Read Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Online
Authors: David Bellos
Is That a Fish in Your Ear? (17 page)
The thesaurus was not designed as a resource for translators, but it serves translation in two distinct and equally important ways. The first is eminently practical. Browsing Roget’s lists of quasi-synonyms and cognate words helps a writer—who may also be a translator at that point—to identify a term to express a more precise shade of meaning than the word that first came to mind. In the second place, however, a thesaurus says on every page that
to know a language is to know how to say the same thing in different words
. That is precisely what translators seek to do. Roget’s wonderful
Thesaurus
reminds them that in one language as well as between any two, all words are translations of others.
to know a language is to know how to say the same thing in different words
. That is precisely what translators seek to do. Roget’s wonderful
Thesaurus
reminds them that in one language as well as between any two, all words are translations of others.
The Myth of Literal Translation
With bilingual dictionaries to get them started and Roget’s
Thesaurus
to help them polish their work to a nice finish, translators ought not to find it too hard to tell us what the words on the page really mean. In practice, however, it’s the words on the page that hang like a dark veil over what a piece of written language means. Words taken one by one obscure the force and meaning of a text, which is why a word-for-word translation is almost never a good job. This isn’t a new insight: arguments against literal translation go back almost as far as written translation itself.
1
Thesaurus
to help them polish their work to a nice finish, translators ought not to find it too hard to tell us what the words on the page really mean. In practice, however, it’s the words on the page that hang like a dark veil over what a piece of written language means. Words taken one by one obscure the force and meaning of a text, which is why a word-for-word translation is almost never a good job. This isn’t a new insight: arguments against literal translation go back almost as far as written translation itself.
1
After immersing himself for several years in the history of translation, George Steiner discovered that it consisted very largely of repeated arguments over this same point. “Over some two thousand years of argument and precept,” he wrote with perceptible frustration, “the beliefs and disagreements voiced about the nature of translation have been almost the same.”
2
2
When Don Quixote’s favorite bedtime book,
Amadis de Gaula
, appeared in French, for example, the translator gave his patron two reasons for not having stuck to the literal meanings of the Spanish words:
Amadis de Gaula
, appeared in French, for example, the translator gave his patron two reasons for not having stuck to the literal meanings of the Spanish words:
I beg you to believe I did it both because many things appeared to me to be inappropriate for people in courtly circles with respect to the customs and standards of our day, and on the advice of some of my friends who saw fit for me to free myself from the usual punctiliousness of translators, precisely because [this book] doesn’t deal with material where such persnickety observance is necessary.
3
These twin justifications for “free” translation—literal translation just isn’t appropriate for the target audience and isn’t suited to the original, either—were familiar themes in the sixteenth century, as they had been for many centuries already. In fact, few commentators on translation have ever come out in favor of a literal or word-for-word style. Literal translation is precisely what translators in the broad Western tradition don’t do. But if literal translation is not a widespread practice, why do so many translators feel a need to shoot it down—often with overwhelming force? Octavio Paz, the Mexican poet and man of letters, stated the standard view in more recent times:
No digo que la traducción literal sea imposible, sino que no es una traducción
: “I’m not saying a literal translation is impossible, only that it’s not a translation.”
4
No digo que la traducción literal sea imposible, sino que no es una traducción
: “I’m not saying a literal translation is impossible, only that it’s not a translation.”
4
How back far does it go? There are references to the issue in the writings of Cicero (106–43 B.C.E.) and Horace (65–8B.C.E.), but a long sentence written by Saint Jerome, the first translator of the Bible into Latin and subsequently the patron saint of translators, can be taken as the first full formulation of the lopsided dispute between “literal” and “free.” In 346 C.E., when he was near the end of his labors, Jerome wrote a letter to his friend Pammachius to counter the criticisms that had been made of the translations he had done so far. Jerome said this about how he had gone about his task:
Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scripturis sanctis ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est non verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu
.
A provisional translation would give the following sense: “Thus I not only confess but of my own free voice proclaim that apart from translations of sacred scriptures from the Greek, where even the order of the words is a
mysterium
, I express not the word for the word but the sense for the sense.”
mysterium
, I express not the word for the word but the sense for the sense.”
Jerome’s expression
verbum e verbo
, “the word … for the word,” can be considered synonymous with “literal” translation, and his
sensum exprimere de sensu
, “to express the sense for the sense,” corresponds to the idea of “free” translation. He proclaims that he doesn’t do “literal” except when translating “sacred scriptures from the Greek.” That seems clear until you realize that the exception clause drives a cart and horses through the main claim, because what Jerome did throughout his long life was to translate sacred scripture, more than half of which he translated from Greek.
verbum e verbo
, “the word … for the word,” can be considered synonymous with “literal” translation, and his
sensum exprimere de sensu
, “to express the sense for the sense,” corresponds to the idea of “free” translation. He proclaims that he doesn’t do “literal” except when translating “sacred scriptures from the Greek.” That seems clear until you realize that the exception clause drives a cart and horses through the main claim, because what Jerome did throughout his long life was to translate sacred scripture, more than half of which he translated from Greek.
Jerome also says he abandons sense-for-sense translation not just when translating scripture from Greek but specifically
ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est
, in those places “where even the order of the words is a
mysterium
.” As the meaning of the word
mysterium
is uncertain, there’s no final agreement as to what Jerome was really talking about. At the root of Western arguments about how best to translate lies a mystery word that nobody is quite sure how to translate.
ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est
, in those places “where even the order of the words is a
mysterium
.” As the meaning of the word
mysterium
is uncertain, there’s no final agreement as to what Jerome was really talking about. At the root of Western arguments about how best to translate lies a mystery word that nobody is quite sure how to translate.
In late Latin written by Christians,
mysterium
most often means a holy sacrament. Jerome’s sentence therefore seems to recommend sticking to the exact order of the words of the Greek New Testament because its word order is sacred. Louis Kelly understands Jerome to be saying:
mysterium
most often means a holy sacrament. Jerome’s sentence therefore seems to recommend sticking to the exact order of the words of the Greek New Testament because its word order is sacred. Louis Kelly understands Jerome to be saying:
Not only do I admit, but I proclaim at the top of my voice, that in translating from Greek, except from Sacred
Scripture, where even the order of the words is of God’s doing, I have not translated word for word, but sense for sense.
5
This reading supports the view that Jerome is not really defending “sense for sense” translation, as he first seems to be doing, but “word for word.” But why would Jerome treat Greek word order as sacrosanct and not do the same for the scriptures he translated from Hebrew and Aramaic? The “Greek exception” doesn’t make a lot of sense if holiness is the dominant reason for mimicking the word order of the source.
However, Jerome may have meant something else by
mysterium
. He may have wanted to explain his approach to an issue that confronts every translator at some point: what to do with expressions that you don’t understand. It’s a real problem for all translators, because every utterance ever made in speech or writing has something blank or fuzzy or uncertain about it.
mysterium
. He may have wanted to explain his approach to an issue that confronts every translator at some point: what to do with expressions that you don’t understand. It’s a real problem for all translators, because every utterance ever made in speech or writing has something blank or fuzzy or uncertain about it.
In ordinary speaking, listening, and reading, we cope with the gaps in various ways. An impenetrable phrase may be treated as a transmission error—a mispronunciation, a typo, a scribal glitch. We have no trouble replacing it with what we instantly guess to be the true form, and in spoken interaction we do this automatically, without noticing the corrections that we bring to what we hear. When reading, we use the context to prompt a meaning that fits. Where the context isn’t good enough to allow this, we just skip it. We skip-read all the time! Nobody knows the meanings of all the French words in
Les Misérables
, but that’s never stopped anyone from enjoying Hugo’s novel. However, translators are not granted the right to skip. That’s a serious constraint. It hardly arises in most kinds of language use; it’s one of the few things that sets a problem for translation that is almost unique to it.
Les Misérables
, but that’s never stopped anyone from enjoying Hugo’s novel. However, translators are not granted the right to skip. That’s a serious constraint. It hardly arises in most kinds of language use; it’s one of the few things that sets a problem for translation that is almost unique to it.
Jerome was working with many different sources, but his main text for the Old Testament was the Greek Septuagint, translated from now lost Hebrew sources several centuries earlier. According to legend, it had been commissioned around 236 B.C.E. by Ptolemy II, the Greek-speaking ruler of Egypt, for his new library in Alexandria. He had sent men to Judea to round up learned Jews who understood the source text, then wined and dined them and set them up at Paphos (on the island of Cyprus) to get down to work. There were seventy (or seventy-two) participants in this foundational translation workshop, which is why the text they produced is called the Septuagint—a way of writing (not translating) the Greek word meaning “seventy.”
The Seventy wrote not in the language of Homer and Sophocles but in
koiné
, the popular spoken language of the Hellenistic cultures dotted around the Middle East. They also wrote it in a peculiar way, perhaps because
koiné
was their vehicular language and not completely native to them. So it would hardly be surprising if some words, phrases, and sentences in it baffled Saint Jerome seven centuries later. One telltale sign of the Seventy’s difficulty with Greek is the way they handled Hebrew words referring to Jewish religious mysteries. For example, they represented the Hebrew
as Xερoυβ
µ, which is not a translation, but just the same word sounded out in a different alphabet. Jerome followed style—he wrote out approximately the same sounds in Latin script, making
cherubim
. English Bible translators have done the same, giving us a Hebrew masculine plural form (-
im
) for a concept that has stumped all translators since the third century B.C.E. In addition, the transfer of letters through three scripts and four languages has altered the sound of the word almost beyond recognition, from “kheruvím” to “cherubim.”
koiné
, the popular spoken language of the Hellenistic cultures dotted around the Middle East. They also wrote it in a peculiar way, perhaps because
koiné
was their vehicular language and not completely native to them. So it would hardly be surprising if some words, phrases, and sentences in it baffled Saint Jerome seven centuries later. One telltale sign of the Seventy’s difficulty with Greek is the way they handled Hebrew words referring to Jewish religious mysteries. For example, they represented the Hebrew
as Xερoυβµ, which is not a translation, but just the same word sounded out in a different alphabet. Jerome followed style—he wrote out approximately the same sounds in Latin script, makingcherubim
. English Bible translators have done the same, giving us a Hebrew masculine plural form (-
im
) for a concept that has stumped all translators since the third century B.C.E. In addition, the transfer of letters through three scripts and four languages has altered the sound of the word almost beyond recognition, from “kheruvím” to “cherubim.”
This way of dealing with an untranslatable by not translating it while making it pronounceable (sound translation, homophonic translation:
see here
) could be considered the primary, original meaning of the term
literal translation
. It represents a foreign word by putting in place of the letters of which it is made the corresponding letters of the script of the target language. But
we do not call that literal translation nowadays—we call it transliteration. And it probably wasn’t what Jerome had in mind in the famous passage from his letter to Pammachius.
see here
) could be considered the primary, original meaning of the term
literal translation
. It represents a foreign word by putting in place of the letters of which it is made the corresponding letters of the script of the target language. But
we do not call that literal translation nowadays—we call it transliteration. And it probably wasn’t what Jerome had in mind in the famous passage from his letter to Pammachius.
What, then, did Jerome mean by
mysterium
? Here’s an alternative translation of the mystery passage by a canon of Canterbury Cathedral:
mysterium
? Here’s an alternative translation of the mystery passage by a canon of Canterbury Cathedral:
For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word.
To put it in a slacker style, “I translate word for word only where the original—even its word order—is completely impenetrable to me.” That is, of course, what translators have always done. For the most part, they transmit the sense; where the sense is obscure, the best they can do—because unlike ordinary readers they are not allowed to skip—is to offer a representation of the separate words of the original. This may even explain the style of the translation of the extract quoted
here
. Maybe Derrida’s translator, far from trying to sound foreign, was simply baffled.
here
. Maybe Derrida’s translator, far from trying to sound foreign, was simply baffled.
What, then, is a literal translation? Not a substitution of letters, since we call that transliteration. A one-for-one substitution of the separated written words? Maybe. When confronted with a decidedly loose French translation of “The Jumping Frog of Calaveras County,” Mark Twain decided to back-translate his story into English using a single-word substitution device intended as the opposite of his French translator’s overuse of rephrasing.
THE FROG JUMPING OF THE COUNTY OF CALAVERASIt there was one time here an individual known under the name of Jim Smiley; it was in the winter of ’49, possibly well at the spring of ’50, I no me recollect not exactly. This which me makes to believe that it was the one or the other, it is that I shall remember that the grand flume is not achieved when he arrives at the camp for the first time, but of all sides he was the man the most fond of to bet which one have seen, betting upon all that which is presented, when he could find an adversary; and when he not of it could not, he passed to the side opposed.
6
Other books
The Pioneer Woman Cooks by Ree Drummond
Dukes Prefer Blondes by Loretta Chase
Grotesco by Natsuo Kirino
The Best Man for the Job by Lucy King
Miss Matched by Shawn K. Stout
For the Good of All (Law of the Lycans Book 7) by Charles, Nicky
Knight's Captive by Holt, Samantha
Silver Like Dust by Kimi Cunningham Grant
Child of God by Cormac McCarthy
If at Birth You Don't Succeed by Zach Anner