I remember a few months ago we discussed Chief Seattle's speech and how its legitimacy was questionable since it was translated first into a different Native American language and then into English. Well, over the past few months of translating Latin, I've come to the decision that Seattle's speech as we know it is all but useless in understanding what he actually meant. Why? Because even in translating from Latin to English, Western languages with the same alphabet and other large similarities, huge gaps in understanding emerge. (e.g. "Theseus himself chose to put forward his own body for the dear Athenians, rather than such deaths of Athenians not dead bodies be brought to Crete" -translated from Catullus 64) Half the time, I can barely understand what the translation means and the other half the time the translation is very awkwardly worded.
Now, if going from Latin to English creates this many misunderstandings, I can only wonder what going from a Native American language to English does to a work. And on top of this, Seattle's speech was also first translated to a different Native American language before being translated to English. So, in the end, I must admit that I've lost all faith in our English version of Chief Seattle's speech and that I feel it can hardly be treated as a trustworthy historical work.
-Bryce C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree. Awkward phrases are an unavoidable result of translating from one language to another. In order to avoid these awkward phrases and allow us to understand it, many words have to be added or changed. This doesn't help very much and I still feel like I lost much of Catullus' meaning. Seattle's speech was written very eloquently, so there must have been a lot of revision since things are not said in the same way in his language. All this editing loses the meaning of the speeck. I think it could not be close to his original speech.
ReplyDelete~Becca
While I definitely agree that awkward phrasing results from translation, I don't think the fact that the speech was translated should cause it to be completely disregarded as a historical work. The tone and eloquent writing, as Becca said, could be a result of re-writing, but I find it hard to believe that the entire point of the original speech could be lost or changed. The overall meaning should still be the same.
ReplyDelete-Alexa
Since the translator of the speech was British, nobody knows if the translator just fixed the awkward phrases or rewrote the speech in a different tone. Because of the possibility of bias in translating this speech to English, I would say that the translated essay does not have much value as a historical work.
ReplyDelete-Joanne
I have to agree with Alexa in saying that the speech can't be totally disregarded. As long as the overall message remains unchanged, it still gives a sense of the events of the time. While it certainly wouldn't be considered as one of the better pieces of information out there, it still has merit.
ReplyDelete-Tara
I think that historically, the translation has some merit because it captured the general gist, but as a work of literature, it doesn't have merit, since the speech didn't have the specifics of what Chief Seattle said, only the extrapolated interpretation of a translator. My aunt and my mom were talking a couple weeks ago about how they listen to opera. My aunt listens to Italian operas in Italian even though she can't understand it, but my mom says she has to listen to the opera in English so she can understand what they're saying. I think that the English opera has functional merit, because it has the general gist of the plot, but the English version can't capture the beauty of the Italian language that the original author intended.
ReplyDelete-- tori
This is probably a little late in the game, but I have a bit of an analogy. This reminds me of, in a way, the two ways a foreign film or show is translated for viewing in America. They can either be subtitled, or re-dubbed (the work is translated and voice actors are hired to replace the original speakers. Now, in the anime fandom,there is a controversy over which is 'better.' People who prefer to watch re-dubbed anime argue it is hard to enjoy the animation and watch the subtitles. People who prefer subtitles argue that you loose the flavor of the original work with re-dubbs and that the original Japanese voice actors tend to be better anyway. One thing about 'subs' as they are called, is that the translation tends to be better. This is because people can catch the translation inaccuracies and hassle the companies about them. Re-dubbs, on the other hand, have been known to get entirely new plots when brought over to the U.S.
ReplyDeleteBack to Chief Seattle, I think that while the translation has some merit, it can't be totally trusted because we don't have the original to compare it against. With Latin works at least, we can check a translation against the original piece. The English might not have the whole meaning, but we can combine it with our understanding of the original.
-Melissa