Talk:Translation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

History section too specific on methodology/theory[edit]

Hello, the history section is primarily concerned with the methods/ideals of translation in various epochs. As such, it clearly, but unwittingly, has a certain Translation Studies bias. The history of translation should also consider its growth as an industry, e.g. statistics on published translations, etc. Then any non-original theory on how these intersected (e.g. readability in 18th C compared to the rise of the novel a la Watt). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.174.46 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Translators, Inc.???[edit]

I saw the following when I reached the "Translation" article: QUOTE"Translators" redirects here. For the company, see Translators, Inc..UNQUOTE (sic: with two periods/full stops)

Who are these people?

Have they advertising privileges here that allow them to hijack the plural of a common noun to another Wiki article that reads like advertising and is flagged as such???

I suggest that link be promptly removed.

That failing, there are websites for "translators", e.g. ProZ and Translators Cafe (www.proz.com and www.translatorscafe.com) -- but the hijacking of a common noun in order to vector readers to a publicity article seems unethical. Moreover it appears right at the top of the article: I'm floored! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talkcontribs) 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

this discussion sucks pie! lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.149.5 (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived[edit]

As the discussion was getting difficult to follow, this page has been archived at [1]. Please feel free to copy any relevant ongoing conversations from the archive. maxsch (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Split?[edit]

This article is huge. Perhaps it's time to spit some of the larger sections away to create their own articles?--Lendorien (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If space is an issue, maybe some sections of this article could be moved to translation studies - at the moment, the Translation Studies article is pretty useless. Jammycaketin (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Translation," and its sections as presently constituted, do not strike me as excessively long. Parceling out sections would detract from the article's comprehensiveness. Nihil novi (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs?[edit]

On WP:EL blogs are listed under the type of external links that are to be generally avoided. I would bet that there are hundreds of blogs that are related to translation. I don't know why we should include any of them--or, diplomatically, what would the standard for inclusion be? Links to blogs amount to a sort of endorsement, if users want to search for blogs that talk about translation they should do that with a search engine. I propose that we not have a section on this page called "Blogs", but I thought maybe I'd seek consensus. xschm (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Heartily concur. Nihil novi (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion[edit]

I propose that Translation process be moved here. Surely the general article on translation is where the translation process should be discussed; the process isn't really unique enough to warrant its own article. —Angr 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that Translation process doesn't really merit it's own article, I'm not sure that it contains any content that would help this article. It doesn't have any references and in fact I (personally) think that the central assertion about the translation process being decoding and re-encoding is misleading. I would agree with having the process article redirect to translation but I don't think this article should change because of that. xschm (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Nihil novi (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are quite the bold statements you accomplish considering that the cognitive mechanisms underlying the translation process is very much an active research object in cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics.90.184.75.69 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission[edit]

Perhaps something can be mentioned about the relationship of the original author(s) to the translated work through history? Currently, for example, it is illegal to translate something without the original author's permission due to copyright laws, but it wasn't always thus. Even until the collapse of the Soviet Union, because the world wasn't unipolar, you frequently saw translations of works from "the other side" that were done without permission and took many liberties with the original work, sometimes for the better. In the USSR, there were such translations of Winnie the Pooh, The Wizard of the Emerald City and Buratino. Esn (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A separate article on Translation law? Are you up for it? Nihil novi (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be a great idea. But I'm no expert on translation law. The Berne Copyright Convention covers translation law currently for almost all countries, yes. Even though in many countries, it's only on paper and making it real is expensive and frustrating (see the recent spat with the Brazilian Lord of the Rings translator). But it would also be important to mention the situation historically. For example, in the 19th century, the United States' relationship with international copyright law was far more reluctant than today. Esn (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The articles Derivative work, Legal issues with fan fiction and Fansubbing#Legal_and_ethical_issues may be of some use. Esn (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify. While it may violate copyright law to publish a translation without permission of the original text's publisher (not the author's permission, which is actually irrelevant), it isn't illegal to translate. xschm (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you have to have the permission of the copyright holder. That may be the author or the publisher, depending on the circumstances. (I own the copyright on both my books, not the publisher, and no, they aren't self-published!) —Angr 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"it isn't illegal to translate" - well, it hasn't been made a thought-crime, if that's what you mean. "Don't ask, don't tell". It's legal as long as you don't do it in public. Anything that is posted online is considered to be "published", for example, and since the internet takes up an ever-increasing percentage of our interaction with others, copyright laws are now being applied to spheres that used to be beyond their reach. Esn (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Quality Requirements[edit]

A-Class quality requirements of Wikipedia need to be observed. --78.48.48.65 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Translation" template[edit]

A user has added to the "Translation" article a template titled "Translation" that is ill-conceived and unnecessary. Its first part, "Translation concepts," lists two items, "Literal translation" and "Direct translation," that refer to the same article, "Literal translation."

The template's second part, "Translation process," lists two items, "Transcription (linguistics)" and "Transliteration," neither of which is a central concept in the theory and practice of translation.

Moreover, each concept listed in the template appears in the article's "See also" section and need not appear in a template. Nihil novi (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the template, take it to WP:TFD. But as long as a template {{Translation}} exists, it's ridiculous not to use it in the article Translation. +Angr 10:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to increase the usefulness of the navbox by changing what it does and doesn't link to. +Angr 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Translator's notes[edit]

Hi there. I notice in several scientific or professional books (about management or social science) translated from French to English the absence of translator notes. Whereas similar books translated from English to French have lots of notes added to allow the French-reader to understand why the English-writing author said that. Is there a "culture" of avoiding translator notes in English please? -- Silwilhith (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

written literature -> translation[edit]

>>The art of translation is as old as written literature.

Why? Art of translation is (imho) much older than a writing system. Writing literature isn't condition of translation. For example incantations in Evenki language was translated into Sakha language without knowledge of writing.--88.83.179.234 (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a footnote about this. Could you please provide a reference? Nihil novi (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Such research is a necessary prelude to the pre-editing necessary in order to provide input for machine-translation software such that the output will not be meaningless." --This sentence strikes me as nearly example of the very thing it speaks of, as something to avoid.200.160.81.133 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

but —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.53.89 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, mind the too-many opinions.[edit]

Dear Nihil Novi:

As a professional book editor and translator (English, Spanish, German, vice versa), I understand your translator’s professional enthusiasm, yet you insert your opinions so often that the article becomes subjective, i.e. Who says that language spill-over is particular to limited-proficiency translators? If they are not your opinions, then please cite the name of the speaker. This is especially noticeable in the machine translation and Internet sections, which are over-padded . . . with opinion and weasel words — because there is little substance to such matters; the machine always is inferior to the translator and translatress. Might not “Machine translation”, “CAT”, and “Internet” become a single, substantive section? Then that triune section might not need padding.

Moreover, a history section requires dates of occurrence and publication, otherwise, the layman reader shan’t grasp the entry’s gist — because it reads as an in-crowd article for and about translators and translation. Furthermore, the image captions are editorially necessary context establishing the image-text relations that illustrate the article’s points; otherwise, they are random pictures to which the reader might remain indifferent. After all, in the reading-deficient 21st century, such are the requirements of full communication.

In the lead paragraph, communication is the purpose of the art and craft of translation, the purpose of a translation is the readers’ comprehension of the source-language text, thus why I corrected that construction; otherwise, I concur with you that the entry is not over-long, but padded; unfortunately American English tends to a prolix passive voice. I shall contribute throughout; thanks for your forebearance.

Best regards, Mhazard9 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation, please?
Do you seriously doubt that experienced translators are generally less prone than inexperienced ones to spill-over between languages?
What "padding" are you referring to?
Why do you think that in a portrait the subject's name is insufficient as caption?
How do you justify the view that "the machine always is inferior to the translator and translatress [sic]"? I've seen man-made translations that are worse than anything that a machine could perpetrate.
I regret that the changes that you have introduced do not enhance the article's precision or clarity but tend to the opposite effect. Something seems to be lost in your translation.
Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Nihil Novi:
Thank you, for replying. The purpose of editorial work is for the article to always answer the readers’ Who? What? Where? When? and Why? queries about Translation.
Every translator risks language spillover; limiting the (unattributed) statement to inexperienced, limited-proficiency, etc., translators is an opinion. The padding is self-evident in that the two or three lines of prolix passive-voice text are spaced so far apart in order to fill space; it calls attention to the writer, not the subject. Remember, the target reader is the general reader, not translators (such as we) for whom this is “translation community” in-crowd knowledge, thus the logical expansion, because — as a European-educated man, you (might) know that in this hemisphere, schooling and education are schematic.
A full answer — In the US, where I reside, technicians (attorneys, physicians, engineers), but not laymen, tiresomely tell me that they, too, studied (English, German, Spanish), but that they haven't the time to translate a three-page document, because . . . yes . . . of course . . . quite . . . really! To most Americans, Cicero is a suburb of Chicago, Illinois (Al Capone lived there!) — not a Roman Republic politician who cautioned the translator against linguistic fidelity, lest he confront the political consequences of such intellectual honesty. Where, in Cicero’s œuvre, might I find a substantiating quotation?
The history of translation theory: “Show, don’t tell” is the writer’s purpose (cf. Heart of Darkness, J. Conrad), thus, full concordance betwixt text and image guides the (general) reader to comprehend why an historical personage is pertinent to the text, especially when the personages come from several times, cultures, and countries, because full information about Translation is the article's purpose. The (article) writer guides the reader, the article’s full information (name, title, date) instructs the reader, hence why a book title must appear upon reference, e.g. Mark Twain’s back-translation exercise; hence, my integration of your most useful, informative, and illustrative explanation of Polish having several words for this matter; reportage, not anecdote.
Business machine vs. human translator — As you accurately note in the article, such mechanical translations require human pre-editing and post-editing, thus the machine's intellectual inferiority. After all, in real life, editorial work is editorial work; the editor (substantively and mechanically) edits (pre-edits) the document then proofreads (post-edits) it after integrating the corrections, so . . . uhm . . . trendy business neologisms notwithstanding, the human translator is not dispensable — which is the “money-saving” business goal of such machines; a point I shall expand in the article, if you permit.
Your regretful umbrage notwithstanding, please, be specific and give examples of my changes that have obscured the matter, made it imprecise, and thus less than . . . so that I might correct them . . . alas, I am not W.A. Mozart, so “too many notes” is unclear. Never-the-none-the-less, thank you for this fruitful correspondence, I look forward to working and corresponding with you; ’til then, you have my
Best regards,
Mhazard9 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
An exhaustive exposition of the damage that you have done to the "Translation" article would require many times the space occupied by the article itself. A modest sampling, however, has been provided by Macrakis in his edits of 26 July, 22:37 through 23:00, in which he has simplified your turgid prose and, in places, deleted needless text ("padding"?). Perhaps, if editors continue the process, we may eventually return to something like the original text prior to your interventions. Nihil novi (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really much care who wrote what, but I will note that most of the text I condensed predates Mhazard9's recent edits. The article as a whole sounds needs a lot of reorganization and rewriting. --Macrakis (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur. This article seems quite sketchy in many places; although seemingly very ambitious to laymen, it stands out as half-baked to those who practise and research translation and its workings. The article would benefit from thorough editing - and not least from a less turgid attitude from the self-appointed custodian Nihil novi.
Best,
Sir Tanx (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Traduttore, traditore[edit]

"Every translator is a traitor." Italian maxim, adopted by the French as "traduire, c'est trahir". (Good translations ? Ha!) --Jerome Potts (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sworn translation[edit]

"Sworn translation" redirects to this article, but then there's no mention of the concept within the article. I hope someone with an understanding of "sworn translation" will add a section for this within the article. Phlar (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability‎‎ - Machine Translation - Request for Comments[edit]

Comments are requested from all interested editors at a discussion to amend WP:V. Please participate. Do you support the proposal to amend the guidance in WP:NONENG regarding the use of machine translations, as given below? Please note that the scope of WP:NONENG is limited to the translation of non-English sources for use in English Wikipedia.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The proposal is to replace this sentence in WP:NONENG :

  • Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.

with the following :

  • Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, and should always be attributed. A machine translation may be used in the text of the article only if the Wikipedian speaks the source language and confirms the accuracy of the translation.
Footnote: Attributions and confirmations may be provided on the talk page or in the edit summary.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please add your comments at WP:V:talk and not here. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

hemat energy 80% ringan dan langsung nyala dapat beropeasi pada tegangan turun naik antara 17 - 250 Volt tidak cocok untuk rumah lampu downlight tidak dapat di dimmer atau tombol elektronik kinerja terbaik untuk tegangan 220 - 240 Volt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.115.207 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

General definition[edit]

Isn't the general definition of "translation" already a bit too specific? I suggest getting rid of, or qualifying, the terms "meaning" and "equivalent" since arguably translation isn't just about translating "meaning" (but also content, effect etc.) and the concept of equivalence is now hackneyed in translation studies even though one can't deny translation comprising a degree of equivalence. Most introductions to translation studies (such as Jeremy Munday's) give a broader definition. Just a thought.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.212.87 (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology and the Rosetta Stone[edit]

Does the Rosetta Stone realy belong with in the section about the Etymology of Translation? i can't realy see how it is relevant to the name. Fatalicus (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)