Carsten Becker wrote:
> Using clay
> bricks is not that widely spread. So should I rather
> translate "Let's gather stones and wood" etc. because this
> method belongs more tightly to the concept of building a
> house and is more commonly known?
No. This is wrong because bricks are important for the meaning of the story.
> That would seem logical
> to me. Anyway, when Luther translated the Bible, AFAIK he
> also had to translate the *sense* rather than the *words*
> sometimes. "If I took the wings of dawn and stayed at the
> utmost sea ..." comes to my mind[1] ...
It's an almost literal translation of the original "Esa kanfei shahhar ,
eshkena be-ahharit yam".
> Or do you think in
> this case I should better make up a bit of a native story
> and translate this one as an example?
A good idea.
---------------------
Jeffrey Henning wrote:
> I agree - I think that's the right approach. It is certainly one of the
guiding principles of translation relays.
I would rather disagree. Why? See the explanation about "essential" below.
--------------------------
Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> Usually,
> a translator does not transplant the stuff he's working on into a
> completely different time and place.
I second it.
-----------------------
caeruleancentaur wrote:
> We're not talking about deeply held religious
> principles here (unless someone wants to translate "Romans"),
and even this one may have several alternative interpretations...
> If at all possible, if
> the culture does know what stone/bricks/asphalt/mortar are, then
> those words should be used. We're not trying to tell the reader how
> to build a tower, but how that particular culture built a tower.
Absolutely true.
----------------------
Jeffrey Henning wrote:
> I guess we should agree to disagree: the translator can have their own
> agenda. Are they trying to convey a story that they see as literally
true?
> Are they trying to convey a story that they regard as a parable? If it
is
> literally true, then translate it as equivalently as possible.
For that purpose we need to know the essence of the story, what is relevant
and what is irrelevant. In this particular case bricks, being man-made, are
essential for the meaning, as opposed to stones, given by G-d as they are.
It doesn't matter much if the story here is historically true, or a mere
parable.
> If it is a
> parable, then translate it into cultural terms that convey the essence of
> the story.
This is one of the principles the Wycliff Translators use. I think it is
basicly wrong. When the cultural element in the story is relevant, it must
be preserved, even if it needs long explanations, but not re-interpreted.
Otherwise you can have smth like "In older days there were news, and the
news were together with Humpbacked Spirit..."
-- Yitzik