Leave out ことを世界で初めて証明した?
Sam Adelman
Jim Lockhart
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:40:04 -0800
Sam Adelman wrote:
> I'm working on a job about cryopreservation of tissue. The folks who
> discovered something say ことを世界で初めて証明した about the thing they discovered. I
> seem to run into this sort of phrase a lot in journal articles from Japan,
> but not in English ones, and it feels kind of like the researchers are
> tooting their own horns. I'm inclined to just leave it out of the
> translation, but I'm curious to know how other folks deal with it.
I've heard this interpreted this way: Generally, the horn they're trying
to toot is not so much their own, but Japan's, or that of "the Japanese."
Koreans love this parlance too. A variant on this, one you don't see so
often in Japan any more but that the Koreans like to roll out a lot, is
独自な技術で○○の開発に成功した; here, the operative (i.e.,
button-pushing*) word in 独自--i.e., we did it all by our lill' old
selves, without any input from da haole (proving to ourselves once again
that we are just as good at these things as "Westerners" are).
But I digress. I don't necessary agree with that interpretation, though
it can be fun to bring up if some nitwit wants to start a pissing
contest with you about this sort of thing.
My theory is that Japanese writers often use 世界で始めて merely because
初めて alone isn't: It could* imply that they've done it for the first
time for themselves, but not necessarily for the first time ever/in the
world. They write 世界で始めて to ensure that the message gets across
that the "first time" is a historical first, not a personal or group
first. In an analogous situation, I think Americans would say something
like "for the first time in history/ever, we proved that...."
You may wonder why they don't just say 史上初めて like we [English
speakers] tend to do ("for the first time in history, American
scientists today proved today that...."). Actually, I think they even do
sometimes.
Input on the above from all around will be greatly appreciated.
Meanwhile...
I deal with these expressions depending on the context and audience. I
wouldn't leave them out unless I had express agreement of the client
that they should be left out. "{We proved/we were able to prove} for the
first time [ever] that XXXX," ought to cover it: "for the first time"
implies "for the first time {ever/in the world}" (so even adding _ever_
is technically already redundant), and clients can usually be persuaded
to go along with the notion that "For the first time ever/in history, we
proved that..." already implies "for the first time in the world."
HTH,
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo
Mika Jarmusz
で、そこに何を入れるかが問題なわけだ。ここは意味的には「史上初めて」でもいいのですが、これだと変に勿体ぶった嫌みがあって鼻につく。
これはfirst in "the world" と訳しちゃったときの嫌みにも似ているようです。（ちょっと不思議ですね。）
> I think Americans would say something like "for the first time in history/ever, we proved that...."
「世」は時間、「界」は場所ってわけですね。知りませんでした！
学研国語大辞典より
①〔仏教〕〔あらゆる時・所を通じて〕衆生(シュジョウ)が住む所。
《参考》「世」は過去・現在・未来、「界」は東西南北上下の意。
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Dale Ponte
The Honyaku Archive contains this fairly recently thread mentioning
the same sort of issue: http://honyaku-archive.org/discussions/for-post/238379/?q=%22world-leading%22
If you ask me, Tim's:
>That's what they write, that's what they mean, why not translate it?
is a weighty two cents towards keeping your job very simple.
Yet I can also appreciate a conscientious reluctance to translate it
directly, starkly.
If one feels like acting on the reluctance, a first thought that comes
to mind is to look for (see, find) a sort of middle ground or
compromise between one's own assessment and concerns, and those of the
原文 as carefully considered in its own light.
My inbuilt Mac dictionary and Bartlett's Roget's Thesaurus -- not to
exclude my inborn brain, though! -- suggest quite a few angles and
bends on 証明した and even 世界で初めて. Perhaps something less assertive- or
exclusive-sounding, for lack of a better word, than "prove," for
example. Thumb that thesaurus. Then again, it's about phrasing rather
than terming, anyway.
Getting back to the translate as-is solution, it just might even be
that on the general level the scientific community routinely, or
perhaps tacitly would be a somewhat better way of putting it,
recognizes "first" -- or "initial" -- discoveries as taking place/
emerging concurrently. Perhaps this reasons with the community's
ethos of communal advance, interdependent and interacting, with
differing versions or facets of initial discoveries coalescing from
independent researches; thereby constituting "the discovery of XYZ."
Or some such...
Or, perhaps this manner of implying a first even amid other quite
similar firsts is more characteristic of popular scientific
conversation than technical discourse.
Maybe it's just the nature of my own mind, but I just can't help
suspecting, or seeming to perceive, that there may be a fair bit more
to this 「ことを世界で初めて証明した」 question than the non-scientists among us
might easily savvy. I say this in a constructive, collaborative
spirit, and hope to hear from the scientist-yakkers.
BTW, there's a wealth of enlightening and readable literature out
there concerning the translation of science, which sure seems like it
would make helpful equipment for a translator's mind.
HTH, and wishing you the simplest,
Dale
@ translating a Meiji-Taisho pioneer scientist who writes in spades of
being the first to discover everywhich thing, and finding it nothing
but fascinating and cute
David J. Littleboy
>I find this a very interesting question.
>
> The Honyaku Archive contains this fairly recently thread mentioning
> the same sort of issue:
> http://honyaku-archive.org/discussions/for-post/238379/?q=%22world-leading%22
>
> If you ask me, Tim's:
>
>>That's what they write, that's what they mean, why not translate it?
>
> is a weighty two cents towards keeping your job very simple.
>
> Yet I can also appreciate a conscientious reluctance to translate it
> directly, starkly.
Does the original Japanese cause native Japanese speakers to go "Sheesh,
what friggin idiots these guys are" when they read the text in question?
If so, translate it starkly.
If not, a stark translation would be a hideously bad, wrong, and incorrect
translation.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Dale Ponte
>I seem to run into this sort of phrase a lot in journal articles
>from Japan, but not in English ones
I think I just got your point here, which I'd missed earlier, sorry.
If it is so, then perhaps there would be some nice diplomacy in
softening the edges just a bit.
Dale
> Dale
> @ translating a Meiji-Taisho pioneer scientist who writes in spades of
> being the first to discover everywhich thing, and finding it nothing
> but fascinating and cute
And total due respect and admiration, as well though, for frequently
enough he had a case or was at least in some sense justified in his
well-earned belief. A venerable scientific seeker born of the Sino-
Japanese mode who ingested the Western with often great, sometimes
sublime critical acuity. 合掌いたします。
Dale
Mika Jarmusz
「世に初めて証明した」と同義だと思います。
ただし「世に」はちょっと言葉が古っぽいですし、学術文書のスタイルには平易すぎると思われている向きがあるかもしれません。
個人的には、私は変に難解な言葉でカッコつけたりせずに、平易な言葉を活用してほしいなあと思うのですが。
というのも「世界で」を使うことで、確かによその国に先駆けて「自分らが」という
競争意識の見栄っ張りを前面に押し出している、と読めないこともありませんから。
もっとも日本語では、そういう高慢さがあれば通常はそれは「言葉裏」の方にもありありと出ているのではなでしょうか。
つまり言葉裏にそういう含みがない限り、「世に」だと解釈すればいいと思います。
（筆者の単なる無知であれば、言葉裏にも出ないかもしれませんが。）
> (proving to ourselves once again that we are just as good at these things as "Westerners" are)
日本人はそんな虚勢を張るほど劣等感があるのか！みたいに思っちゃうでしょうね。
これまでに世に出回ったあまたの直訳を通して、
既にそんな印象が世界に焼き付いてしまっているかもしれませんが。
Timさん、Davidさんが書かれているように、原文にあるものはそのまま訳すべきです。
なまぬるい手加減などはする必要はありません。So, either way, I wouldn't leave it out.
Michele Miller
FWIW, I came across a similar sort of thing a while ago in the title of a research paper. The title 膵癌診断を目的とした世界最小径の中空針状ラマンプローブの開発および基礎実験 had been translated as “ Development of an ultra-thin hollow-needle Raman-probe for pancreatic cancer diagnosis”. I have no idea whether the Japanese author or a translator came up with the translation (the use of hyphens would seem to point to the latter), but felt that avoiding something like the rather anorexic-sounding ‘world’s thinnest’ for世界最小径was appropriate as the paper made no attempt to discuss or justify the claim that the probe was the thinnest in the whole wide world.
Michele Miller
Sydney, Australia
Mika Jarmusz
それは競争意識の露呈というよりも
（ま、「めざしてがんばる」式の思い入れも悪くはないでしょうが）
「これまでにどこで入手できるものよりも、さらに小径をめざして行った開発と実験」ということですね。
直訳すればthinner than everで、これがultra-thin になるのは
いわば自然の成り行きかも。
Dale Ponte
How about using something like "exhaustively"? And if need be,
something like "among the first" or "at the forefront" for the 「初め
て」?
Dale Ponte
Jim Lockhart
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:43:26 -0800
Mika Jarmusz wrote:
> 私の語感としては、「世界で初めて証明した」は先に書いたように
> 「世に初めて証明した」と同義だと思います。
> ただし「世に」はちょっと言葉が古っぽいですし、学術文書のスタイルには平
> 易すぎると思われている向きがあるかもしれません。
...
> というのも「世界で」を使うことで、確かによその国に先駆けて「自分らが」という
> 競争意識の見栄っ張りを前面に押し出している、と読めないこともありませんから。
I find this explanation interesting, but I must admit that I didn't
think about the meaning of 世界 so deeply. I was thinking more along the
lines of: In the same situation, to express pretty much the same
sentiments as the Japanese seems to be expressing, what would an English
speaker probably say? Or if I were in the same situation and wanting to
express the same thing, what would I say? The answer I came up with for
this instance of 「世界で初めて(証明した)」 just happened to be "for the
first time ever/in history," and my reason for wanting to avoid "for the
first time in the world" was because I felt that, if that were was the
original intended to emphasize, there would probably have been a も or
は after the で. Without these, I reasoned that this the 世界で in front
of 初めて was there to clarify that this 初めて was meant to indicate
that the はじめて was more than just a first-time event for the people
who experienced it directly.
(これで僕に幻滅しないでください。<g>)
> 個人的には、私は変に難解な言葉でカッコつけたりせずに、平易な言葉を活用
> してほしいなあと思うのですが。
Definitely my preference too.
> もっとも日本語では、そういう高慢さがあれば通常はそれは「言葉裏」の方に
> もありありと出ているのではなでしょうか。
> つまり言葉裏にそういう含みがない限り、「世に」だと解釈すればいいと思います。
> （筆者の単なる無知であれば、言葉裏にも出ないかもしれませんが。）
There are some who read 日本の高慢さ into expressions like 世界で始めて;
some who read 劣等感 or xenophobia (especially resentment towards
Europeans/white people for purported racism towards the Japanese, a 19th
century mentality if there ever was one) into them; and yet others who
see it as just ignorance or even triumphalism on the part of writers. I
imagine there are situations when any of these are also valid
interpretations, but I also imagine that in such instances, 言葉裏からも
現われてくる and thus be recognizable from the context.
> > (proving to ourselves once again that we are just as good at these things
> as "Westerners" are)
> 世界をthe worldだと単細胞に解釈する人は、
> 日本人はそんな虚勢を張るほど劣等感があるのか！みたいに思っちゃうでしょうね。
> これまでに世に出回ったあまたの直訳を通して、
> 既にそんな印象が世界に焼き付いてしまっているかもしれませんが。
Indeed. Which is one reason why I've been searching for ways, over that
past few years, of moving away from the 単純直訳 modes of translation.
It seems to me that it is most dangerous in translation between
languages that are as different in presentation as Japanese and English. 単純直訳
can lead to some really frightening misunderstandings because they don't
bridge what I guess might be called cultural or semantic gaps between
languages. I think this is where the study of a little translation
theory could be helpful for us all.
I also have to admit, thought, that the more I read Dale Ponte's
contributions, the more confused I get as to what he's driving at. I
must be getting old.
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo
Mark Spahn
> contributions, the more confused I get as to what he's driving at. I
> must be getting old.
> --Jim Lockhart
> Hachioji, Tokyo
Haha, me too! I only ever understand about half
of what he writes, but it's so interestingly written
that I don't want to say anything to discourage him.
-- Mark Spahn, vainly flailing about for some
appropriate expression of gratitude for his prose
Sam
Sam Adelman
Portland, OR
Dale Ponte
Does this「世界で初めて」'in reality' connote -- if subjectively and
abstractly -- something quite similar to a vanguard, leading edge,
forefront?
And if it's the case that its 原意 depends on an abstract subjectivity,
is this what makes it tricky to deal with? To accept?
Dale Ponte
p.s. - sincere appreciations, Jim and Mark, for your collegial candor,
which i'll translate into more enthusiastic And careful work at my
writing. (to keep it brief for now ;)
Dale Ponte
Context might allow "groundbreaking" or something like it?
Though this would narrow the options for 証明した.
Dale Ponte
Jim Lockhart
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Dale Ponte wrote:
> Though this would narrow the options for 証明した.
I think the best option for 証明, in the case at hand, would probably be
"demonstrate," not prove. In my experience 証明する is not as strong a
word as prove, and in formal contexts (including legal ones) is
frequently used where in English we would generally write _demonstrate_:
"For the first time in history, our team demonstrated that water could
be transformed into gold by adding copious amounts of ethanol and
consuming it, then waiting till it is discharged from the body...."
Something like that.
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo
Shinya Suzuki
> That's what they write, that's what they mean, why not translate it?
Persistent Dale Ponte wrote:
> >ことを世界で初めて証明した
>
> Does this「世界で初めて」'in reality' connote -- if subjectively and
> abstractly -- something quite similar to a vanguard, leading edge,
> forefront?
No. 「世界で初めて」 can mean nothing but "the first in the world."
Period.
> And if it's the case that its 原意 depends on an abstract subjectivity,
> is this what makes it tricky to deal with? To accept?
No. No subjectivity. Nothing is hidden. No Oriental magic.
If the author uses 世界で初めて to describe a thing or an event when
it is not actually the first in the world, the author is either a
liar (when it's done knowingly) or a negligent/ignorant idiot (when
it's done unknowingly). The translator shouldn't change or hide the
meaning.
Shinya Suzuki
Jim Lockhart
Ok, Shinya, fair enough.
Now answer me this: how do "for the first time in history" and "for the
first time in the world" differ substantively?
Which of the other analyses in this thread do you specifically agree or
disagree with, and why?
Note that I'm asking these questions seriously, not rhetorically or to
incite a pissing contest--I really want to know from a person, like you,
whom I feel has native competence in both languages. Mika's
interpretation seemed to stretch the meaning of 世界 to me at first, but
it does make sense, and no other NSJ have challenged it.
Marc Adler doesn't seem to pipe up on these topics any more, and I
really would like to see your and some other NSJ's input on them.
--Jim Lockhart
Fred Uleman
And by the way, I agree that if the author writes it you should probably translate it. If we started correcting all of the hype in the texts, we would soon have baseball commentators referring to the USAmerican Series instead of the World Series. And we would not have had all this nonsense about this being a once-a-century economic crisis. And Miss Universe when only people from this planet compete.
That said, I also suspect "first in the world" could just as easily be "for the first time in human history" or some varaiation thereof.
--
Fred Uleman, translator emeritus
Wolfgang Bechstein
> And Miss Universe when only people from this planet compete.
Thanks for a much needed laugh on a busy day! (Just imaging the real
contest with all those creatures from outer space in the running makes
me grin from ear to ear...)
Wolfgang Bechstein
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolfgang Bechstein" <bech...@netprisma.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Leave out ことを世界で初めて証明した?
> Fred Uleman wrote:
>
>> And Miss Universe when only people from this planet compete.
>
> Thanks for a much needed laugh on a busy day! (Just imaging the real
Is imaging like channeling?
> contest with all those creatures from outer space in the running makes
> me grin from ear to ear...)
>
Personally I prefer humans, but whatever floats your boat.
> Wolfgang Bechstein
>
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Jim Lockhart
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:48:19 +0900
Fred Uleman wrote:
> For what it's worth, my own take on the comment that「世界で初めて」was "first in
> the world" and not "vanguard or cutting-edge" was that "vanguard or
> cutting-edge" would be too vague -- would be too much like "among the first
> anywhere" -- and that this is not among or part of a class. it is a
> breakthrough -- something that has not ever never been done anywhere before
> by anyone. So it is a world first. Is what i thought Mr Suzuki was saying.
Fair enough. This pretty much sums up how I see it too, as far as
"vanguard or cutting-edge" is concerned--and hence my confusion with
Dale's suggestions: somehow, they frequently seem to me to be a bit over
the top, especially when they require, shall we say, "sophisticated"
reasoning to justify.
> And by the way, I agree that if the author writes it you should probably
> translate it. If we started correcting all of the hype in the texts, we
> would soon have baseball commentators referring to the USAmerican Series
> instead of the World Series. And we would not have had all this nonsense
> about this being a once-a-century economic crisis. And Miss Universe when
> only people from this planet compete.
I agree with this essentially too. What I wonder about is how to
differentiate between hype and non-hype--maybe even just hype and
honestly expressed feelings. When Japanese write/read this expression
(and other similar ones), what comes across their minds? What are the
associations? I'm not looking for inscrutably encoded hidden messages,
either.
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo
Shinya Suzuki
> Now answer me this: how do "for the first time in history" and "for the
> first time in the world" differ substantively?
IMO, the core meanings of these phrases are basically the same, ie,
"for the first time in the history of the world." Their comparative
perspectives are somewhat different; the former's is
temporal/historical and the latter's contemporary/geographical.
The same is the case for the corresponding Japanese, 史上初 and 世界
初.
> Which of the other analyses in this thread do you specifically agree or
> disagree with, and why?
I don't think further comments are necessary.
Shinya Suzuki
Jim Lockhart
> > Now answer me this: how do "for the first time in history" and "for the
> > first time in the world" differ substantively?
>
> IMO, the core meanings of these phrases are basically the same, ie,
> "for the first time in the history of the world." Their comparative
> perspectives are somewhat different; the former's is
> temporal/historical and the latter's contemporary/geographical.
>
> The same is the case for the corresponding Japanese, 史上初 and 世界
> 初.
Thanks! :)
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo
Dale Ponte
Shinya and Jim.)
Jim Lockhart wrote:
> I agree with this essentially too. What I wonder about is how to
> differentiate between hype and non-hype--maybe even just hype and
> honestly expressed feelings.
What I suspect is that it's not a considered expression, it just plops
out, _like a figure of speech_. And that if I were having friendly
shop talk with this researcher and he made this statement and I
interjected something like 'wait a sec, comrade, do you really mean
"first in the world?" -- how would he respond?
Jim, I know that your nudging at my penchant for over-elaborate
thinking and over-topping is good for me to hear; and it's comfortably
digestible, 御馳走様. However,
>When Japanese write/read this expression (and other similar
>ones), what comes across their minds? What are the associations?
are pertinent and reasonable questions, I agree.
>I'm not looking for inscrutably encoded hidden messages, either.
And the mind, or call it mentality in this case, whether we're
considering our own as translator or that of those who grace us with
the stuff we translate, can be a tricky, nigh inscrutable beast that
at least bears looking at from different sides, distances, and depths
-- at moments such as this -- is sort of where I'm coming from, I
guess.
As Sam, whom I assume has been translating medical journal material
regularly for some time, originally put it,
>I seem to run into this sort of phrase a lot in journal articles
>from Japan, but not in English ones, and it feels kind of like
>the researchers are tooting their own horns. I'm inclined to just
>leave it out of the translation,
As I'm understanding this, he feels that an as-is, literal translation
tends to turn out an expression that is inappropriate in the (socio-
cultural) context of English medical journal articles. I reckon his
concern is judicious, especially when I view the expression at hand as
a cultural ingredient, which it would be wiser to translate adaptively
rather than 直訳敵 ;-)) Hype may be cool for baseball and cosmic
beauties, as well as pseudo-scientific scribblings; but is it germane
to articles in (presumably) medical or dental journal articles?
Say, if it _were translated literally, "starkly" (which I wrote with
tongue somewhat in cheek), what would be its effect upon the typical,
well-informed reader of such a (professional's?) journal
article ... ? Would the 直訳 be a useless, inappropriate distraction;
and perhaps even bring some shade of discredit upon the article as a
whole?
The instance provided above by Michelle Miller, "ultra-thin" for 世界最小
径, seems to me to strike an elegant balance, for which I might even
call it, in lieu of any other examples of success, exemplary.
BTW, I too found Mika's input interesting and helpful.
Have to hurry along, please pardon errors, bumps, and foibles :)
Dale Ponte
Marc Adler
Marc Adler doesn't seem to pipe up on these topics any more, and I
really would like to see your and some other NSJ's input on them.
I actually thought I had concurred with Tim at some point, and Gmail put my "me on Honyaku" label (indicating threads I've responded to) on this thread. Is Gmail now reading minds? ;-)
Either way, unless there is some seriously altering context that we don't know about, I don't know why the translator shouldn't just translate what the original says. I can see how there might be room for interpretation, but not so much as to warrant leaving that part out altogether. Thankfully, as translators we only have to translate the words, not correct them or make them accord with reality.
--
Marc Adler
Dale Ponte
> 径, seems to me to strike an elegant balance
I.e. _mediates_ a balance, functional and elegant.
I think it's yakker Johann Johanning who wrote an original and good
paper or presentation, now on a JAT page somewhere?, espousing the
continual need for creativity even in patent translation. I don't
recall whether he actually used the word mediate, but I seem to have
come away with the sense that he addressed a similar sort of thing as
being the translator's role.
Dale
Shuichi Yamakawa
Sorry I was not following this thread closely when it was started.
If you guys do not mind, I would like to muddle the water with my two cents.
Point 1: World vs. History
I Googled the two expressions:
1. "for the first time in the world" 180,000 and
2. "for the first time in history" 398,000,000.
In Japansese I tried the following:
3. "世界初" 3,670,000,
4. "世界で初" 3,470,000,
5. "世界で初めて" 913,000,
6. "史上初" 1,920,000,
7. "史上初めて" 259,000 and
8. "歴史上初めて" 1,120,000.
I get the impression that "for the first time in history" can be an
equally good, or even better, translation for "世界で初めて" in some
cases. I guess "time" and "history" have some affinity.
Point 2: Sentence Structure
I am not a native English speaker, but I would say "We are the first in
the world
to prove that ..." rather than "We proved for the first time in the
world that ..."
as a translation for 世界で初めて証明した. How would native English speakers
feel about this? I cannot explain why, but somehow I feel uncomfortable with
"We proved for the first time in the world that..."
By the way, Googling has turned up 3 citings of "we demonstrated for the
first
time in the world that ..." Very interestingly, all of them are found at
Japanese
websites. Could this be Japanese translatese?
Point 3: Prove vs. Demonstrate
I Googled the two verbs in the sentence structure of my choice:
"the first in the world to prove that..." 1,640,000 and
"the first in the world to demonstrate that..." 583,000.
This shows that "demonstrate" is also used quite extensively.
For your information, "in history" does not seem to fit in this
sentence structure:
"the first in history to prove that..." None
"the first in history to demonstrate that..." Two
Point 4: Leave Out?
Here is my take on this ever-nagging question. As always, it depends.
If this expression means only a little, and if this little meaning is
captured
somewhere in the whole sentence or paragraph in the translation, then
it may be OK to leave it out (as a free-standing expression).
If this expression actually means by far more than meets the eye, then,
rather than blaming the author for not writing explicitly, you might try
to render the intended meaning by adding words such as "groundbreaking"
and "breakthrough" somewhere in the same sentence or paragraph.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Humans-May-Be-hard-Wired-to-Work-8-Hours-per-Day-110336.shtml
>They used a proprietary time-sampling technique for the task, and the
>results were amazing even to them. In addition, their groundbreaking study
>was also the first in the world to prove that the body was not only governed
>by a 24-hour cycle, but that smaller subdivisions also existed.
http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/news/news_articles/stemcell.html
>Loboa’s team also announced a breakthrough in hMSC research at the
>conference. Her team is the first in the world to prove that palladin,
a protein
>associated with the actin cytoskeleton, is present in mesenchymal stem
cells.
If you are not sure if the author is really THE first, then you can say:
"ABC is one of the first in the world to prove that..." or
"ABC is among the first in the world to prove that..."
If you prefer to play safe by sticking to the original sentence, that is
also your
call. Any decision is subjective unless you are a cheap translation machine.
Shu
Laurie Berman
On Dec 30, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Shuichi Yamakawa wrote:
>
>
> I am not a native English speaker, but I would say "We are the
> first in
> the world
> to prove that ..." rather than "We proved for the first time in the
> world that ..."
> as a translation for 世界で初めて証明した. How would native
> English speakers
> feel about this?
I think you are right on the money.
The other thing I would venture to say is that for most native
English speakers, it is unnecessary to add "in the world"; it is
assumed. "In the world" adds a kind of breathless, maybe even
slightly childish, quality that might not be so appropriate to a
scientific journal.
Laurie Berman
Shuichi Yamakawa
on my preference of
"We are the first in the world to prove that..." to
"We proved for the first time in the world that..."
as a translation for 世界で初めて証明した.
> The other thing I would venture to say is that for most native
> English speakers, it is unnecessary to add "in the world"; it is
> assumed. "In the world" adds a kind of breathless, maybe even
> slightly childish, quality that might not be so appropriate to a
> scientific journal.
>
That may be a big difference between marketing and scientific writing.
I hope someone will be asking the guest speaker at the January 23 JAT
meeting in Tokyo for his view on 世界で初めて証明した as a professional
scientific journal editor. Unfortunately, I do not have earlier postings on
this thread and do not know how the discussion has evolved.
Shu (Shuichi Yamakawa)
David J. Littleboy
From: "Shuichi Yamakawa" <s...@gol.com>
> Thank you, Laurie Berman-san, for your positive input
> on my preference of
> "We are the first in the world to prove that..." to
> "We proved for the first time in the world that..."
> as a translation for 世界で初めて証明した.
> Thank you also for your comment:
>> The other thing I would venture to say is that for most native
>> English speakers, it is unnecessary to add "in the world"; it is
>> assumed. "In the world" adds a kind of breathless, maybe even
>> slightly childish, quality that might not be so appropriate to a
>> scientific journal.
Agreed. Completely. Interestingly, our CEO has no problem with 世界で初めて,
arguing that if company X and their engineers are proud of the performance
of their latest chip, who am I to rain on their parade, even if I think that
a 0.04% improvement in signal to noise ratio is rather trivial. (FWIW, I
translate 世界で初めて and the like as "We were the first in the industry to
achieve this high a signal to noise ratio" or the like, which doesn't work
in all contexts, of course. It seems, though, that you can teach an old
electronics company new tricks: the document on the desk today has 業界初.)
> That may be a big difference between marketing and scientific writing.
To my ear, "first in the world" would be worse in marketing than in science.
FWIW, searching the Science magazine archives back to 1881, turns up 38
occurrences of "first in the world", with only three occurrences in the last
decade. (And only five occurrences of "first time in the world", the most
recent being 1938, which supports your preference mentioned above.)
Interestingly, 1884 (the first year it occurs), with 3 occurrences, was a
good year for "first in the world".
"If an observatory is to be judged by the number of its astronomers and the
variety of its work, that of Paris must rank as the first in the world."
"Notwithstanding illness, which soon attacked him, Hochstetter had the
happiness of seeing all the collections removed to the new building, and
arranged so systematically that the Vienna museum now ranks among the first,
if not the first, in the world."
Oops. The third hit from 1884 is a repeat of the second one.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Michael Hendry
> I Googled the two expressions:
> 1. "for the first time in the world" 180,000 and
> 2. "for the first time in history" 398,000,000.
This isn't the first time I've seen these discrepancies, but when I Google
"for the first time in the world" I get 1,520,000,000 hits, and when I
Google "for the first time in history" I get 399,000,000. Why the huge
difference between my hits and yours? I don't know. (Actually, my result for
the former does seem strange and unlikely.) My results would seem to
indicate the expression is fine in English.
That said, I personally would use some expression using "world's first"
instead of "for the first time in the world." I would normally have no
problem translating "世界で初めて" (or similar) that way either. To me, that
is more natural. (I like Shuichi's "we are the first in the world to..." as
well.)
Michael Hendry, in Nagano Japan
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shuichi Yamakawa" <s...@gol.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: Leave out ことを世界で初めて証明した?
I am not sure either, but after thinking about this for some time, I think
your second rendering
"We proved for the first time in the world that..."
Could be read in rather 歪んだ way as meaning that this was the first time
in the world that _we_ proved it (someone else might have done so earlier).
I don't know if I can really support this sense I have, and I certainly
wouldn't think of it off the bat (is this possibility strong enough to be
labeled a misplaced modifier? or am I simply reading too much into a feeling
in order to find agreement with you?)
Would be interested in what others have to think.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Shuichi Yamakawa
like to thank David Littleboy, Michael Hendry, and Richard Thieme
for their comments on my posting. As I said before, I was not
following the original thread when it was started. I hope I am
not misguiding this thread. My quick comments:
David Littleboy wrote:
> (FWIW, I translate 世界で初めて and the like as "We were the
>first in the industry to achieve this high a signal to noise ratio"
>or the like, which doesn't work in all contexts, of course.
>It seems, though, that you can teach an old electronics company
>new tricks: the document on the desk today has 業界初.)
I also run into this expression when I read a lot of marketing stuff
on the website of IT compnanies. The original poster seems to be
working on scientific articles, though.
>To my ear, "first in the world" would be worse in marketing than
>in science.
That's interesting. Also, thanks for the research into the Science
magazine archive. Very enlightening.
Michael Hendry wrote:
> > I Googled the two expressions:
> > 1. "for the first time in the world" 180,000 and
> > 2. "for the first time in history" 398,000,000.
>
>This isn't the first time I've seen these discrepancies, but when I Google
>"for the first time in the world" I get 1,520,000,000 hits, and when I
Google
>"for the first time in history" I get 399,000,000.
Sorry. Mea culpa. Those 180,000 come only from Japanese websites.
The correct number, at least on my PC, is 207,000,000 (or 597,000,000
without
parenthesis). I am sorry I cannot explain the remaining discrepancy.
>That said, I personally would use some expression using "world's first"
>instead of "for the first time in the world." I would normally have no
>problem translating "世界で初めて" (or similar) that way either. To me,
that
>is more natural. (I like Shuichi's "we are the first in the world to..." as
>well.)
I also thought about "world's first," but this adjectival expression
might be difficult to modify ことを...証明した in the original poster's
example. Maybe you can say, for example, "This is the world's first
demonstration of the fact that..." I am not yet sure if it can be a
solution to the original poster's concern.
Richard Thieme wrote:
>I am not sure either, but after thinking about this for some time, I think
>your second rendering.
>
>"We proved for the first time in the world that..."
I believe you meant to say "the second rendering in your post"
because it is not mine.
>Could be read in rather 歪んだ way as meaning that this was the first time
>in the world that _we_ proved it (someone else might have done so
earlier).
>I don't know if I can really support this sense I have, and I certainly
>wouldn't think of it off the bat (is this possibility strong enough to be
>labeled a misplaced modifier? or am I simply reading too much into a
feeling
>in order to find agreement with you?)
I am not a native English speaker, but I feel uncomfortable with the
above sentence structure. The Japanese 世界で初めて証明した is quite OK.
Earlier, a couple days ago, someone suggested adding は or も after 世界で,
which I presume would result in 世界では or 世界でも. This は would make
perfect sense in 日本では初めて (= for the first time at least in Japan, if
not in the world).
Okay, we are not linguists (in the true sense of the word). Why don't we
just trust our respective native ears. If a Japanese sentence reads just
fine by a native Japanese speaker while its English translation does sound
quite natural by a native English speaker, then the translation should
be bad.
>Would be interested in what others have to think.
I agree. Particularly, I would like to hear from those of you who were
posting to this thread before I arrived. I do not even know who is the
original poster.
Shu (Shuichi Yamakawa)
Shuichi Yamakawa
> Okay, we are not linguists (in the true sense of the word). Why don't we
> just trust our respective native ears. If a Japanese sentence reads just
> fine by a native Japanese speaker while its English translation does sound
> quite natural by a native English speaker, then the translation should
> be bad.
Obviously, I meant to say: does not sound quite natural
Shu
Mika Jarmusz
一律にworldでいいとするだけでは、まだ
外国語かじりかけの学生のレベルと一線を画すことができません。
日本語の「世界」という言葉がworldという言葉に一律に訳出されて「いない場合」に、
早まって訳抜けだと誤診しないことが大切なのではないでしょうか。
日本語を母語とする(英語が外語でしかない）私たちにとって、以下は大変参考になります。
Sam:
> I seem to run into this sort of phrase a lot in journal articles from Japan, but not in English ones, and it feels kind of like the researchers are tooting their own horns.
>> "In the world" adds a kind of breathless, maybe even slightly childish, quality that might not be so appropriate to a scientific journal.
> To my ear, "first in the world" would be worse in marketing than in science.
> It seems, though, that you can teach an old electronics company new tricks: the document on the desk today has 業界初.)
ちなみに日本語において「業界初」という語が示す域は、その業界内部であれば
読み手に対しても自明でしょうが、これが外部向けの宣伝であったときには
「業界初」ではいささか物足りないかもしれません。（業界の狭さがわかりにくいので。）
それにひきかえthe first in the industryという英語表現の方は、それほど聞こえは悪くないでしょう？
たとえ0.001％の僅差であれ、それが事実であり日本語で「世界初」がふさわしいのであれば、
直訳屋に気兼ねして日本語ボキャブラリーを萎縮させる方向に逃げるよりも、
「世界」に見られる両言語の違いを認識できる翻訳を「いいものとして選ぶ」方向に目を向けていってほしいものです。
Shuさん、スレッド前半はこちらからもご覧いただけます：
http://groups.google.mn/group/honyaku/browse_thread/thread/ad4eade61d29b93a#
まだまだ未熟者ですが、本年もよろしくお願い申し上げます。
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Mika Jarmusz
> 「世界」にworldをあてはめて直訳できる状況もざらにあるでしょうが、
I wrote, "cases in which 世界 literally translates into 'world' are not uncommon, but ...."
If the resulting output does not alter the message (such as adding arrogant/childish tone not found in the source), as in the cases Tim is referring to, then there's nothing wrong with literal translation.
Dwight Van Winkle
scientists and companies.
"first in the world to demonstrate"
"first in the world to prove"
"first in the world to show"
Maybe they are tooting their own horns to investors, and/or claiming
patentability. It doesn't seem unnatural - why not just translate it
as is?
Dwight Van Winkle
Dale Ponte
if so desired. A potential drawback, though, is that attaching it to 証
明した would seem to require nominalizing the latter.
"As always, it depends." - Shu
Dale Ponte
Brain thinks (yadda yadda),
till ear steps in fruitfully
with knowing
Shuichi Yamakawa
took up this question in his presentation and gave an unequivocal
answer from the viewpoint of research paper editing.
The question was if expressions such as "for the first time in the world
we proved" should be deleted in academic writing. The answer was:
1. Delete "in the world." It does not add any information to "for the
first time." Academic writing should be concise. This in addition
to the OP's concern that the researchers may sound as if they are
tooting their own horns.
2. You can use "prove," "demonstrate," "show" or any other verb depending
on how confident the researchers are about their findings.
The above is not a verbatim statement by the speaker, but represents my
understanding of what he said. I may be wrong. I would appreciate
corrections or comments from anyone who attended the meeting.
JAT members will be given access to the presentation material in due
course of time.
I hope we can close the case.
Shu (Shuichi Yamakawa)
Marc Adler
The question was if expressions such as "for the first time in the world
we proved" should be deleted in academic writing. The answer was:
[snip]
This is all great advice ... for writers of academic papers. But not for translators. A translator should translate what the original says, unless s/he's been given specific editorial leeway by the client.
Marc Adler
http://www.linkedin.com/in/adlerpacific
Kyle Wright
> we proved" should be deleted in academic writing. The answer was:
>
> 1. Delete "in the world." It does not add any information to "for the
> first time." Academic writing should be concise. This in addition
I imagine that those from the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta quadrants,
among others, will have a problem with this direction.
--
Kyle Wright
http://kylewright.com
642 West 3rd Street
Marysville, Ohio 43040
cell_phone: 937-309-2077
Laurie Berman
On Jan 23, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Marc Adler wrote:
> 2010/1/23 Shuichi Yamakawa <s...@gol.com>
>
>
> The question was if expressions such as "for the first time in the
> world
> we proved" should be deleted in academic writing. The answer was:
>
> [snip]
>
> This is all great advice ... for writers of academic papers. But
> not for translators. A translator should translate what the
> original says . . .
But surely that is not the same thing as translating word for word.
If one conveys the meaning intended by the writer in a stylistically
appropriate manner, isn't one doing one's job as a translator?
Laurie Berman
Asanuma
to his/her client with comments (preferably in Japanese for a Japanese
client) for any questionable matters. Comments may be more than
translations in volume, though.
Ken
Marc Adler
But surely that is not the same thing as translating word for word. If one conveys the meaning intended by the writer in a stylistically appropriate manner, isn't one doing one's job as a translator?
Are you saying that the writer doesn't mean 世界で始めて?
Laurie Berman
On Jan 23, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
> Are you saying that the writer doesn't mean 世界で始めて?
I'm saying that "in the world" is assumed, so you can leave it out
and still convey 世界で初めて、only in a more stylistically
appropriate way.
Laurie Berman
David J. Littleboy
> 2010/1/23 Shuichi Yamakawa <s...@gol.com>
>>
>> The question was if expressions such as "for the first time in the world
>> we proved" should be deleted in academic writing. The answer was:
>
> [snip]
>
> This is all great advice ... for writers of academic papers. But not for
> translators. A translator should translate what the original says, unless
> s/he's been given specific editorial leeway by the client.
If the original is good writing in Japanese (for the intended audience) that
no native reader (in the intended audience) would notice a problem with, and
the translation causes readers (in the intended audience) to choke, then
it's not a good translation.
Kyle Wright
> convey 世界で初めて、only in a more stylistically appropriate way.
I totally disagree. Without "in the world" or something to that effect
the resulting English is unnecessarily vague. It could be the that it
was the first time for that person or organization, but not
necessarily the first time in the world.
Marc Adler
If the original is good writing in Japanese (for the intended audience) that no native reader (in the intended audience) would notice a problem with, and the translation causes readers (in the intended audience) to choke, then it's not a good translation.
I understand that, but that's rewriting, not translating. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but that doing so without notifying the client is not good.
Mika Jarmusz
A: He's the first one to prove it. Ever.
B: The case is proven by someone else, but he hasn't personally tried proving it until now.
In Japanese writing, I for one feel the need to add 世界で explicitly to convey A; if I leave it out, it comes out ambiguous.
In English, is it not the other way around? "He proved it for the first time" by default means A. For B, you need to say it differently. But I'm not an NES and would like to hear from others.
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mika Jarmusz" <mik...@gmail.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Leave out ことを世界で初めて証明した? Revisited
>> Are you saying that the writer doesn't mean 世界で始めて?
> The writer means 世界で初めて "in Japanese."
>
> A: He's the first one to prove it. Ever.
> B: The case is proven by someone else, but he hasn't personally tried
> proving it until now.
>
> In Japanese writing, I for one feel the need to add 世界で explicitly to
> convey
> A; if I leave it out, it comes out ambiguous.
>
> In English, is it not the other way around? "He proved it for the first
> time" by default means A.
I am not entirely sure about that, I think our default would be to interpret
the sentence the way you do, but "he proved it for the first time" could
possibly (maybe in the case of a hard problem in a geometry class that he
had always failed in proving before?), mean that this was the first time for
_him_.
"He was the first one to prove . . .," however, means exactly what you said.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Fred Uleman
Yes, this is "rewriting" in the sense that it changes the words and the word order, but that is true of all translation. You are changing the words from one language to another and you are changing the word order to accommodate the different-language's grammar expectations and whatnot.
Translation is rewriting in another language. The point is to not change the meaning. And if you do it well, it comes across with the same level of grace that the source text had, since introducing awkwardness can change how it is perceived and thus color the way the reader understands it.
--
Fred Uleman, translator emeritus
Shuichi Yamakawa
I was surprised to find as many as ten messages in my in-box when I opened
my PC and emailer this morning. I kind of reopened a can of worms.
As a matter of face, I had a second thought last night when I was going
to hit
the send button. I should not have hit it. But I did because I thought
someone
who attended the JAT meeting yesterday should report the remark made by the
speaker on this topic. I just volunteered. Do not throw me a stone.
Most of the points raised and discussed in those 10 messages are a replay of
the origingal thread and I am afraid to say I see no new arguments.
Refer to:
http://groups.google.mn/group/honyaku/browse_thread/thread/ad4eade61d29b93a#
for a total of 39 messages from December 28, 2009 through January 6, 2010.
To avoid any misunderstanding about my posting yesterday, let me add.
I did not say what translators should do. I only reported the speaker's view
that in academic writing, or more precisely in editing research papers to be
published in scientific journals such as Nature, editors should delete such
expressions as "first in the world" that make the articles less effective.
This is not about linguistics nor is this about translation. This is about
academic writing and editing.
Personally, I believe that it is up to individual translators whether
they should
only produce translations faithful to the originals or whether they
should also
act as editors themselves, presumably in consultation with their
clients, and
charge more (or at least become preferred translators).
I hope we can close the case now.
Shu (Shuichi Yamakawa)
Tom Donahue
> I am not entirely sure about that, I think our default would be to interpret
> the sentence the way you do, but "he proved it for the first time" could
> possibly (maybe in the case of a hard problem in a geometry class that he
> had always failed in proving before?), mean that this was the first time for
> _him_.
The problem there is that's not news. I could say that for the first time
I have discovered how to get a Weetabix out of the package without
crumbling, but who cares? It's a first for me, but I'm definitely not the
first person to discover this.
No one has mentioned this so far, but there is an important distinction
in Japanese between 国内初 and 世界初. For the past 100 years, as
Japan has assimilated technology from abroad, 国内初 has been an
important milestone. But outside Japan no one cares about that. If
that's the distinction the author has in mind, then I feel free to leave
it out, if and when it seems dorky. Or leave it in, entirely depending
on my perception of the context, audience, and situation.
--
Tom Donahue
Wayne Root
Absolutely right. As my first mentor in translation use to say
(always), if the translation into English is not in good English then
it's not a good translation.
Wayne Root
roo...@astound.net
Minoru Mochizuki
expression世界で初めてaccording to the original poster of this thread. The
poster stated: "The folks who discovered something say ことを世界で初めて証
明した about the thing they discovered. I seem to run into this sort of
phrase a lot in journal articles from Japan, but not in English ones, and it
I don't know what kind of a journal he is translating, but if it is a
commercial journal, not an academic journal as someone has assumed, the
phrase "world's first" (which I am assuming is identical in context as世界で
初めて) is a popular one outside of Japan as well. I just did a Google
search using it as a keyword, and found 686,563 cases.
Why do some of you want to discriminate the Japanese expression? Why do you
have a hesitation to translate it as is (chokuyaku)?
If it is indeed the author's intention to toot his horn, what is the
rational reason to beat the author's intention? Why as a translator, do you
want to make a judgment on the truthfulness of the statement? The truth for
you, the translator, is that the author wishes to claim that his finding is,
according to his belief, is the world's first. If the intention of the
article is sort of an advertisement for his commercial interest, it is more
important for you to chokuyaku. So, why do you want to damage his claim that
his building is the world's highest (while you know that it is only the
third tallest building). You should not affect the accuracy of your
translation with your knowledge. Mind you, there is a distinction between
the accuracy of translation and the accuracy of the author's statement. The
distinction is particularly important when you are interpreting for court or
translating patents, for example. A translator is not an author.
Minoru Mochizuki
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Tom Donahue
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 9:39 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Leave out ことを世界で初めて証明した? Revisited
Minoru Mochizuki
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Wayne Root
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 10:49 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Leave out ことを世界で初めて証明した? Revisited
Wayne Root says:
> As my first mentor in translation use to say
(always), if the translation into English is not in good English then
it's not a good translation.
The correctness of the above statement is logically obvious.
The question is how you define "good English."
I suppose we have been discussing whether we should not translate世界で初め
てor not, and whether the finding is truly the world's first discovery has
nothing to do with whether the particular sentence containing such a phrase
is a good English sentence or not. The presence of the phrase in the
sentence does not qualify or disqualify it as a good English sentence by
itself.
Minoru Mochizuki
Earl
with Marc.
My job as a translator is to translate the original as accurately as
possible
into English that reads as naturally and cleanly as possible. Of
course, all
translation is rewriting in a sense, but I don't really think that a
translator has
the right to actively edit what he is translating because he thinks
the original
writing is a botch job. If he doesn't understand something, of course
he has
to ask, but the fact that he doesn't really like the author's writing
style
shouldn't even enter into it.
I probably would have translated 世界で初めて without even thinking about
it.
Earl Hartman
On Jan 23, 5:57 pm, "Minoru Mochizuki" <minm...@rhythm.ocn.ne.jp>
wrote:
Laurie Berman
On Jan 23, 2010, at 10:13 PM, Earl wrote:
> I don't really understand what the fuss is all about. I have to agree
> with Marc.
I don't agree that it's fuss, but I do agree that you don't
understand what it's about. This is not about criticizing the style
of the original, nor about questioning its accuracy as Minoru seems
to think. It IS about communicating the writer's ideas accurately and
appropriately. It is, very simply, a question of whether "in the
world" is understood in English without being spelled out. It's
perfectly legitimate to disagree as to whether it is understood or
not. But if anyone out there seriously thinks that a translation
can't be accurate unless it contains a dictionary equivalent for each
word in the original, well, I just can't imagine how you can make a
living translating.
> I probably would have translated 世界で初めて without even
> thinking about
> it.
Actually, quite a bit of the discussion on this list is about
translations that people do without thinking. It's about getting
people to think about them. But since this particular thread seems to
be going backwards instead of forwards, there probably isn't much
point pursuing it any further.
Laurie Berman
Richard
translation job can even begin, it's imperative for all involved
(client/s, translator/s, and any other parties) to agree on what the
translator's priorities should be. Fidelity to the syntax of the
original text? To the content? The tone? Ease of reading in the
target language? Priorities for a poem will be very different than
for a legal document, after all. The translator should then be able
to simply call to mind their priority rankings and determine whether
to focus most on preserving each word, or to "rewrite" to achieve what
they feel to be the most effective English while preserving the
meaning.
I wrote my graduation thesis on this exact point, actually. 8^)
Thanks for listening to my two cents on what's already a very long
topic.
-Richard Lutz
Friedemann Horn
> Absolutely right. As my first mentor in translation use to say (always), if
> the translation into English is not in good English then it's not a good
> translation.
This is a generalization that is not always true. Sometimes the translator
is paid to make the author of the original look good (in fact, I suppose that
many translators will only ever see this kind of work). In other circumstances,
the translators is supposed to translate exactly what the original says, where
"exactly" means "including all imperfections". In such a case, if it is not in
good English, it may still be a good translation if the original was not in good
Japanese.
Accordingly, simply throwing a text at a translator is often not information to
do the job. You need to know what the translation is used for. Sometimes
this is self-evident from the text or the general circumstances, but in many
cases it isn't.
Friedemann Horn
www.horn-uchida.jp
Mika Jarmusz
> where "exactly" means "including all imperfections".
「その一字一句を拾って、不格好な訳文にしてくれ」みたいな仕事もあるでしょうし。
これまで何度も繰り返されているように、訳出方法は翻訳用途によって異なります。
> The question is how you define "good English."
えーそれではここで、大勢の出場者の中から、
今回はこちらのお二方に、のど自慢の「カネ３つ」を差し上げま～す。
Tomさん：
> ...if and when it seems dorky. Or leave it in, entirely depending on my perception of the context, audience, and situation.
Laurieさん：
> Actually, quite a bit of the discussion on this list is about translations that people do without thinking. It's about getting people to think about them.
Earl
of every single word on the page regardless of whether
or not it aids or mars understanding. It seems that a
number of people objected to including the phrase
because they felt it was clunky, that the researchers
were "blowing their own horns" or that in the US this
sort of preening had no place in academic writing. All
of that may very well be true, but that is not the
translator's concern, as Minoru said. It is to
translate what is on the page into accurate,
readable, and understandable English. If, in that
process, the translator feels that he/she needs to ask
the client about this phrase or that phrase, fine. If the
translator has a good enough relationship with the
client that he/she feels comfortable about offering
editorial suggestions about how to improve the
document, even better. But to leave it out just
because the translator thinks it shouldn't be in
there is, it seems to me, presuming too much.
Earl Hartman
On Dec 30 2009, 8:17 am, Dale Ponte <dpo...@cybermesa.com> wrote:
> (The following was written before seeing the two preceding posts by
> Shinya and Jim.)
>
> Jim Lockhart wrote:
> > I agree with this essentially too. What I wonder about is how to
> > differentiate between hype and non-hype--maybe even just hype and
> > honestly expressed feelings.
>
> What I suspect is that it's not a considered expression, it just plops
> out, _like a figure of speech_. And that if I were having friendly
> shop talk with this researcher and he made this statement and I
> interjected something like 'wait a sec, comrade, do you really mean
> "first in the world?" -- how would he respond?
>
> Jim, I know that your nudging at my penchant for over-elaborate
> thinking and over-topping is good for me to hear; and it's comfortably
> digestible, 御馳走様. However,
>
> >When Japanese write/read this expression (and other similar
> >ones), what comes across their minds? What are the associations?
>
> are pertinent and reasonable questions, I agree.
>
> >I'm not looking for inscrutably encoded hidden messages, either.
>
> And the mind, or call it mentality in this case, whether we're
> considering our own as translator or that of those who grace us with
> the stuff we translate, can be a tricky, nigh inscrutable beast that
> at least bears looking at from different sides, distances, and depths
> -- at moments such as this -- is sort of where I'm coming from, I
> guess.
>
> As Sam, whom I assume has been translating medical journal material
> regularly for some time, originally put it,
>
> >I seem to run into this sort of phrase a lot in journal articles
> >from Japan, but not in English ones, and it feels kind of like
> >the researchers are tooting their own horns. I'm inclined to just
> >leave it out of the translation,
>
> As I'm understanding this, he feels that an as-is, literal translation
> tends to turn out an expression that is inappropriate in the (socio-
> cultural) context of English medical journal articles. I reckon his
> concern is judicious, especially when I view the expression at hand as
> a cultural ingredient, which it would be wiser to translate adaptively
> rather than 直訳敵 ;-)) Hype may be cool for baseball and cosmic
> beauties, as well as pseudo-scientific scribblings; but is it germane
> to articles in (presumably) medical or dental journal articles?
>
> Say, if it _were translated literally, "starkly" (which I wrote with
> tongue somewhat in cheek), what would be its effect upon the typical,
> well-informed reader of such a (professional's?) journal
> article ... ? Would the 直訳 be a useless, inappropriate distraction;
> and perhaps even bring some shade of discredit upon the article as a
> whole?
>
> The instance provided above by Michelle Miller, "ultra-thin" for 世界最小
> 径, seems to me to strike an elegant balance, for which I might even
> call it, in lieu of any other examples of success, exemplary.
>
> BTW, I too found Mika's input interesting and helpful.
>
> Have to hurry along, please pardon errors, bumps, and foibles :)
>
> Dale Ponte
Mika Jarmusz
「そう教わった」や「英辞郎にある」など
理解が生半可なときほど意見に自信があるのに、
理解が深まるほど逆に意見が慎重になることって、ありますね？
一般論として十把一絡げに語れないもう一つの要素として
外国語への理解度も無視できないのではないでしょうか。
> It seems that a number of people objected to including the phrase because they felt it was clunky, that the researchers were "blowing their own horns" or that in the US this sort of preening had no place in academic writing.
A: 日本語はわかるが英語オンチ（A’：英語はわかるが日本語オンチ）
B: 英語はよく書けるが日本語オンチ（B’：日本語はよく書けるが英語オンチ））
C: 日本語わかる、英語も書ける（C’：英語がわかる、日本語も書ける）
不自然な直訳英語を押しつける日本側クライアントの話題がこのフォーラムでよく取り上げられますが、
正確なCの翻訳とコピーライティングの「見分けがつかない」のはAとBのレベル特質のようです。
かくいう私もC’をめざしてがんばります。
Marc Adler
The other thing I would venture to say is that for most native
English speakers, it is unnecessary to add "in the world"; it is
assumed. "In the world" adds a kind of breathless, maybe even
slightly childish, quality that might not be so appropriate to a
scientific journal.
But this is an interpretation! You can't just leave it out and not tell the client.
Mika Jarmusz
Marc Adler
Tell the client "it's in there"? Isn't that what a translator's note is for?
I'm not sure if this is responding to my message, but Laurie is arguing that it's okay to leave out 世界で because "the first" in English would be understood to mean "in the world." I disagree, but I'm not really interested in this specific phrase. What interests me is the idea that whole phrases can be left out without letting the client know or without specific instructions from the client ahead of time. It seems cavalier, to say the least.
Laurie Berman
On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
> What interests me is the idea that whole phrases can be left out
> without letting the client know or without specific instructions
> from the client ahead of time. It seems cavalier, to say the least.
Did I ever say I wouldn't let the client know?
Laurie Berman
Marc Adler
Did I ever say I wouldn't let the client know?
Me: This is all great advice ... for writers of academic papers. But not for translators. A translator should translate what the original says, unless s/he's been given specific editorial leeway by the client.
You: But surely that is not the same thing as translating word for word. If one conveys the meaning intended by the writer in a stylistically appropriate manner, isn't one doing one's job as a translator?
I don't see how else to interpret this comment, unless you were just ... agreeing with me?
Akebono Translation Service
| A translator should translate what the original says, unless s/he's been given specific editorial leeway by the client. |
Best regards,
Loek van Kooten
--
Akebono Translation Service
Rijnstraat 32
2311 NK Leiden
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-87-8763636
Fax: +31-84-7390618
www.akebono.nl
Terms and conditions: www.akebono.nl/terms.doc
Chamber of Commerce reg. no.: 28066372
Laurie Berman
On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
>
> I don't see how else to interpret this comment, unless you were
> just ... agreeing with me?
No, but I would be very happy to agree to disagree at this point (and
I'll bet that would make a lot of other people happy as well).
Laurie Berman
Marc Adler
>
> In legal contexts yes. In marketing/movie/game contexts, no way.
I agree that the client-given editorial leeway is often tacitly
understood in such cases, especially if the client knows something
about translation, but that leeway is still there and it's still
something that is given by the client. You can't, say, change the
meaning of a phrase in order to achieve a rhyme or whatever, and then
not explain what changes you made to the client, especially if they
can't speak the target language.
Marc Adler
> No, but I would be very happy to agree to disagree at this point (and I'll
> bet that would make a lot of other people happy as well).
Sounds like a plan.
Jeremy Angel
> I agree that the client-given editorial leeway is often tacitly
> understood in such cases, especially if the client knows something
> about translation, but that leeway is still there and it's still
> something that is given by the client.
On the subject of leeway, I just want to mention that one of my
clients, an agent, always states up front, "degree of freedom" as a
percentage, which shows they are doing their job of checking with the
client.
I know they also actively educate their clients on the pitfalls of
chokuyaku. I think a lot of other agents I work with do the same, even
if they don't trumpet the fact.
I generally translate as I see fit, whether the client specifies it or
not (since I aim to produce English that no unknowing end users would
recognize as a translation), but it's nice to know you have a ticket
to translate as you really want to, instead of trying to second-read
the client's mind to produce good English that also won't cause an
eigoya to frown.
Though this theme has come up umpteen times over the years, it is a
fundamental issue that only benefits from periodical airing
(especially for newcomers to the trade), and I've found this thread to
be pretty interesting.
And Laurie, your contribution has been critical, so I for one would be
happy not to see you duck out quite yet:-)
Jeremy Angel ("You really, really want raccoon dog skins??"
Minoru Mochizuki
Since I cherish the principle of chokuyaku to be applied to certain
situations only, I hope Jeremy does not use that word for his denunciation
of client policy in general. I too oppose to client's dictatorship
(silently).
A (Japanese) client of mine recently chastise me for translating 自動圧力制
御弁 as "automatic pressure control valve," and the client said it should be
translated "automatic control valve." Now, whose translation is chokuyaku?
Mine of course.
So, you see, the client is a king, and their choice is not based on
chokuyaku. Their choice is based on more random preferences.
Minoru Mochizuki
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Jeremy Angel
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:45 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Leave out ことを世界で初めて証明した?
Dwight Van Winkle
this will add anything, but since I talked about Google earlier, I
want to say that I should have used Google Scholar.
After some searches in Google Scholar for "first in the world to" and
"first to" demonstrate, show, and prove, I think that
"in the world" is probably redundant in a scientific paper, as "first
to" is assumed to mean "in the world" unless there is some
qualification. I'm not sure if "first in the world to demonstrate"
is preening, but given the much higher usage of "first to
demonstrate," I think that "first in the world to demonstrate" might
sound unnatural to regular readers of scientific literature.
Mika raised an interesting point - the use of "sekai de" may just be
an artifact of Japanese grammar. If so, it is not preening at all.
Dwight Van Winkle