Lost in Translation
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> I just got this e-mail tonight and thought it was pretty funny (though of
> course not meant to be so). I shudder to think about the terms and
> phrases she *didn't* ask me about!
> >Dear Patricia,
> >My name is Karel Ptaeek
For your info, Karel is not a she. This name is the Czech version of
"Charles." Also, "Ptaeek" is definitely misspelled.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Editor
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
PButler111
course not meant to be so). I shudder to think about the terms and phrases she
*didn't* ask me about!
<<Dear Patricia,
My name is Karel Ptaeek and my residence Prague, the Czech Republic. I
translate your "Angels Dance and Angels Die" into the Czech language, for
the publishing house Volvox Globator. Would you be so kind and provide me
with your comment to couple of issues that do not seem fully clear to me?
The questions refer to page numbers of the Schirmer Books 1998 edition.
* 64, 65: "A child of Hollywood, by the time Mirandi, ..." Does this mean
that her former first name was Hollywood and that she had it changed to
Mirandi, then?
* 69, 71, 205: How it actually was with Pam's eye color? 69 "sea-colored"
(which I'd expect to be a tint of blue, although we have no sea in our
country), 71 "ever-changing hazel", 205 "green-eyed".
* 82: "Formica fantasy" My only idea is that it could have something to do
with ants.
* 85: "Cimmerian touch" Even more vague idea than in the Formica fantasy.
* 124: "guacamole" Is it something to eat?
* 168: I am not sure what Mr. Mahoney exactly wanted to say. "... was not a
man for narcotics ...", probably means that Jim was not much into drugs.
"He drank heavily ...", that's all right. "... and dismissed LSD as 'a new
kind of wine.'" I would understand it that he had been consuming LSD as
wine or that he had considered LSD a sort of wine ("dismiss" in terms of
something like "dissolve").But it means that he was into drugs a lot, then.
However, if there was "dismiss" in terms of "reject", it wouldn't give to
much sense, either.
* 216: "Oprah-fication" I know what you want to say but I don't know what
Oprah is.
Thank you very much for your kindness. I wish you Happy New Year.
Best regards
Karel Ptaeek>>
Prince Richard Kaminski
PButler111 <pbutl...@aol.comnexxt> wrote in message
news:19991229210955...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> I just got this e-mail tonight and thought it was pretty funny (though of
> course not meant to be so). I shudder to think about the terms and
phrases she
> *didn't* ask me about
It's a man, you philistine.
And if you ever get to the stage where you can even attempt to read a book
in a foreign language, you might develop more sympathy for people doing the
same to your own book. Reposting the guy's full name in order to make fun of
his legitimate questions about matters that non-native speakers of English
could not be expected to know, was particularly disgusting.
But then, that's what we have come to expect from PButler.
PButler111
>
>> I just got this e-mail tonight and thought it was pretty funny (though of
>> course not meant to be so). I shudder to think about the terms and
>
>> >Dear Patricia,
>> >My name is Karel Ptaeek
>
>"Charles." Also, "Ptaeek" is definitely misspelled.
Yes, I know Karel is a "he" -- it was a typo. And, since I cut and pasted his
message directly from his e-mail, if "Ptaeek" is misspelled, it's his
misspelling of his own name.
I guess I'm not surprised at some of the pseudo-PC bullsiht I've seen in
response to this message. Lighten the fuck up, folks. No one was denigrating
this guy nor lessening the difficulty of his job. I have a great deal of
respect for anyone who is functional in more than one language. I also think
that translating a book that's largely dependent on at least a surface
understanding of American, and particularly L.A., pop culture in the 1960s is a
particularly difficult undertaking. But the differences in the language and
culture do make for some good humor. You can sit there and toy with the stick
up your ass all you want (and you know who you are), but it's *funny* that
"Formica fantasy" is going to get translated into something to do with ants.
And it's funny that he wants to know what an Oprah is. Etc. Life's too short
and too often truly dreary not to seize and enjoy all the laughs we can, when
we can. If that means laughing at the fact that a lot of Czechs are going to
be wandering around thinking that Jim Morrison had a nasty ant problem that he
tried to solve by setting off an industrial-strength Oprah in his apartment --
so be it.
Keith Snyder
sbril...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Did it ever occur to you that if your writing were a bit clearer it
> might be easier to translate?
I don't think that's quite a fair criticism. Idiomatic writing can be
perfectly clear to people who share the writer's background and
completely impenetrable to others.
Keith
--
http://www.woollymammoth.com/keith
Keith Snyder
PButler111 wrote:
> And Bonehead #2 -- you know who you are -- the book is
> quite far removed from my personal background, so your remarks are baseless
> (for a change).
I don't recall referring to the background of the book. I referred to
the background of its readership. A readership that reads an edition
published in the original language in the same country as the author is
assumedly close enough in background to understand the references the
Czech interpreter didn't.
I can say it a third time if that'll help.
Keith
--
http://www.woollymammoth.com/keith
sbril...@my-deja.com
might be easier to translate?
In article <19991229210955...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
pbutl...@aol.comnexxt (PButler111) wrote:
> I just got this e-mail tonight and thought it was pretty funny (though
of
> course not meant to be so). I shudder to think about the terms and
phrases she
> *didn't* ask me about!
>
> <<Dear Patricia,
> My name is Karel Ptaeek and my residence Prague, the Czech Republic. I
> translate your "Angels Dance and Angels Die" into the Czech language,
for
> the publishing house Volvox Globator. Would you be so kind and provide
me
> with your comment to couple of issues that do not seem fully clear to
me?
> The questions refer to page numbers of the Schirmer Books 1998
edition.
> * 64, 65: "A child of Hollywood, by the time Mirandi, ..." Does this
mean
> that her former first name was Hollywood and that she had it changed
to
> Mirandi, then?
> * 69, 71, 205: How it actually was with Pam's eye color? 69
"sea-colored"
> (which I'd expect to be a tint of blue, although we have no sea in our
> country), 71 "ever-changing hazel", 205 "green-eyed".
> * 82: "Formica fantasy" My only idea is that it could have something
to do
> with ants.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PButler111
>>
>> Did it ever occur to you that if your writing were a bit clearer it
>> might be easier to translate?
>
>perfectly clear to people who share the writer's background and
>completely impenetrable to others.
>
>
>Keith
Gee, thanks, Keith. Two brilliant criticisms from two people who've never read
what they're criticizing. Brilliant indeed. My writing is perfectly clear,
thanks. Bonehead #1. And Bonehead #2 -- you know who you are -- the book is
quite far removed from my personal background, so your remarks are baseless
(for a change).. An intelligent individual -- you two get some help on this one
-- would reasonably assume that it would be difficult for a Czech to render a
book about L.A. pop culture in the 60s, no matter how clearly written, into
understandable form in a foreign language for people with no connection or
innate understanding of the subject matter.
In other words -- fuck you. Clear enough for you?
sbril...@my-deja.com
obvious from your own post that there's a problem. Why *did* you
describe her eyes using all those obscure and quite obviously contrived
idioms? It seems to me that your book is nothing more than a cheap
bodice-ripper poorly disguised as biography.
By the way, it's not nice to make fun of a person's name. I may or may
not be brilliant, but that's my name and I had no choice in the matter.
In article <19991231203329...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
Rhiannon
PButler111 <pbutl...@aol.comnexxt> wrote in message
> >PButler111 wrote:
> >
> >> I just got this e-mail tonight and thought it was pretty funny (though
of
> >> course not meant to be so). I shudder to think about the terms and
> >> phrases she *didn't* ask me about!
> I guess I'm not surprised at some of the pseudo-PC bullsiht I've seen in
> response to this message. Lighten the fuck up, folks. No one was
denigrating
> this guy nor lessening the difficulty of his job. I have a great deal of
> respect for anyone who is functional in more than one language. I also
think
> that translating a book that's largely dependent on at least a surface
> understanding of American, and particularly L.A., pop culture in the 1960s
is a
> particularly difficult undertaking. But the differences in the language
and
> culture do make for some good humor.
I agree with you on this one Patricia. Come on Guys! Lighten up is an
understatement. You are forever accusing her of approaching issues from the
negative end of the spectrum, and when she doesn't, you find fault in that
as well. Jesus. When I read her original post, I laughed like a loon. Not
AT the man, but at a situation where
language barriers, when viewed with some semblance of a sense of humour, are
damn funny. Some of my fondest memories of my <late> father, Polish work
camp survivor, are of us instructing him how to pronounce or spell some of
the more confusing English words, ones with silent letters, or one word -
two meanings. One of the funniest things he ever said was during a
television program, when he called to my mother in the kitchen and asked,
"What's an Afghan?" Mother said, "A big dog with a pointed muzzle and long
silky hair." After a short pause Dad said, "Then why is this lady on TV,
knitting one?"
Rhiannon
Rhiannon
news:84jpn0$9vf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Actually, I did read some of the excerpt on your website. And it's
> obvious from your own post that there's a problem. Why *did* you
> describe her eyes using all those obscure and quite obviously contrived
> idioms? It seems to me that your book is nothing more than a cheap
> bodice-ripper poorly disguised as biography.
And you feel qualified to make such an assessment on "excerpts" of a book
you have just admitted to not reading? Jesus. This information could be
dangerous in the hands of my eleven year old, who recently asked me why he
has to read the whole book in order to do a proper report, when he could
just read the back cover like his friends do. Guess who's getting A's?
Rhiannon
WriteBeth
read what they're criticizing. Brilliant indeed. My writing is perfectly
clear, thanks. Bonehead #1. And Bonehead #2 -- you know who you are -- the
book is quite far removed from my personal background, so your remarks are
baseless (for a change)..<<
Keith was defending you, or at least your writing, if I'm not mistaken. And the
"background" he was referring to was America, was it not? (Or did I miss
something here?)
>> An intelligent individual -- you two get some help on this one -- would
reasonably assume that it would be difficult for a Czech to render a book about
L.A. pop culture in the 60s, no matter how clearly written, into understandable
form in a foreign language for people with no connection or innate
understanding of the subject matter.<<
Isn't that what Keith said (minus the snideness)?
Keith wrote>>"Idiomatic writing can be perfectly clear to people who share the
writer's background and completely impenetrable to others."
Beth
PButler111
>Actually, I did read some of the excerpt on your website. And it's
>obvious from your own post that there's a problem. Why *did* you
>describe her eyes using all those obscure and quite obviously contrived
>idioms? It seems to me that your book is nothing more than a cheap
>bodice-ripper poorly disguised as biography.
You didn't read the book, and "sea-colored" is hardly obscure, unless you were
raised in the Mojave Desert.
PButler111
>the background of its readership. A readership that reads an edition
>published in the original language in the same country as the author is
>assumedly close enough in background to understand the references the
>Czech interpreter didn't.
>
>I can say it a third time if that'll help.
I didn't say anything about the background of the book, nor did I say you did.
I can say it a second time if that'll help.
PButler111
Actually, no. What he wrote was that the book would only be clear to people
who shared my ("the writer's") background. As I pointed out to him, and now to
you, my background doesn't figure into the book in the least. I can't address
what Keith meant to say (neither can you, incidentally), only what he actually
wrote.
Keith Snyder
PButler111 wrote:
> I can't address
> what Keith meant to say (neither can you, incidentally), only what he actually
> wrote.
That would be nice, but it would leave you very little to rail about.
Keith
--
Animeg3282
>And you feel qualified to make such an assessment on "excerpts" of a book
>you have just admitted to not reading? Jesus. This information could be
>dangerous in the hands of my eleven year old, who recently asked me why he
>has to read the whole book in order to do a proper report, when he could
>just read the back cover like his friends do. Guess who's getting A's?
Your 11 year old? Only a few people have the disicpine to make themselves read
the whole book like I do. I think I'm a masochist. (<---this is a joke on the
'WOE is the state of education these days comments by people who did worse in
their youth)
Hana no Kaitou
Pledged to the Way of the Wimp
Cause of the month: Pastel Yumi
http://members.aol.com/Animeg3282/index.html ,
http://members.aol.com/animeg3282/page5/index.htm<--Please visit both my main
home page, and Fancy Lala fanclub.
PButler111
>
>PButler111 wrote:
>> I can't address
>> what Keith meant to say (neither can you, incidentally), only what he
>actually
>> wrote.
>
>That would be nice, but it would leave you very little to rail about.
>
>
>Keith
Nice try, Keith. You either (1) made a smart ass, veiled insult and were found
out, or (2) wrote something that was not in the least what you meant to say and
then got peeved when you were taken to task for what you actually wrote instead
of being praised for what you were supposedly thinking. Either way, you're the
donkey in the story.
Keith Snyder
PButler111 wrote:
> Nice try, Keith. You either (1) made a smart ass, veiled insult and were found
> out, or (2) wrote something that was not in the least what you meant to say and
> then got peeved when you were taken to task for what you actually wrote instead
> of being praised for what you were supposedly thinking. Either way, you're the
> donkey in the story.
Sigh.
Yes, Patricia, that's exactly what happened.
Keith
--
sbril...@my-deja.com
any other book, I would certainly have read it in its entirety, and
probably more than once. I was not, however, purporting to be any kind
of expert on the information in the book; I was simply commenting on its
style. A skilled reader does not have to read an entire book in order
to determine its style and/or genre.
Do you have to read an entire book to know whether it's something you
would enjoy? Most people don't. They rely on excerpts, reviews, and the
proverbial cover. Writing a report on the book would certainly require
that one proceed to the next step, which is, as you say, reading the
whole thing. However, as I said, I am not writing a report on the
Butler book; and, having made my determination that it is of a style
that I cannot appreciate, am now moving on.
In article <LIeb4.4564$B6.2...@quark.idirect.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhia...@idirect.com> wrote:
> <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:84jpn0$9vf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Actually, I did read some of the excerpt on your website. And it's
> > obvious from your own post that there's a problem. Why *did* you
> > describe her eyes using all those obscure and quite obviously
contrived
> > idioms? It seems to me that your book is nothing more than a cheap
> > bodice-ripper poorly disguised as biography.
>
> And you feel qualified to make such an assessment on "excerpts" of a
book
> you have just admitted to not reading? Jesus. This information could
be
> dangerous in the hands of my eleven year old, who recently asked me
why he
> has to read the whole book in order to do a proper report, when he
could
> just read the back cover like his friends do. Guess who's getting
A's?
>
> Rhiannon
sbril...@my-deja.com
contrived category.
In article <20000101013745...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
pbutl...@aol.comnexxt (PButler111) wrote:
> >
> >Actually, I did read some of the excerpt on your website. And it's
> >obvious from your own post that there's a problem. Why *did* you
> >describe her eyes using all those obscure and quite obviously
contrived
> >idioms? It seems to me that your book is nothing more than a cheap
> >bodice-ripper poorly disguised as biography.
>
> You didn't read the book, and "sea-colored" is hardly obscure, unless
you were
> raised in the Mojave Desert.
>
> http://www.AngelsDance-AngelsDie.com
>
WriteBeth
the book in the least.<<
My apologies then. I got the idea that you were an American and lived in this
country.
>> I can't address what Keith meant to say (neither can you, incidentally),
only what he actually wrote.<<
Well, I *was* addressing what he wrote. But as I said above, I believed you to
be from the US.
Beth
PButler111
>If I were writing a report on or a review of the book in question, or of
>any other book, I would certainly have read it in its entirety, and
>probably more than once. I was not, however, purporting to be any kind
>of expert on the information in the book; I was simply commenting on its
>style. A skilled reader does not have to read an entire book in order
>to determine its style and/or genre.
>
>Do you have to read an entire book to know whether it's something you
>would enjoy? Most people don't. They rely on excerpts, reviews, and the
>proverbial cover. Writing a report on the book would certainly require
>that one proceed to the next step, which is, as you say, reading the
>whole thing. However, as I said, I am not writing a report on the
>Butler book; and, having made my determination that it is of a style
>that I cannot appreciate, am now moving on.
And having made the determination that you're not only ignorant but full of
shit, I'm happy to hear it.
The Editors
that you are talented, perceptive, coy, unfettered by the constraints of
the mundane and eager to share with millions of unwary eyewitnesses.
Visit and post your writing and other stuff on the Infernal Machine at:
Make yourself eligible for fun, prizes and awards.
We look forward to your contributions!
- The Infernal Machine Editorial Staff
Anopheles
The Editors of some idiot e-pub wrote:
> How to let the world know we are the worst spammers of the year 2000.
PButler111
Jesus, are you really this obtuse or just putting on an act to be contrary? As
was stated very clearly before, the book is written with the assumption that
the reader will have at least a cursory knowledge of American pop culture in
the 60s. As the book is a biography of a rock star and his wife, my background
-- not being a rock star, nor a rock star's wife, nor an adult in the 60s --
does not factor into the book in the least.
Let me just add -- way to destroy a lighthearted thread, people. Jesus, you
and yours make me sick. Someone posts something for a laugh, to make people
smile, and people like you can't wait to rip it to shreds and turn it into a
flame war. Get a fucking life already, Beth. The hospice business must be
particularly slow right now if this is how you have to fill your time and boost
your obviously flagging self-esteem.
PButler111
>From: sbril...@my-deja.com
>Date: Sat, 01 January 2000 04:15 PM EST
>Message-id: <84lpvn$gnv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>No, of course "sea-colored" is not obscure; that one goes in the
>contrived category.
Here's a little clue for you, asshole: everything made by man, including
language and word phrases, is "contrived." If you're not clear on the meaning
of the words you throw around, take a moment to look them up before you use
them.
Keith Snyder
PButler111 wrote:
> Maybe she can help arrange an operation that can both remove
> the steel rod up your ass and at the same time install a sense of humor.
The Human Genome Project says it will find the gene that causes the
tragic predisposition to humor-blindness within a decade, but its
efforts are understandably hampered by the huge public outcry for the
eradication of more malignant diseases such as egomania, obsessive but
consistently incorrect grandstanding on matters of grammar and spelling,
Comprehension Deficit Disorder (CDD), and the compulsion to write
celebrity relationship books.
There is hope. Although someone born humor-blind will never be as funny
as someone with the functional gene, most genetic coding gives rise only
to a predisposition, not to a certainty. Indeed, with dedicated effort
and study, many people with Butler's Syndrome already lead nearly normal
lives as staff writers for sitcoms featuring twins.
Give generously to the NBSA. Every dollar you give could mean the
difference between "Fuck you -- just kidding" and "'Ah!' I said, and I
meant it to sting."
Keith
--
http://www.woollymammoth.com/keith
sbril...@my-deja.com
to your work as such? Your reaction simply confirms that you know
exactly which connotation of the word I was going for, and that I seem
to have hit a nerve.
In article <20000101185240...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
Keith Snyder
PButler111 wrote:
> Let me just add -- way to destroy a lighthearted thread, people. Jesus, you
> and yours make me sick. Someone posts something for a laugh, to make people
> smile, and people like you can't wait to rip it to shreds and turn it into a
> flame war. Get a fucking life already, Beth. The hospice business must be
> particularly slow right now if this is how you have to fill your time and boost
> your obviously flagging self-esteem.
This would work better with a men's chorus humming "The Battle Hymn of
the Republic" behind it.
Keith
--
PButler111
>the Republic" behind it.
>
>
>Keith
Thanks for proving my point, Keith. Hey, Beth has connections in the health
care business. Maybe she can help arrange an operation that can both remove
the steel rod up your ass and at the same time install a sense of humor.
WriteBeth
that
the reader will have at least a cursory knowledge of American pop culture in
the 60s. <<
You just don't get it, do you?
>>Let me just add -- way to destroy a lighthearted thread, people. <<
You are a master at irony, I'll give you that.
>>The hospice business must be particularly slow right now if this is how you
have to fill your time<<
I wouldn't know anything about how slow the hospice business is. Interesting
non sequitur, though. (You did just post something about being the one person
to stay on topic, didn't you?)
>> and boost your obviously flagging self-esteem.<<
There's that irony again.
Beth
PButler111
>
>Beth
>
Another word you obviously don't understand. But hey -- at least you spelled
this one correctly.
PButler111
>tragic predisposition to humor-blindness within a decade, but its
>efforts are understandably hampered by the huge public outcry for the
>eradication of more malignant diseases such as egomania, obsessive but
>consistently incorrect grandstanding on matters of grammar and spelling,
>Comprehension Deficit Disorder (CDD), and the compulsion to write
>celebrity relationship books.
Good news for you, then, Keith -- you can get all your problems wiped out at
once.
PButler111
>Message-id: <84m9e0$qne$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>If everything is "contrived", then why are you so upset that I referred
>to your work as such? Your reaction simply confirms that you know
>exactly which connotation of the word I was going for, and that I seem
>to have hit a nerve.
>
Yes, willful ignorance always strikes a nerve with me. It's a shame when
someone decides to be stupid. I'm sorry that was your decision. My decision
is not to waste any more of my time dealing with you.
sbril...@my-deja.com
contrived, to which you took obvious offense, calling me an "asshole',
and at the same time saying that "everything" is "contrived". When I
pointed out, quite logically, that if it were indeed true that
"everything" is "contrived", then "contrived" wouldn't be an insult, you
became offended once again, and somehow drew the conclusion that I am
"willfully ignorant".
Is this the actual sequence of events, or have I missed something
crucial? I certainly feel as though I must have.
In article <20000101225618...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
RCHERIN
Thanks for proving my point, Keith. Hey, Beth has connections in the health
care business. Maybe she can help arrange an operation that can both remove
the steel rod up your ass and at the same time install a sense of humor.
That steel rod up his ass is your tongue.
Thinggfish
>crucial? I certainly feel as though I must have.
>
The crucial part you missed is where Pbrain got dropped on her head as a child
sbril...@my-deja.com
done with her old buddy Jim.
In article <20000102082549...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
WriteBeth
Hey, I'm flattered you took the time to find out something about me, though
your information is outdated.
Um, what was it you were saying about the need to get a life?
Beth
