translation and origin of this phrase
tewo
looking for the origin and exact phrase: tradutore, tradittore (
"Übersetzer, Verräter")
Aaron Curtiss
tewo wrote in message <01bda2e1$92e58aa0$0100000a@wolfgang>...
>looking for the origin and exact phrase: tradutore, tradittore (
>"Übersetzer, Verräter")
It's actually "traduttore, traditore", but I'm afraid I don't know the
origin of the phrase. Hopefully someone else does, because I'd be interested
to hear it, too.
Aaron Curtiss
Italian-English
Aaron Curtiss
Sorry, it just occurred to me that you needed an English translation of
"traduttore, traditore": "translator, traitor".
Luciano D.
TRADUTTORE TRADITORE
it's definitely Italian. It means that when you translate anything you cannot
but "betray" (tradire) the original meaning.
In other worlds: "literal translation does not exist".
Luciano D. - Szeged
La.P...@la.perla.deltav.hu
To reply, remove dot from @la.perla
tewo ha scritto nel messaggio <01bda2e1$92e58aa0$0100000a@wolfgang>...
Hildegard Sutter
In Article #30617, Luciano D. said:
> TRADUTTORE TRADITORE
>
> it's definitely Italian. It means that when you translate
> anything you cannot but "betray" (tradire) the original meaning.
>
> In other worlds: "literal translation does not exist".
That's interesting. I always thought it means that the
translator may have to betray either the source or the
target. And the phrase usually comes up in connection
with the old question: Should the translator be faithful
to the source or the target?
Still, can anyone think of the origin of the phrase?
I believe someone quite famous in translation theory first
said it, but I can't remember who it was.
hs
John Woodgate
In article <6naat4$s0c$1...@pollux.matav.net>, Luciano D.
<La.P...@la.perla.deltav.hu> writes
>TRADUTTORE TRADITORE
>
>it's definitely Italian. It means that when you translate anything you cannot
>but "betray" (tradire) the original meaning.
>
>In other worlds: "literal translation does not exist".
No, not 'literal', which is translation of words without regard to
idiom. 'Absolutely accurate translation does not exist', but then
'absolutely accurate' anything does not exist.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
OOO - Own Opinions Only. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but
you can't please some of the people any of the time.
Sh.mandrake
Hi Hildegard,
>That's interesting. I always thought it means that the
>translator may have to betray either the source or the
>target. And the phrase usually comes up in connection
>with the old question: Should the translator be faithful
>to the source or the target?
It seems to me that the only thing a translator can be faithful to is the source.
How could (s)he be faithful to the target??
Regards,
Le Magicien.
=====================================
Le délire du jour :
"To be is to do" - Descartes.
"To do is to be" - Sartres.
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra.
=====================================
To reply by E-mail, please remove "NoSpam." from the address:-)
John Woodgate
In article <6ngdvm$p47$1...@front6.grolier.fr>, Sh.mandrake
<mand...@NoSpam.club-internet.fr> writes
>It seems to me that the only thing a translator can be faithful to is the
>source.
>How could (s)he be faithful to the target??
By not settling for 'English as she is spoke', for example, if English
is the target.
Hildegard Sutter
Salut, Magicien!
>> ...the old question: Should the translator be faithful
>> to the source or the target?
> It seems to me that the only thing a translator can be faithful
> to is the source.
> How could (s)he be faithful to the target??
You are right--wrong word. I should have said '_favour_. And
I was thinking of literary translations and the like--not just
meaning, but style, diction and so on.
One example would be Luther's bible translation into German: he
deliberately sacrificed the beauty of the sources for his own
purpose in the target. The RC also rebuked him for changing
meaning--in some parts. Or your own film title translations...
But I am not sure anymore if you can put it like that--logically.
You got me rattled. :)
regards,
hildegard
Hen Hanna
On Tuesday, June 30, 1998 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Hildegard Sutter wrote:
> In Article #30617, Luciano D. said:
>
> >
> > it's definitely Italian. It means that when you translate
> > anything you cannot but "betray" (tradire) the original meaning.
> >
> > In other worlds: "literal translation does not exist".
>
> translator may have to betray either the source or the
> target. And the phrase usually comes up in connection
>
> I believe someone quite famous in translation theory first
> said it, but I can't remember who it was.
>
> hs
the origin of the phrase. HH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untranslatability
Similarly, consider the Italian adage "traduttore, traditore": a literal translation is "translator, traitor". The pun is lost, though the meaning persists. (A similar solution can be given, however, in Hungarian, by saying a fordítás: ferdítés, which roughly translates as "translation is distortion".)
That being said, many of the translation procedures discussed here can be used in these cases. For example, the translator can compensate for an "untranslatable" pun in one part of a text by adding a new pun in another part of the translated text.