Misguided good intentions
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Shocked about it? I believe there's been a misunderstanding.
This is exactly what we have been fighting against this entire time.
This is a nicer version of "They don't know, let me speak for them". Sure, the intention was to be positive. But they've done it in such a way to take all agency from the person or group of people in question.
Gorman picked her translator. That should have been that. Other people thought they knew better than the person who actually this concerns. They redefined it instead of listening. This is exactly the problem we had with people who are anti-BLM and other such movements. We say 'X', others say 'Gamma' and insist that was the true intention and only way to look at it.
Whether they are 'on our side' or against it, the problem is people overstepping their bounds and co-opting movements according to how they see it. That's what happened here. It is the same thing we strive against.
This is the world we are fighting against. Even from people on 'our team'.
It was Gorman's choice. The only measure should have been Rijneveld's abilities.
Agreed. I have no idea what Specter is going about. You going to check yours self Specs. I suggest you do so now and think for a while.
Whilst I agree the translator sould technically be "invisible", fundamentally, the translator will always be felt and heard. However, even the best translation inevitably changes meaning, because even basic words have meanings and connotations in one language that will not, even cannot, accurately survive translation. But it's probably worse than that.
As a simple idea, how you translate idiom? Puns? There is a valid question here, does a translator leave the literal meaning even though the idiom is unrecognisable, or does the translator use an equivalent from their own language? What about slang? Should it be translated formally, or with a sort of phoenetic imitation of the original slang, or replaced with equivalent slang from the country the translation is for? All are defensible choices, but will produce different pieces. If someone writes with the tone of a 22-year-old full of modish street and internet slang, is a stuffy, bookish, 60-year-old translator really going to have the same natural feel for that sort of thing? Arguably not. Consequently, there really is an argument that finding someone with a similar outlook and experience may achieve a better end result.
Translation is a bridge to another point of view while the emotion stays the same if it's successful. There are Finnish translations out there that weren't just good but transcendent. Woke-scolding over it is simply terrible.
I have seen some argue that the (British?) English translations of Asterix were in ways superior: the names are puns, and the translators' choices for English are funnier than the French originals.
I always loved the Asterix name puns. Getafix, Vitalstatistix, especially the chief's wayward nephew Justforkix. They even suit the personalities/ jobs. If I have the translators to thank for those then bravo.
Dutch speaker here. I've read the poem, and also watched Gorman recite it.
It's not too big on idioms, puns and other language specific to English. You could feasibly go with a near literal translation for about 90% of it, and it would kind of work, but it would read kind of awkwardly and sound even more so when spoken out loud. I'm also assuming Gorman's recital is the intended flow, and it'd be real hard to match that in Dutch. Of course, there's also the remaining 10% that doesn't translate well or at all. For example:
That rhyme straight up doesn't work in Dutch.
Yes - translating poetry is I suspect particularly difficult. I have two versions of Homer's Iliad - one is a classic prose translation from the 1920s, the other is into poetry. I suspect the latter must have been a phenomenally hard work in comparison, and I think it necessarily takes some liberties compared to the prose. Although of course the prose loses the poetry of the original in entirety.
I'll admit, I don't understand why there is a need for a dutch translation, most europeans are at least somewhat literate in english, and the ones that aren't weren't likely to buy a book of poetry in the first place.
The Iliad is historically & culturally important enough, I'd say, to warrant as many translations as possible.
I can tell you what the difference is: who posted it. If Specter Von Baren or Dwarvenhobble had started this thread, half of the first page would be accusing them of looking for things to be outraged at. That's the difference.
Even if we treat that as a given for the sake of argument, that would still be non-sequitur. The core allegation is that "every other time a similar example of this kind of thing came up, many people here had nothing to say or were actively rooting for it to happen". The implication that certain posters are treated as "the boy who cried wolf" does not reflect on the perception of the events themselves, just whether or not the poster is trusted to post about such events in good faith.
I might've replied to the wrong post, but yeah, the Illiad certainly warrants translations, however the illiad was originally written in ancient greek which, unlike english, is not spoken by a ton of people.
My point was that Gorman don't really need translation, seeing as she is writing in english. Comparing something from an age with no clear world language to something modern seems intellectually dishonest, though I'll say that anyone who would've read the Illiad when it was first published could probably read ancient greek.
Most europeans can speak 'camping english' pretty well but I think you're overestimating the degree of reading comprehension even with simple texts. There is definitely a demand for translated works. Illiteracy is already pretty high in the native language let alone a second one.
Maybe. Yes, my track record does afford me the privilege of other users assuming that I'm not shit-stirring. But I also think you're eliding an important difference.
Please note the distinction I drew in #15. The difference between these two lines illustrates two different principles. The first is one advanced from the right tends to have as a core principle "SJW busybodies butt out (and fuck off)". Unsurprisingly, this doesn't get a lot of traction with people who believe in social justice, either in terms of beliefs or the inevitable tone of disparagement of their political opponents. My argument however is focused around the principle of how do we prevent the marginalisation of minority voices - this is a point leftists would be very likely to sympathise and engage with, or at least recognise a constructive approach even if they disagreed. And, of course, I've not set it up in tone or content as an attack thread against political opponents.
What do you think the possibilities are that the ideological gap between left and right means that some of the right-wingers don't immediately see that difference, because they're not primed to think about it? They just see an "SJW busybodies butt out" argument like all the others they believe in.
Essentially my point is that the ones with problems in their native language still wouldn't read poetry. A Venn diagram of the people who can't read and understand english and the people who read poetry would probably be two completely separate circles.
I will certainly admit, you bring a different tone than a right-winger might, and it's not as simple as a name swap. But if "the right-wingers don't immediately see that difference", that's not necessarily the right-wingers' fault. Not being specific so as not to potentially derail, but there was a recent thread about an online voice expressing outrage that was so unjustified that everyone could genuinely agree. And still, there was someone opposing the right-wing OP on the principle of it, because that OP was clearly something something looking to be outraged something something hates feminism.
If the difference when posted by a right-wing poster is so subtle as to be missed, then one would think that difference would be focused on with specificity to communicate the difference of opinions within the general agreement. But that's not the response. The response is often blind hatred. The message being sent is "don't post anything if I don't agree with you about everything". So even if there is a difference in approach, it does not justify the difference in response, and you have to understand the point of view of someone who could post 95% the same thread and be met with rage and resentment by the same people who respond reasonably to you.