” where he lives, moves “and is”, to a “pseudo-language” formed by technicalities, by linguistically artificial words, etc., in order to define his work. Ortega y Gasset already warned us in the distant 1937, the translator "will put the translated writer in the "prison of normal language", that is, he will betray him. “Traduttore, traditore"[translator, traitor]. Precisely, it is the "pseudo-language" that will have to be "re-translated" into the other language, so we must not disdain the "personal style" which consists of diverting the usual meaning of the word, forcing it to make the circle of objects that designates "does not coincide exactly" with the circle of objects that the same word usually means in its usual use. It is difficult ("utopian" for Ortega y Gasset) that two words of two languages ​​put in relation, give a satisfactory equivalence solution. TO (source text) / TM (meta text) are the resulting product of two languages ​​that have developed in "different landscapes" (Cf. my research study: “The translation of a text as a channel of mental communication: encode / decode / trans-code / recode”, pp. 3-7, see in RG: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350383997_THE_TRANSLATION_OF_A_TEXT_AS_A_CHANNEL_OF_MENTAL_COMMUNICATION_encode_decode_transcode_recode_spanish-italian-spanish_La_traduccion_de_un_texto_como_canal_de_comunicacion_mental_codifica_descodifica_t) (Cf. “Traduttore, traditore”, in José Ortega y Gasset (1987) Miseria y esplendor de la traducción, Alianza Editorial- Revista de Occidente, t. 5, 433-452)

Hello,

The core meaning, as we traditionally understand it, can be perceived in any culture in its own way. And moreover, within each culture, the interpretation still varies in each individual reader. So, the core meaning is not absolute.

Best regards

Dear Juana

Thank you for introducing this professional comment. I am interested in pragmatics and context which are strongly related to translation.. regards

I suppose Cognitive Linguists would argue that each individual language consists of pairings of forms (i.e., grammar structures or whole-words-as-sound-chains) and functions (i.e., grammar meanings or word meanings), all of which are conventionalised - i.e., tied together through convention - within a particular language community (or, rather, language). (Here, the context, or pragmatics, would be part of the function/meaning of these units, which has also been tied into them during L1 acquisition). And since no two languages share the exact same inventory of conventionalised form-meaning pairings, it should not be possible to find equivalent, truly matching translations. It's two different sets of Lego bricks, to which you cannot add or take away any bricks. You cannot build the exact same castles using different brick sets - but you can build two castles that look very, very similar, that's for sure!

Here you can read it all:

Experiences in translation (Dire quasi la stessa cosa)

Umberto Eco

Dear Andril

Yes, I agree with you about the core meaning not to be absolute, some modifications. Regards

Dear Andreas

The compatibility is impossible, and the close equivalence can be found, but the non-equivalence can also be expected.. regards

Dear Willy

Many thanks!!

Though equivalence has become a bad word in the sense source text equals target text, the very act of translation will become null and void if the translator does not believe that core meaning is transferrable from one language to the other.

Dear Faisal Al-Doori, the TO, for it to be TM it needs to be subjected to specific processes, also taking into account the disciplinary sector to which they belong. You can see if you want my research paper:

Book THE TRANSLATION OF A TEXT AS A CHANNEL OF MENTAL COMMUNICATI...

It is a translator's resposibility to preserve the core meaning of a text. In my opinion it MUST be preserved. At the same time, there are too many factors that affect translator's work - social, cultural, linguistic, discoursal, psychological, etc. (And there is also such thing as translator's competence.) As to fiction, any translation will be - to a degree - a new text.

Dear Nasir Ali

Core meaning is the abstract of meaning so it's not precisely equal.. regards

Dear @Faisal,

Instead of being very theoretical, allow me to say that we translate because we believe in translatability. It is not an exact art but involves a series of negotiations in which we attain a measure of success. It is more an art of making compromises.

Regards

Nazir

I agree. Each reader, including translators, has his/her interpretation of a text

I don't believe that there is a total or perfect version of any text that is transferred from another even in the same language. However, partial equivalence is much better cherished in translation

True

Equivalence is one the basic tenets of translating

I agree with Monika in that each reader, including a translator, has his/her own vision of a text (text-world in terms of J. Gavins), predetermnined by his/her cultural background.

On the other hand, I don't think that equivalence in translation means identity. Losses in translation are inevitable, we have to accept that. But, frankly speaking, I don't like when texts are "domesticated", sometimes it ruins the original message and makes the translation look stupid (sorry for being a bit harsh - no offence meant, just a subjective opinion of a reader).

Dear Monika

Dear Olga

As far as domestication or foreignisation of a translation is concerned, to me it is a matter of preference on the part of the translators towards the readers: either to keep the original sense intact where the loss of effect is a consequence (foreignisation), or to create a similar effect but in terms of other context (domestication) where gain is a consequence . Consider this instance: to denote the degree of bitterness, in English they say (As bitter as coal), and when I want to translate this into Arabic, how should create the same effect on the Arabic reader who does not know (or is not familiar with the fact) that coal is an instance of bitterness in English? Shall I translate this literally creating no effect? Or, Should I express the same idea with another thing ( a name of a certain plant علقم or حنظل "colocynth" )which is very bitter and used to create the same effect? You may tell. For me I do prefer the second choice.

Dear Monika,

Dear Mahdi,

the idea to exchange opinions on a website or a common platform is great.

Now I feel I have to be more explicit about the domestcation strategy. I don't mean it doesn't work with idioms or set phrases, and I quite agree with Mahdi here.

What I actually meant is a kind of patronizing attitide ( I'm speaking of my culture only) when a translator believes a reader cannot get the author's discoursal meaning. Then a translator - sometimes - tries to simplify matters using realia words he/she believes to be familiar to readers. Of course, it is easier for a reader to perceive a simplified text. But to me, it looks like condecending.

In my opinon, a translator has to understand that "there's no right or wrong " (Monika Płużyczka ) strategies. What matters is "the kind of text one is translating. And what the purpose of the translation is " (Monika Płużyczka ). Translatin is a "matter of preference on the part of the translators towards the readers" (Mahdi Inaayah Kareem al-Utbi).

So my question is - IS IT O.K. TO SIPLIFY MATTERS in translation of fiction?

Thanks for the discussion

Dear Olga

As to your last question, it is VERY OK TO SIMPLIFY MATTERS in such tasks of translation. This is for me.

Regards

Dear Mahdi,

I'm afraid, I don't agree with you here.

I don't think it's OK to simlify things when translating fiction, contemporary poetry in particular. Explain things if you must. But let a reader use his/her background knowlege, knowledge of the target language and target culture to get the mesage.

My point is, understanding things requires making an effort.

Though I realize it goes against Stephen Krashen"s theory of second language acquisition.

Dear Olga

Believe or not, what I meant is what you have stated just above. Simplification is not meant

to make lots of semantic losses, but to help readers come to a point when different cultures might be neutralised relatively to certain extents.

Translating poetry is a special endeavour of its own!

Regards

Yes Monika, I like your identification with mathematics and that's the difference between humanities and pure sciences. The benefits of cultures reactions accede the disadvantages of the loss in translation as you implicitly refer to. Thanks for your valuable comment.. regards

Oh, I see, Mahdi.

I misread your comment. Sorry.

It's a good question! The key words in this question - 'Do you believe'. I believe, translation is an art, though various scientific programmable approximations can provide quite satisfactory results. However, even an idiom meaning text's quality is an art to a some extent. Many painters depicted a sea, but only the marine paintings of Ivan Aivazovsky received a world wide recognition. I do not believe in an absolute equivalence, but in a successful approximation sequence.

there is always some kind of partial equivalence

To answer this question I find useful to split the language to translate and the core meaning translation. If we talk about language there is never a perfect translation from a language to another. Anyways, there could be a suitable translation, which sometimes means that there is an equivalence. What the translator needs to transfer from the original text the target text is the core meaning by translating the language that vehicles it. Since the meaning cannot be completely separated from the language used to express it, the same reasoning as before can be applied.

Dear Len Leonid Mizrah

I do believe that translation is an art and science. The professional translator should be talented, otherwise, his work will be hollow and cold. The brilliant translators are gifted and distinguished.. regards

Dear Hasan

Yes sure, and in partial equivalence the problems emerge .. best regards

Dear Sarah Longobardi

Your focus on the core meaning is justified by the available options for the translator, however, the other option is to translate the text verbally, and that depends on many variables..best regards

Consideró q la tradición no es exacta al original, pero la idea central se mantiene

This is a meaningless question. It depends what the translation is for. That is, the purpose of the translation. It has to take into account the audience and the intended message and effect. If you are translating a joke for an unsophisticated audience, it means making it funniy. Taht might mean modifying the original considerably. If it's in the sciences it must employ (or create) the correct terminology. If it's a work of literature it has to read like literature or it will fail, no matter whether you convey the "core meaning" or not. If it's an information piece in which the reader wants only the key information, it shouldn't be too difficult just conveying the core meaning -- as long as important nuances are not missed.

But if you see translation "logically" in terms of "semantic fields" or "syntactic structures" you will never be a good translator, even if you deliver the so-called core meaning.

Even for one phrase translation, it is quite difficult to keep an original language's flavor, nuances, intonation, and emphasis. For a more or less extended text, a full equivalence in a translation is next to impossible. Luckily, in most of the cases just a good translation is sufficient enough.

Long time ago, I had read an article about professional synchronist translators. It was noted there that during important official diplomatic or other International gatherings, during 10-15 minutes of a real time translation of a formal speech or conversation, their heart rate is comparable to astronauts during a rocket launch.

Dear Gregory.. You have summarized the previous answers in your comment and that means the question is meaningful.. best regards

Dear Raidy

I went to Google to translate your comment into English, and I find it as:

I consider that the tradition is not exact to the original, but the central idea remains..

You confirm, as I think, the idea of core meaning is related to the tradition or the core meaning is needful for the tradition, and not for other aspects..Am I right?

Dear Len. Yes no compatible translation is found but a good one ...Simultaneous, translation is so difficult and it needs to recruit all the senses of the interpreter... Thank you for sharing this significant information..best regards.

Thank you dear Driss Benetabbou for your comment..best regards.

When a word or phrase means exactly the same thing in both languages, we call that an equivalence, and it's understandably one of the first things professional translators look for. ... A literal translation is a useless translation – you have to understand the meaning behind the words. https://www.getblend.com/blog/translation-equivalence/

An expression from a LANGUAGE which has the same meaning as, or can be used in a similar context to, one from another language, and can therefore be used to translate it: for example, English I don't understand, French Je ne comprends pas, Italian Non capisco, Modern Greek Dhen katalaveno, Japanese Wakarimasen. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/translation-equivalent

There is a slight variation when something is translated from one language to another. That is why most societies used to use assimilation so as to avoid problems that arise translation.

Surely dear Chinaza, and thank you for the example in different languages, I may add a translation in Arabic for the example: لا أفهم best regards

Yes dear Kiprotich.. thank you for sharing..regards

The problem with equivalence is this. We know that equivalence is the real thing in translation, that there is no translation if there is no equivalence between the original text and the translated text. And we know of course that equivalence exists, that is not the real problem.However, in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to modern translation theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes.

Yes, Dear Dr Hasan, the last sentence of your answer expresses the concept of equivalence in terms of message and code. Best regards.

See also Dear Dr. Faisal Al-Doori this other thread=

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_Exectitude_in_Translation/1