What's in a language?
Anyone who talks to me lately would know that language is a growing passion of mine. I'm learning Japanese and I'm looking forward to adding even more languages over time. While the biggest reason I'm enjoying it is undoubtedly the fact that it is a genuine challenge, another major reason is to understand the subtle nuances of different languages.
It is fascinating and eye opening. We take language for granted, and we generally assume that all common languages are inherently equivalent on some level. While we know that there are some clear "lost in translation" terms and concepts, we tend to assume that they are few and far between.
However, my experience has been the exact opposite. They are rampant and generally seem as common as cases where the translations are clear and accurate.
That isn't to say that if you translate most sentences that there will be huge ambiguity. You'll generally be able to understand the big picture. And the general meaning for that matter. But, it will usually end there. In other words, if your only goal in giving or reading a translation is to provide a "face value" interpretation. Then you'll probably be able to succeed except in those rare cases where functionally everything is lost in translation.
But, if you take the translated words and attempt to take them at anything more than face value, you'll probably end up making embarrassing mistakes. There are generally two reasons for this: the best translations in some cases differ from the literal translation, and secondly, words with multiple possible meanings often have a different subset of meanings in multiple languages. So, even where a fairly literal translation serves, it may only serve if construed in the strictest and clearest sense.
This is where humans reading translated works can get into trouble.
Let's take a sentence; "I walked the path.". "Path" in English can refer to a literal road, or an actual path (footpath) or a more metaphorical path. There is a lot of possible interpretation. "Path" is a fairly loaded word in this language. But, if this were translated from another language, it may have been that in that other language, that the word ALWAYS refers to a foot path. The translator chose "path" because English speakers don't use the term foot path very often and "path" is one of the more common words to describe a foot path or a trail. But, this would mean that reading it as meaning "road" would be wrong. And it would definitely make any metaphorical readings inaccurate.
Of course, even if the statement were originally from an English speaker, they could have MEANT it to explicitly have one meaning or another. Which is an altogether different problem.
A great example I came across was a translation early in my Japanese learning: "道をわかりますか？" Which, fairly literally translates to "do you know/understand the road(s)?". It was translated into English as "Are you lost?", and I saw another similar instance where it was translated as "Do you know the directions?". Frankly, I think "Do you know the way?" would have conveyed the same meaning a preserved more of the literal translation.
But, isn't that interesting? Both of translations I read from elsewhere are certainly valid. They may, in the moment, convey a correct meaning of the question. But, the first one throws out every word in the original translation and replaces it with the general concept of being lost. The second translation replaces the word for "road/path/etc..." with "directions".
If the situation is someone asking if someone knows where they are going, then all three translations, including my own properly convey that, if you read them in the simplest sense. But, all three can also have the potential to be TOTALLY deceiving if you try to read deeper into them.
So, let's assume the situation is this; two people are on a trip, the passenger looks at the driver who has stopped and is looking at a map and asks "道をわかりますか？". It is clear, in the moment, that the passenger knows that they aren't lost, but simply isn't sure if the driver has decided on the specific route.
It is fascinating and eye opening. We take language for granted, and we generally assume that all common languages are inherently equivalent on some level. While we know that there are some clear "lost in translation" terms and concepts, we tend to assume that they are few and far between.
However, my experience has been the exact opposite. They are rampant and generally seem as common as cases where the translations are clear and accurate.
That isn't to say that if you translate most sentences that there will be huge ambiguity. You'll generally be able to understand the big picture. And the general meaning for that matter. But, it will usually end there. In other words, if your only goal in giving or reading a translation is to provide a "face value" interpretation. Then you'll probably be able to succeed except in those rare cases where functionally everything is lost in translation.
But, if you take the translated words and attempt to take them at anything more than face value, you'll probably end up making embarrassing mistakes. There are generally two reasons for this: the best translations in some cases differ from the literal translation, and secondly, words with multiple possible meanings often have a different subset of meanings in multiple languages. So, even where a fairly literal translation serves, it may only serve if construed in the strictest and clearest sense.
This is where humans reading translated works can get into trouble.
Let's take a sentence; "I walked the path.". "Path" in English can refer to a literal road, or an actual path (footpath) or a more metaphorical path. There is a lot of possible interpretation. "Path" is a fairly loaded word in this language. But, if this were translated from another language, it may have been that in that other language, that the word ALWAYS refers to a foot path. The translator chose "path" because English speakers don't use the term foot path very often and "path" is one of the more common words to describe a foot path or a trail. But, this would mean that reading it as meaning "road" would be wrong. And it would definitely make any metaphorical readings inaccurate.
Of course, even if the statement were originally from an English speaker, they could have MEANT it to explicitly have one meaning or another. Which is an altogether different problem.
A great example I came across was a translation early in my Japanese learning: "道をわかりますか？" Which, fairly literally translates to "do you know/understand the road(s)?". It was translated into English as "Are you lost?", and I saw another similar instance where it was translated as "Do you know the directions?". Frankly, I think "Do you know the way?" would have conveyed the same meaning a preserved more of the literal translation.
But, isn't that interesting? Both of translations I read from elsewhere are certainly valid. They may, in the moment, convey a correct meaning of the question. But, the first one throws out every word in the original translation and replaces it with the general concept of being lost. The second translation replaces the word for "road/path/etc..." with "directions".
If the situation is someone asking if someone knows where they are going, then all three translations, including my own properly convey that, if you read them in the simplest sense. But, all three can also have the potential to be TOTALLY deceiving if you try to read deeper into them.
So, let's assume the situation is this; two people are on a trip, the passenger looks at the driver who has stopped and is looking at a map and asks "道をわかりますか？". It is clear, in the moment, that the passenger knows that they aren't lost, but simply isn't sure if the driver has decided on the specific route.
"Are you lost?" while generally a really good translation, would be wrong. Even on the surface in this scenario. You can dig in to alternate meanings. But you probably won't pull out the right one. The word lost has muddied the context.
"Do you know the directions?" is very specific and probably the most perfect for the scenario. If you take it at face value. But, it isn't really a common question. Most people, I suspect, would read into it and assume that the passenger feels that what is intended is asking if the driver is lost.
"Do you know the way?" is the most literal translation. And, it is also the most flexible. It could certainly mean on the surface that the passenger is asking if they are lost or if they know the way they want to take. It could also be a spiritual question (assuming the context of a driver and passenger is missing) or more general question which has nothing to do with literal roads or spiritual paths, like asking if they know how they are going to accomplish some task.
So, which translation is correct? Well, technically, they are all as good as they are bad. Personally, given the stated context though, I would say the second one is the best. While it sounds the clumsiest, it removes the most amount of ambiguity. If you read it at face value, you get the closest approximation to the intended purpose.
But, what if the context were different and it was MEANT to have a broader meaning. What if, instead of 2 people in a car, it was a Buddhist Monk addressing a student and it was meant to have a less specific meaning.
The exact same phrase would now be the worst to use the second translation for. The first translation would be misleading, but could definitely lend that air of ambiguity. Though the final translation would be the closest. The ultimate problem however is that the statement promotes reflection of the meaning of the words. But the scope of the word "path" and "道" are not the same. They certainly have the most overlap. But, they also encompass different meanings in each language.
So, my conclusion is fairly simple. If you're seeking blunt, concrete information there will often be a very good translation which will convey what you want to know. It isn't the one you're guaranteed to get. But, it is possible that for most things, if your needs are shallow enough (not in an insulting way) that translations are also good enough the vast majority of the time.
When your needs, or the intent of the statement put emphasis on considering the meaning of the words however, you're probably screwed. Basically, to properly contemplate upon such speech, you need the original source (words or text in the original language EXACTLY as spoken), you likely need the context, even if you're expected to contemplate on it and you need to know the appropriate scope of the words involved and how it is valid to use them in the source language.
In other words... at the very least, you need to be fluent in the source language, rendering the translation moot. Then, ideally, if the we're more than a decade or two from when the words were recorded we would need to know how the language has grown/changed because... over time certain usages of words change over time. So, an interpretation which might be valid today, might have been unthinkable or rare when the source originated. And then, even more ideally, you'd have full context including emotional state of speakers, scenario and even historical background.
An exchange can have very different meanings if it is between two friends currently on good terms, than between 2 friends after a disagreement, than between two enemies, than between 2 strangers, and so on.
Comments
Post a Comment