In Response to Robert Esposito’s “Eco — Modern/Archaic ~ Foreign/Domestic” (https://sites.rutgers.edu/italian-translation/eco-modern-archaic-foreign-domestic/)
The last two paragraphs’ example of the translation of the word “weird” is quite interesting. Like you, I also chose this quote and said that the temporal component is different and independent from physical-space one. However this example of yours, I feel, is addressing a salient aspect of language. In my blog post, I talked about how Harry Poter needed to be localized (a type of translation) from the UK to the US due to the different areas using different terms; the “language” stays the same but there is a change of localization/foreignization, but with this one not only is there modernization with possibly updating the word weird with faithful but if it is not done the risk is not that the term would not be understood, but rather misunderstood, which would seem to strengthen the actually need to modernize the text even though the language is a constant.
In Response to Bill Caswell’s “Blog 2: Quote Impressions” (https://sites.rutgers.edu/italian-translation/blog-2-quote-impressions/)
It seams to me like you are saying some texts crucially have to be unfaithful, which I agree with. I have had experience translating less literary texts, sometimes even academic as you mention, and there, yes, staying as close to the original semantic meaning is considered the most “faithful.” Other texts as you point out though, force the translator to consider so many other variables beyond semantic meaning in order to be faithful. My question is, wouldn’t a translation which demands such considerations, as with Ungaretti’s “La Mattina“, and ultimately ends up veering away from the original meaning, though preserving things like meter, symbolism, etc. still be considered unfaithful to most readers because it is not literally saying the same thing? I think so, so for me, rather than saying that such a translation would still be the faithful one, I think maybe the translator would just have to accept inevitable unfaithfulness.
In Response to Anita Hotchkiss’s “Traduzione/Tradimento – Comment on “To what extent can a translation be referentially ‘unfaithful’?” (Eco, p. 30)” (https://sites.rutgers.edu/italian-translation/traduzione-tradimento-comment-on-to-what-extent-can-a-translation-be-referentially-unfaithful-eco-p-30/)
I think your first footnote actually opens up a lot of interesting discussion. You clearly delineated various ways where translators can be unfaithful in the sense of are able to be, but what about how they may be unfaithful? In the sense of how much are they allowed to be unfaithful yet still convey enough of the original meaning or better yet how much unfaithfulness is acceptable? In your example of unfaithfulness concerning culture (either the translator him/herself literally misses a cultural reference or the audience does) there will necessarily be some loss since the intended audience will not understand a given reference either by means of the translator or due to the mere fact that they are not part of the “in group”, the original target of the reference. If this is the case, I do not feel it is necessarily always a bad thing to be unfaithful, and maybe there are other instances of when it actually is acceptable to be unfaithful and a translator can purposely decide this.