I've been reading... (as the second of my non-mystery before-new-years books) (the first having been The Book of Illusions by Paul Auster, which I highly recommend, but only if you're not already suffering from depression.)...umm... right... so, I've been reading Le Morte D'Arthur [by] Sir Thomas Malory. Maleore. Malorye. Malleorre.
It's a good read. And after living in that 1400s language for awhile, your brain starts saying things to itself like "and he was wonderly wrothe."
But anyway.
Thomas Malory reportedly compiled and translated these Arthurian tales out of the French Vulgate romances and some Middle English sources. (as per Elizabeth Bryan's Introduction)
And here's my whole point for bringing this up... in the original Preface, William Caxton wrote:
"I haue...enprysed to enprynte a book of the noble hystoryes of the sayed kynge Arthur and of certeyn of his knyghtes after a copye vnto me delyuerd whyche copye Syr Thomas Malorye dyd take oute of certeyn bookes of frensshe and reduced it in to Englysshe."
I love that - "reduced into English". I love it love it love it. It's so much more accurate than saying "translated", which gives you the misleading idea that the text has merely been moved from one place to another, laterally, without losing anything in the process.
I often get the feeling that people reading a translation think they're getting the whole story. That they're not missing out. But anything translated is only an approximation. Sometimes the translator gets close... taking months or years (I imagine, anyway) to find just the right word combo to preserve both the literal idea, and any cultural humor or added connotation, syntax and rhythm... but it's a futile task. Compelling, but futile.
Because language is so culture-specific. So experience-specific.
Like, hearing the word 'arbol' gives me an entirely different mental image than when I hear the word 'tree'. Sure, they sorta mean the same thing, but not really.
It's kinda like going to see The Golden Compass. (she said, making a leap and not bothering to fill in the gaps.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In the Times today they translated Obama's chanting of "¡Sí, se puede" as "Yes, we can."
But shouldn't it be, "It can be done"?
I guess chanting "¡Nosotros podemos!" is more difficult?
Interesting. Yeah, I'd hear that more as "yes, one can [do it]" as in (as you've said) "'it can be done'"
And of course 'nosotros podemos' is more difficult - you have to roll that stupid r. ;-)
Post a Comment