Human v. Machine: Elena Ferrante Article Translated – Liliana Leuzzi
After reading your piece, I was able to see similarities between this and my own communicative translation of the Elena Ferrante article. Many of the edits were slightly and similarly made in order to appease to English readers more easily. It’s clear that the main concern in translating this article is to fix the flow of the sentence structure and the swap of more common English words that replace the Italian vocabulary. A difference I noticed was in the (very long) first sentence of the article. It was interesting to see how you split up the one sentence into two separate sentences with their own ideas. In the first sentence, I had a little bit of a hard time reading it smoothly. You say, “Elena Ferrante’s novels have one element in common: they come from within, buried they flourish to the surface through her impactful writing and on the page maintain a spring of suspenseful force.” The English grammar could be edited a little better in order for it to sound eloquent. In my edits, I placed a dash after “within” in order to connect the two ideas in one sentence without it sounding too choppy. I did like your choice about separating the immediate text. The automated original states, “…spring force and at the same time the solemnity of the due act that infects the reader and impresses him.” In your translation, you separated the last bit by saying, “…spring of suspenseful force. At the same time the solemnity of the story hooks the reader and shocks them.” This, I thought helped successfully translate to common English diction. Another minuscule edit you made was when you said, “In fact, he realizes that his mother never returned home after a good fifteen days.” Your use of the word good was a smart choice to use, especially considering diction in the English language. The use of this word emphasizes the length of the fifteen days and how absurd it is that it took that long for her son to realize his mother’s disappearance. Lastly, I liked your translation of, “They study for a while, then playing on opposite sides of the courtyard, they will make friends when they decide to go to the most feared man…” One of my mistakes with this piece was how and where to place the word “playing.” I think you did a good job placing this word in a sufficient spot in order to tell readers what the two characters were doing. It was hard to originally read that sentence from Italian to English, because the meaning was not clear. However, your translation was a good interpretation of what was initially meant to be said.
Translation of Ungaretti’s “Veglia” & “Soldati” – Greer Egan
Both of your communicative interpretations of “Veglia” and “Soldati” were very interesting and impressive. To begin with “Veglia,” I thought your use of the words “crouched close” was appropriate for the setting/theme of the poem. Most likely coming from the point of view of a soldier in the middle of a battleground, crouching is something we associate with soldiers doing in order to maintain their own safety. By the narrator crouching next to someone, it signifies that he wants to be close to the comrade but also keep himself safe so he doesn’t give up his location to a potential enemy. “Crouching close” to his friend instead of “thrown nearby” his friend also signifies a sense of intimacy to the other person. We know from the end of this poem that the plentiful sights of death during the war have made him look at life in a different perspective. “Thrown nearby” lacks sentiment, so I appreciate your choice of translation. Regarding “Soldati,” your minimal changes made all the difference. It’s fully comprehensible in English and the intended meaning was sufficiently executed in your communicative translation. The simple change from “of autumn”to “autumnal” creates more personification regarding the subject “we.” With the single adjective to describe all of the soldiers, it creates a certain intensity of how undeniable their high rates of death occur. It establishes depth of the characteristics of the soldiers and how they truly resemble the decay of the leaves during the fall season.
Blog 3 – Bill Caswell
After reading your interpretation about the main points of Roman Jakobson’s essay, “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation,” it was interesting to see your critique on his views. One of your first points is the discussion of how learning a language other than English is deemed “impossible” to a majority of Americans. Additionally, you mention how it is a myth that an accurate translation is “impossible” from one language to another. I agree with your perspective, along with Jakobson. I think that our culture in America is certainly egotistical and nationalistic to a point where our education systems feel as if learning other languages are not necessary or helpful and are a waste of time. Native English speakers tend to think that we are at the top of the food chain simply because we know the one language we believe will eventually be used universally. Without being taught the importance of learning foreign languages or cultures in schools, our chauvinistic ideals will continue to perpetuate. I also agree when you support the idea that accurate translations exist, even if it may seem entirely different. Languages themselves have such broad vocabulary that it’s impossible to unsuccessfully communicate an effective version of an original text. I do contest that they might not create exact interpretations, but it is possible to create a similar enough connection. In translation, there is always loss but never an entire annihilation of the meaning of a text. Based off of this reasoning, I also agree with your supporting evidence when Jakobson uses the phrase, “Equivalence in difference.” Whether a translator has to expand or condense phrases to appease literary syntax of another language, a sufficient alternative is possible. Communicatively, translation is always possible. However, when it comes to literal translations, I’m not sure if it is always possible, as you state in your blog. One can only add and subtract so many words before it becomes a communicative translation. Literal meanings are more difficult to understand, and, in most cases, they have to be translated communicatively in order for targeted readers to fully understand the text.