I am doing a course on translation, and one of the sentences I must translate is driving me mad. What on earth do the two underlined verbs mean?
I have heard of the Irish thatching huts in the jungle of Cancun, maising sheep on the Steppes of Russia, tneding rice fields in East China, (...)
Could that be raising and tending? Two typos in the same sentence of a translation exercise that has been the same for years seem too much, but I cannot make sense of those verbs.
Thanks a lot in advance.
I have heard of the Irish thatching huts in the jungle of Cancun, maising sheep on the Steppes of Russia, tneding rice fields in East China, (...)
Could that be raising and tending? Two typos in the same sentence of a translation exercise that has been the same for years seem too much, but I cannot make sense of those verbs.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Colombomaising sheep on the Steppes of Russia, tneding rice fields in East China, (...)raising sheep and tending fields!
CJ
Comments
I had already considered the idea suggested by Dave that Maising sheep could be a breed of sheep from that place, but that meant changing everything, considering Irish thatching, maising and tneding as adjectives. That would also solve the issue of tneding as a particular type of rice (although, to me, it sounds more like Norse than like Chinese!). I don't really know whether Irish thatching huts would be right in this context (meaning that there's a typical kind of thatched huts in Ireland that, funnily enough, can also be found in Cancun), but anyway there was another part at the end of the sentence, that I didn't copy here, that didn't admit of such a solution.
khoff, your question is something I've already asked my teacher. Not in a case so extreme, though. In the last term, another of the texts I had to translate for this course had a jumble of a sentence of which it was difficult to make sense (I also started another thread for it). In my translation, I wrote what think was a nice right sentence and, in a footnote, an unintelligible one that, in my opinion, mimicked the clumsy style of the original. Well, my teacher told me that there was nothing wrong with the original sentence (judge for yourself*), and that if something like that ever happened, I should try to make the translation sound right in the target language. I don't completely agree with her. Things like that might, for example, make a run-of-the-mill writer seem a great genius in another language if his translator were a great writer himself, wouldn't it? Anyway, this was all to say that I imagine that my teacher's answer to your question would be to correct the typos (and, this time, I do agree with her
* But the diversity in value between different cattle, the great size of the units, and the fact that they could not be divided, as well as the speculative element which entered into themthe (yet another typo!) cattle might deteriorate in keeping, they might also be productive while kept: all these qualities would make such a unit inadmissible in times when calculation is carried to a nicety.
My daughter showed me her translation of a Spanish novella, and I mentioned that some of the sentences seemed vague or confusing -- she said she was trying to stay faithful to the style of the original.
Things like that might, for example, make a run-of-the-mill writer seem a great genius in another language if his translator were a great writer himself, wouldn't it?
You're right -- I suppose it's possible for some works to improve in translation!
Another interesting topic is sentences that cannot be translated without changing their true/false value. If you translate "This sentence is written in English" into any other language, you've turned a true statement into a false statement. Douglas Hofstadter has some interesting observations along these lines in his books.
The book my daughter translated is Shiki Nagaoka by Mario Bellatin. Here's an article about the book --
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/books/10bellatin.html