I don't know how to comment about the technological advance WITHOUT sounding hypocritical. The world changes whether we like it or not. Whether it is getting better with as it changes, can be a matter of opinion. I always thought that when the world advanced (in a technological way) that meant it was getting better, and if you look at the statistics, it would seem that fewer of us are dying for things we used to die of in the past. And fewer of us are getting killed in wars, but we are now getting killed for different reasons and in different ways. Technological advance always means change, but does it always mean for the better? The question of the MODERN AGE.
The first automatic weaving machines in England put many weavers out of work. I'm sure most people would agree that OVERALL this was a positive change, since it meant cheaper and in some cases, better textiles. To the fellow who just lost his job, this was probably only a small comfort. He could buy cheaper socks, but, of course, he was probably weaving his own anyway. The owner's of the factories, undoubtedly felt that they deserved all the money they were now making, and the EX-weavers should just move on and find other work. The consumer liked the cheaper product, and though they were sympathetic to the weaver's plight, really couldn't tell one sock from the other. The weavers, once considered craftsmen, were now just unemployed burdens. Some weavers rebelled, and broke a few machines. The same thing happened in Silesia in the 19th century. Neither rebellion turned out well for the anti-technology camp.
These new, Jacquard looms were programmed using cards. James Burke in his TV show "Connections" makes the case that these early weaving "programs" were precursors to modern software. Now software has the ability to make (at least rudimentary) translations of written text into a target language. Obviously there are a lot of human translators doing the same thing and making a living at it. Are these translator programs a good or a bad thing?
Humans are communicators, whether we like to admit it or not. Even the fellow who withdraws from the crowd, or has a stony face, is sending a message. However, speech/language is our primary means of getting a message across. Our language skill is often used to judge our intelligence level or our class.
So is this the reason I'm turned off by these machine translation (MT) programs? Is someone using a machine to translate a foreign text AS SMART as a translator who is fluent and comfortable in both languages? One thing I have noticed in those using MT, is the tendency of some to think there is only one answer to a translation. Without even really understanding the source language, they COMPARE their machine translations to a target language. Then they CLEAN it up , NOT interpreting the actual source text, but what their computer THINKS the source text means. This DIVINING of the source text becomes the translation.
Let me make it clear, that I also use Computer Assisted Translation software and I like it very much. I was never a fan of leafing through huge dictionaries to find obscure words. I'm very happy that the amount of work required to produce a quality translation has been greatly reduced. However, the LOOKING UP part is a just a small part of the overall translation. In a truly accurate translatio, each sentence or word must be taken in context of the entire work to be translated. We must be able to interpret not only what the author of the text says, but also what the author means. And it must be readable.
When poor Ned Lud broke those first two automatic knitting machines in a fit of insane rage, I don't believe he was trying to save the world. He acted in a totally human way to a threat to his livelihood, to his way of life. In the end, one may argue that his RAGE against the machine was ultimately of no value. Many of us, however, can certainly understand his feelings of helplessness against a system that, in the end, destroyed the world as he knew it.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
English Translations of Perry Rhodan
There are special problems in translating works like PR. First and foremost, it is pulp fiction and not exactly at a high literary standard, but that's alright, I really don't want to be reading a Hemingway story for light entertainment. And for me, that's the key about translating PR. It is light entertainment. But when this light entertainment is translated into English, it can become cumbersome and awkward.
If a translator tries to remain literal (as in the case of a technical translation), the result is about as interesting as reading an English translation of Chinese instructions on how to put together a bookshelf. If the translator tries to convey, for example, what a STRAHLER is, and how it operates comical/awkward sounding constructions can result. A STRAHLER is derived the German verb, strahlen, which means to beam, to radiate, to sparkle, to shine, etc. But the German reader has the idea that is some sort of energy weapon. To call it a beamer, although technically correct, reminds me of a BMW. It's essentially a raygun, but who calls these things rayguns anymore? You could make up a descriptor like PHASER like in STAR TREK. But here again you're essentially trying to come up with a cool word for a technological artefact that only exists in the imagination of the writer.
Another problem word for me is BEIBOOT. These are essentially ships transported on board larger ships, similiar to SHUTTLECRAFT on board the ENTERPRISE. But, there are a variety of types in the PR universe including Space-Jets, Corvettes, light cruisers and mosquito jets. BUT if you look up BEIBOOT in the dictionary it says DINGHY. Anyone who has read PR knows these things are not DINGHYS. So, whenever Perry Rhodan orders a BEIBOOT to land on a planet or be dispatched somewhere, you need to know what KIND of BEIBOOT it is. I sometimes choose the descriptor "auxilary craft" when the writer doesn't indicate the type of BEIBOOT.
Two verbs and their derivatives also cause problems, schleusen and einpeilen. Schleusen is used whenever something is moved from outside to inside the ship or vice versa. BEIBOOTE are ausgeschleust, sent OUT of the ship, or eingeschleust, brought into the ship. Both ein- and ausschleusen are quite clear in GERMAN, but need a bit of writing around for an English translation. I usually select the word DEPLOYED for transfer out of the ship, and RECOVERED for bringing back onto the ship. However, people can also be ein- and ausgeschleust causing some difficult in translation.
Einpeilen is not really even a German word, although it appears to be one. Peilen is to locate or to detect. Einpeilen seems to mean "get a bead on" or "to track an object". Peilen is usually done in the ORTUNG department. ORTUNG on its own means DETECTION. But it the context of PR, it means more SEARCH and DETECTION. SENSORS is probably the best way to translate these two in combination. Occasionally you will read ORTERPEILING, which indicates a "dection was made by the locator". Again a case for using SENSOR.
I think if these stories had originally been written in English, there would be a neato word for STRAHLER, like phaser. The scifi author would probably make up a word for BEIBOOT, or use some acronym (like LEM).
Dr. Ranier Nagel discusses these problems and more in his essay, "Perry Rhodan in Übersetzung" in the excellent book Spurensuche im All. I translated this essay a few months back, and Dr. Nagel has graciously given permission for the translation to be shared with anyone who is interested in reading it.
If a translator tries to remain literal (as in the case of a technical translation), the result is about as interesting as reading an English translation of Chinese instructions on how to put together a bookshelf. If the translator tries to convey, for example, what a STRAHLER is, and how it operates comical/awkward sounding constructions can result. A STRAHLER is derived the German verb, strahlen, which means to beam, to radiate, to sparkle, to shine, etc. But the German reader has the idea that is some sort of energy weapon. To call it a beamer, although technically correct, reminds me of a BMW. It's essentially a raygun, but who calls these things rayguns anymore? You could make up a descriptor like PHASER like in STAR TREK. But here again you're essentially trying to come up with a cool word for a technological artefact that only exists in the imagination of the writer.
Another problem word for me is BEIBOOT. These are essentially ships transported on board larger ships, similiar to SHUTTLECRAFT on board the ENTERPRISE. But, there are a variety of types in the PR universe including Space-Jets, Corvettes, light cruisers and mosquito jets. BUT if you look up BEIBOOT in the dictionary it says DINGHY. Anyone who has read PR knows these things are not DINGHYS. So, whenever Perry Rhodan orders a BEIBOOT to land on a planet or be dispatched somewhere, you need to know what KIND of BEIBOOT it is. I sometimes choose the descriptor "auxilary craft" when the writer doesn't indicate the type of BEIBOOT.
Two verbs and their derivatives also cause problems, schleusen and einpeilen. Schleusen is used whenever something is moved from outside to inside the ship or vice versa. BEIBOOTE are ausgeschleust, sent OUT of the ship, or eingeschleust, brought into the ship. Both ein- and ausschleusen are quite clear in GERMAN, but need a bit of writing around for an English translation. I usually select the word DEPLOYED for transfer out of the ship, and RECOVERED for bringing back onto the ship. However, people can also be ein- and ausgeschleust causing some difficult in translation.
Einpeilen is not really even a German word, although it appears to be one. Peilen is to locate or to detect. Einpeilen seems to mean "get a bead on" or "to track an object". Peilen is usually done in the ORTUNG department. ORTUNG on its own means DETECTION. But it the context of PR, it means more SEARCH and DETECTION. SENSORS is probably the best way to translate these two in combination. Occasionally you will read ORTERPEILING, which indicates a "dection was made by the locator". Again a case for using SENSOR.
I think if these stories had originally been written in English, there would be a neato word for STRAHLER, like phaser. The scifi author would probably make up a word for BEIBOOT, or use some acronym (like LEM).
Dr. Ranier Nagel discusses these problems and more in his essay, "Perry Rhodan in Übersetzung" in the excellent book Spurensuche im All. I translated this essay a few months back, and Dr. Nagel has graciously given permission for the translation to be shared with anyone who is interested in reading it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)