Problems of translation (was Editing literature to conform to current custom)

[lupinesque]

Posting two responses to one thread!  How rude.  AND it's long and 
rambly.  Caveat lector.

Cindy wrote:

> 
> Well . . . 
> 
> Amanda's remarks do raise a quick question in my mind, so I think 
> I'll go ahead and ask it.  
> 
> As I understand it, there are many English-language versions of the 
> Bible.  Many of these versions exist solely as an attempt to make 
> the text more accessible for today's reader (translating arcane 
> phrases into modern slang and usage and such), and these versions 
> were written to attempt to convey the ancient text in a way that 
> makes sense in light of how much the world has changed.  I actually 
> prefer these versions, myself.
> 
> So, uh, if it is OK to tinker with what Christians believe to be 
the 
> *Word of God,* why is it not OK to make changes in a children's 
> story to reflect that times have changed and the world is now a 
very 
> different place?  Under Amanda's argument, shouldn't all copies of 
> the New Testament, for instance, contain the books Paul wrote 
> exactly as Paul wrote them because Paul didn't authorize any of 
> these changes to his words?

Leaving aside the translation issue, which I know you were aware of 
(what?  Paul didn't write in Jacobian English? <g>), I think modern 
translations, of which the KJV was of course one, have the right idea 
but are naive if they think they can translate 1st-century concepts 
into 21st-century world views so easily.

One major problem is that these translations tend to vastly 
oversimplify the concepts they are trying to convey.  The Bible is a 
text that many of us study with extreme care for shades of meaning, 
so the farther it gets from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, 
the less chance we have of doing a good job.  I lean toward 
preserving the original meaning and footnoting extensively (very 
common, of course, with Bibles), but what *is* the original meaning?  
Translators rely on current archaeology, linguisitic studies, etc.  
Of course, this problem exists whether one decides to use modern 
slang or not.  However one solves the language problem, one is going 
by one's understanding of what exactly Paul meant by this now-arcane 
term.  That changes as new information about his era surfaces--which 
is why the Bible keeps being re-translated, and always will be.
  
I'd like to be specific, but most of my Bibles are at work, and the 
best online concordance I know is very biased in its choices of 
available translations.  When I lead Bible classes I hand around the 
various translations; the variety among them can lead to very good 
discussions itself.

Whenever these issues arise, I think of a translation of Lysistrata 
which grappled with the fact (I'm trusting that it's a fact, not 
knowing classical Greek) that Aristophanes made the Spartans (IIRC) 
sound like ignorant hicks.  I don't know how he did it; word choice, 
accent, whatever, but clearly the fact that he did it was important 
to his meaning.  So how does one get this across in modern English?  
The translator made them sound like the US stereotype of a hick:  
southern accent <grins in the direction of a certain Texas editor>, 
characteristic phrases, etc. . . . you could just *see* the guys 
scratching themselves.  This seemed overboard to me, but it 
illuminated a genuine puzzle of translation.  If the translator 
hadn't done this, how *would* he have conveyed this very important 
aspect of the play?  Should he have just left it out?

I'm not fluent in French, so I can't be sure, but so far it seems to 
me that the French translator of HP took that approach, with the 
result that I can detect no class distinction between Hagrid and Stan 
Shunpike on the one hand and Harry and Hermione on the other.  This 
resolution is no more satisfactory than the other.  It seems on the 
surface to be less intrusive, but in fact it *is* intrusive; by 
erasing the obvious class distinctions JKR draws with her language, 
it dramatically rewrites the characters as surely as giving a Spartan 
an Appalachian tinge does.

To bring it back to Cindy's point:  there is no way to present Paul's 
words exactly as he wrote them.  All we can do is try to explain all 
the nuances as best as scholars can understand them.  Each translator 
privileges a different value:  fidelity to the 1st-century 
Hellenistic world view (and of course there were many, and none of us 
knows exactly what Paul's was), clarity to the modern English-
speaking ear, ease of reading, preservation of the original rhythm, 
theological complexity, etc. etc.  Translators don't even agree upon 
whether they are trying to deliver the Word of God to our ears or 
provide us with an accurate translation of an important document of 
Ancient Near Eastern history or what.  But I would say that however 
much they "tinker" with it, they are good translators to the extent 
that they are trying to convey the author's intent and not replace it 
with their own.  That way they facilitate communication between the 
author (or Author) and the reader.  The issue is respect for the 
reader as much as for the author; overly loose translations treat all 
readers like children, unable to decide for themselves what is 
valuable and what isn't.  

Kipling is not so authoritative* an author, but for the reader's sake 
we should still be wary of assuming that we know best what ought to 
be conveyed.  If we don't want to convey to a new generation what 
Kipling was trying to say, perhaps we should just take him off the 
shelves.  But like the Bible, he has a lot of good mixed in with the 
bad.

Amy

*it's irresistible