Should translations be faithful to the original or Should they adapt the meaning only and try to fit the work in the...

Should translations be faithful to the original or Should they adapt the meaning only and try to fit the work in the language.

A third option: expanding the language to meet the requirement of the work.

monolingual scum won't understand this thread

>Should translations be faithful to the original or Should they adapt the meaning only and try to fit the work in the language.

A reasonable compromise is possible.

Elaborate.

I like translations that strike a balance between being faithful and being pleasant to read, but which err in favor of pleasantness. Too faithful, and the result is likely awkward; too interested in readability, and you lose what the author wrote.

Some examples. The translations of Homer by Richard Lattimore and Robert Fitzgerald, the two translators who are often put head-to-head. Lattimore is more literal, and sometimes awkward, he's been called "turgid," but he remains faithful to Homer's words and uses a long line (not as long as Homer's, but long for English) to kind of give you a sense of Homer's sound. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, is less literal, and is more interested in giving the reader a good English poem. He proceeds from the question, "What would Homer have written if he'd been born an English poet?" He uses a short line, iambic pentameter, because it's a better meter for an English poem. Lattimore's opening of the Iliad goes, "Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus' son Achilleus / and its devastation," etc.; Fitzgerald's opening goes, "Anger be now your song, immortal one / Akhilleus' anger, doomed and ruinous," etc. — less literal, but in Fitzgerald's opinion, better poetry. Whereas Fitzgerald brings Homer to English, Lattimore attempts to get English to sound like Homer. I prefer Lattimore.

But then when I'm reading the Russians, I'm not as concerned with literalness. The Russian translations of Pevear & Volokhonsky are faithful, but very awkward. In their Crime and Punishment, they have Marmeladov ask Raskolnikov if he can engage him in a "conversation of decency." Other translators have "polite conversation." So for Russian translations, I go to a host of other people, not them. That's my preference.

A translator like Burton Raffel is the other extreme: his translations are known for being readable, but they're readable because they're looser. Scholars, I think, don't like him.

Basically, my ideal is: pretty literal, but dialed back to the point where it sounds like natural English.

>not Homeros
PDA! (Pig-disgusting anglicism.)

a reasonable compromise, as viewed by the translator, is inevitable

Both, dumbass. The trick is in how to do it, not in what is there to do, which is pretty obvious.

You can have both.
Just buy two copies

In light of all that you said (which was very informative and thoughtful--thank you), which is your favourite translation of the Holy Bible and why (assuming, of course, you have read it and you researched several translations)?

If someone hasn't read the original work their personal opinion on a specific translation is more or less worthless.

Asking what version of the bible to read is a stupid question, it depends on your intent.

...

Translations should always be new works of art. That's why reading a translation is better than reading the original: you're reading two different pieces of art at the same time. You get to know the content of the original, but you appreciate the effort of the translator, hopefully a poet himself.
>but dude authenticity LMAO
Let's get over this bullshit once and for all. Authenticity is a misleading concept, there's no authenticity in existence.

CHAPMAN'S ILIAD AND ODYSSEY ARE THE BEST

ONLY PLEBS DISAGREE

Pope is also great for his Iliad, but his Odyssey leaves a lot to be desired so Chapman's works better as a complete work.

Compromise where possible and make a decision based on the individual work where not possible. If it's something like the Iliad, I prefer it to be faithful, if it's a love poem, I'd rather they make it work in my language. Often the translator will explain his decision on the first page and offer you an alternative decision by a different translator, if the work was important enough.

>talks about monolingual scum
>doesn't even understand the most simple of sentences in his own language

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard and wrong on so many levels that I hope it's just shitty bait.

Next time try to read and comprehend the previous posts before attempting to make yourself useful in a discussion.
I second this (less and less popular, it seems) opinion.

>appeal to authority
>caps
>preemptively calls those who disagree with him plebs
Chapman isn't bad but some of his fans are obnoxious and this isn't the first time I see it.

Different translations by different translators for different publishers to make money differently by selling to different people.

All the good translations use formal equivalence - look at the most translated text in the world - if you use any other approach you won't get my money, maybe you'll get the plebs' though.

>That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard and wrong on so many levels
It's not. I can understand why it would seem so to somebody who doesn't understand how translations work but it's not as far fetched as it would seem the way that other user put it. For instance, you haven't really thought this part through:
>Compromise where possible
>make a decision where not possible
As to "faithful", there's no such thing or rather it's not any one thing, so it's useless to bring up by itself.

>If someone hasn't read the original work their personal opinion on a specific translation is more or less worthless
literally the most stupid thing I've read today. I'm gonna sleep, have a nice day retards

>reading a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation is better than reading the original because you get to appreciate different pieces of art at the same time :^)
>doesn't matter if you don't know the original because while you may not get to know his tempo, style, peculiarities, wording... you get to know the "content" so the plot and the protagonist's name are still there :^)
>there is no authenticity; if 100 men was an impressive number back then and I translate it to 100.000 because that's an impressive number today, then neither one is more authentic than the other :^)

Yes, a good translation is its own work of art and has merit on its own. All those claims you two made are retarded though. Also no idea what your problem is with what I allegedly didn't think through since you just quote parts of it without saying what's wrong.

This is why Britney Spears's version of "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" is so much better than the original.

kek

Curiosity: how many languages do you know?

I've read works in German, Latin, English and Spanish. And I can guarantee you that a translation from German into English or from English into Spanish changes the work so much that it becomes something completely different, so you're not getting "two works", you're just getting the new, worse version.
Not to mention that it's quite obvious that poetry loses a lot when the translation isn't rhyming anymore or whatever they have to adapt.

>changes the work so much that it becomes something completely different, so you're not getting "two works", you're just getting the new, worse version.
Not to mention that it's quite obvious that poetry loses a lot when the translation isn't rhyming anymore or whatever they have to adapt.
That's because you're English, haha. Go back to the picture posted here Ever heard about him, Salvatore Quasimodo? Of course you haven't. He's one of the greatest poets of the twentieth century and he translated the Greek lyric poets to Italian in such a perfect way, in such a balanced and delicated version, that it's literally a masterpiece. That book was spread all around Europe and it had such an immense success that people started to read Greek poets in Italian instead of other languages.
And more: ever heard of Ippolito Pindemonte? Vincenzo Monti? The first one translated the Odissey, the second one the Iliad. They're considered immense poets, often put beside names such as Leopardi, Foscolo, Manzoni. Their versions from the Greeks are considered in the same way as the works by Ariosto, Tasso, Boiardo. They're proposed in schools and continuously reprinted. They're long poems in metric and rhyme, not different than the Divine Comedy. Reading them, in Italy, is considered a great way of learning and an edifying activity.

I really think the question of translations is all about the culture of a country. If a country doesn't have the "culture of translations", the traditional schools of translations, then of course it's better to learn the original language. Your country clearly doesn't have that culture and I'm sorry for you. If you were born in Italy you'd think differently. Take this from someone who studied classical Greek and Latin at university and can read them, but still prefer the translated poetical versions of his own language.

Is this copy pasta or are you completely retarded?

I'm not English. English isn't my mother tongue. First you want to shit on me for being monolingual and since I can read in four languages, you move the goalpost and want to shit on me for my country of origin.
Are all Italians such pompous fools? I'm stunned by the autism and narcissism in that post.

It's not autism neither narcissism, it's just truth. You're claiming that all translations are shit and I just respond appropriately. Maybe they're shit in your country, not in mine, so speak for yourself. I read translated books that are even better than the originals sometimes. That's my two cents.