It seems to me that when translating into Esperanto a work of fiction of the more entertaining variety than 'granda literaturo', the important thing is not to try and faithfully render the style of the original, but to translate in such a way that the reader is transported into the fictional world of the book without any tortuous decoding of meaning.

In other words vividness of imagery is paramount.

Now consider the following sentences.

Ĉu vi audis, ke Maria edziniĝis?
Ĉu vi aŭdis Maria edziniĝi?

They evoke two quite different images, don't they?

So my question is, what is your reaction to the following sentence taken from a recent translation of 'Maigret kaj la maljuna damo'?

Oni aŭdis, ke Castaing haltigis sian motoron, elaŭtiĝis, restis momenton sur la vojo, antaŭ ol ŝovi la pordon, kaj Maigret daŭre restis silenta

Now setting aside the fact that the vojo in question is a road (not a path, or track), and the pordo is actually a entrance to a garden (barrière in French), and that Maigret's saying nothing is simultaneous and not sequential - all of which already fails to conjure an accurate picture in the mind - does the 'ke' construction seems right?

It wouldn't have been at all difficult to reframe this sentence in a way which immediately evokes for the reader a more vivid and specific picture of what is going on.

That this may depart from the original seems really unimportant, in comparison.

I've read somewhere that only about 25% of all Esperanto fictional translations are satisfactory/highly readable.

My own reading experience would suggest that this might be the case. I think it results from translators not getting their efforts edited before publication - which would naturally happen in national language publishing houses.

Actually, some of the best translations I have read have been cooperative efforts between translators, and this model seems particularly appropriate for Esperanto which is nobody's first language.

Before the internet and computers getting any translation cross-checked might have been cumbersome. But nowadays there's no excuse for not getting stuff vetted by a number of Esperantists with different backgrounds, and mother tongues.

sudanglo:So my question is, what is your reaction to the following sentence taken from a recent translation of 'Maigret kaj la maljuna damo'?

Oni aŭdis, ke Castaing haltigis sian motoron, elaŭtiĝis, restis momenton sur la vojo, antaŭ ol ŝovi la pordon, kaj Maigret daŭre restis silenta

Now setting aside the fact that the vojo in question is a road (not a path, or track), and the pordo is actually a entrance to a garden (barrière in French), and that Maigret's saying nothing is simultaneous and not sequential - all of which already fails to conjure an accurate picture in the mind - does the 'ke' construction seems right?

If my French was much better, then I'd like to compare it with the original version.

Perhaps the paragraph would be better if the present tense was used in the ke-clause...

"Oni aŭdis, ke Castaing haltigas sian aŭton..." etc.

I think Chainy that the translator might have decided that you can't hear someone directly stopping a moment before X-ing , or switching off the ignition, and for this a 'ke' clause might be appropriate. This then perhaps influenced his whole sentence structure.

But, of course, one wants to get across the idea of the sounds of Castaing's arrival immediately, in order to transport the reader into the situation.

For my money beginning with 'aŭdis, ke' doesn't do that.

It's a bit of mystery since the original French uses aŭdi + infinitive - on entendait Castaing arrêter.. descendre .. rester - which could have been directly translated.

However, I might have gone for starting with 'Oni aŭdis Castaing alveni en sia aŭto' to paint the picture from the word go.

There's a good guidebook on Esperanto style by F. Faulhaber, Ne tiel, sed tiel ĉi! It's in the EAB catalogue as well. It's cheap by the standard of Esperanto books generally. I don't know whether there's a downloadable version somewhere.

sudanglo:However, I might have gone for starting with 'Oni aŭdis Castaing alveni en sia aŭto' to paint the picture from the word go.

Your suggestion seems to be a good one for a short sentence, but in this particular case the connection between "Oni aŭdis Castaing" and the subsequent i-verbs would get rather stretched:

"Oni aŭdis Castaing haltigi sian motoron, elaŭtiĝi, resti momenton sur la vojo, antaŭ ol ŝovi la pordon..."

And then the part about Maigret would seem to be particularly problematic following this method of translation.

Could you post the full sentence in French anyway? It seems like a very long-winded sentence, one that would be rather tricky to translate into English as well.

haltigis sian motoron is certainly wrong. I guess that Castaing doesn't have an engine. Also oni ne haltigas motoron, sed la aŭton.
I would write:

:
Oni aŭdis Castaing alveni, li haltigis sian aŭton, elaŭtiĝis, restis dum momento sur la vojo, antaŭ ol malfermi la pordon, kaj Maigret dume restis silenta

Well Chainy, my general point is that in translating a work of fiction destined for entertaining reading, one doesn't have to translate sentence by sentence.

There's no good reason why one shouldn't break a long sentence into separate sentences, or 'improve' on the original by adding extra details.

Reading further on, it's clear that the situation is that there are several people in the house who have heard Castaing's arrival.

I could add detail to intensify the aural effect, to orientate the reader, and build tension.

De interne de la domo, oni aŭdis lian alvenon. La motoro eksilentis. Tiam, post elaŭtiĝo, Castaing ŝajnis resti dum kelka tempo sur la vojo, antaŭ ol puŝi kontraŭ la barila pordo de la ĝardeno. Dum ĉio ĉi, Maigret diris nenion.

I felt it amusing to try to improve the Esperanto style, without knowing the French.

My guess, without reading the original, is that Maigret is in the house in an unpaved street, with the people that are awaiting Castaing. I used ili on the basis that mentioning his silence would make little sense, unless there were other people present.

En la domo ili aŭdis lian alvenon. Castaing haltigis sian motoron kaj elaŭtiĝis. Li staris sur la vojo dum momento, antaŭ ol li ŝovis la pordon. Dume, Maigret restis silenta.

That's the point Miland.

Any Esperanto translation can be hawked around before publication to be polished up - made more readable, more coherent - without any of the revisers knowing the language of the original.

In fact, not knowing the original version, and therefore not being subject to the distortions that this may impose, may make one more sensitive to any deficiencies in Esperanto style.

horsto:haltigis sian motoron is certainly wrong. I guess that Castaing doesn't have an engine. Also oni ne haltigas motoron, sed la aŭton.

This seems over-pedantic to me.

As the car belongs to Castaing, any part of it - including the engine - also belongs to Castaing, doesn’t it? So it’s certainly not wrong to call it Castaing’s engine.

Haltigi means, according to ReVo, "ĉesigi agi, iri, moviĝi", and I think that this definition allows very well for haltigi motoron.