Meddelelser: 21
Sprog: English
Mike (Vise profilen) 6. dec. 2015 08.54.12
Being a long time fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs, I was going to try "A Princess of Mars" next, which has long been available freely on the usual download sites. Just for the heck of it, I took a look on Amazon, and found that they are offering (in dead tree format) translations of both "Princess" and the first Tarzan novel as well (along with a few other "new" translations, previously unknown to me).
The translation of "Princess" is substantially different from the well-known one (which has been around since around 1920, I believe). The "Tarzan" translation is also different from any previous work I've seen (Don Harlow had worked on various sections of that novel before his passing, and again, this "newly-discovered" work differs from Harlow's).
Who is turning out these translations? Is anyone here (someone with some true fluency, I hope) able to say anything positive or negative about these books?
Here are links to a few (Gee, I hope we're allowed to post links here):
http://www.amazon.com/Princino-Marso-Princess-Mars...
http://www.amazon.com/Tarzan-Simioj-Apes-Esperanto...
http://www.amazon.com/Lando-Tiam-Forgesis-Forgot-E...
And btw, why can't E-USA or UEA work with Amazon to keep more works (both original or translations) "in print" via Kindle? Or am I asking a question which has been asked many times before?
Evildela (Vise profilen) 6. dec. 2015 13.07.02
erinja (Vise profilen) 6. dec. 2015 13.31.19
delsydebothom (Vise profilen) 6. dec. 2015 16.21.13
Evildela:The first one (because I didn't check the others) is a poor computer translation. This is a type of scam where someone uses machine translation to translate books in the hope that others learning that language will purchase the book.That's disheartening. I wonder if something might be done copyright wise. Even if the work is in the public domain, the software used to translate it might not be. If the translation software produces a result that can be traced back to copyrighted code, where does that lead us? Is there some legal course of action we could petition the software owner to pursue? I'm somewhat wary about overreaching copyright law myself, but in this instance maybe there's some way to make it work in favor of the common good, as it ought to.
Sfinkso (Vise profilen) 6. dec. 2015 16.23.54
00100100 (Vise profilen) 6. dec. 2015 18.19.25
delsydebothom: If the translation software produces a result that can be traced back to copyrighted code, where does that lead us? Is there some legal course of action we could petition the software owner to pursue? I'm somewhat wary about overreaching copyright law myself, but in this instance maybe there's some way to make it work in favor of the common good, as it ought to.Full rant mode: This is a horrible idea. Are you really suggesting that you should give Google, Apple, or Microsoft rights to something you produced because you used one of their tools? Did we ever give the copyright of a photo to Kodak because they produced the film? No. Did we ever give the copyright of a novel to Smith Corona because they produced the typewriter. No.
But, for some reason, adding the words "on a computer" seems to make many government offices go totally stupid and I would not put it past them to do something this wrong given enough "suggestions" that it's the right thing to do.
Now, on to the real question. What can you do about the bad translation?
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, you aren't a lawyer, and nobody on this website is your lawyer. If you really care about this, see a lawyer.
Depending on where you live, you would want to use some form of a "Fit to purpose" law. (It's a British term, I believe, and I have no idea what the American equivalent would be.) Basically speaking, if you bought a translation, it has to be fit to the purpose of being readable. Since the machine translation isn't, you should be able to demand a refund. In addition, if you paid with a credit card (which is likely), the Fair Credit Billing Act (USA) may allow for a credit card chargeback if the product is defective. But that only works if it's defective...so you might have to fight to prove the translation is, in fact, defective. Did I mention that I'm not a lawyer...
delsydebothom (Vise profilen) 6. dec. 2015 19.38.31
Full rant mode: This is a horrible idea. Are you really suggesting that you should give Google, Apple, or Microsoft rights to something you produced because you used one of their tools?No. I wasn't suggesting anything as such. I was wondering out loud. If what was I was wondering about is a bad idea--which may be the case--I would not want to see it realized. Maybe if I thought about it long enough, I'd conclude to myself that the idea is, as you say, horrible. Still, debating one's own self is a slow process, and the evidence one has to ponder is limited to one's own experiences. So if I don't know whether something is a good idea or not, I'll posit it inquisitively, hoping that someone who knows more than I can improve my mind.
Did we ever give the copyright of a photo to Kodak because they produced the film? No. Did we ever give the copyright of a novel to Smith Corona because they produced the typewriter. No.That's true, and certainly relevant. To find out if the analogy is apt, though, wouldn't one need to consider the various "whys" for both instances? Afterward, would it not be best to see whether the reasons are also applicable to the output of a translator?
But, for some reason, adding the words "on a computer" seems to make many government offices go totally stupid and I would not put it past them to do something this wrong given enough "suggestions" that it's the right thing to do.True enough. This brings to mind the circus of wanton madness that surrounded video game copyrights in their early days, at least in the United States.
Depending on where you live, you would want to use some form of a "Fit to purpose" law. (It's a British term, I believe, and I have no idea what the American equivalent would be.) Basically speaking, if you bought a translation, it has to be fit to the purpose of being readable. Since the machine translation isn't, you should be able to demand a refund. In addition, if you paid with a credit card (which is likely), the Fair Credit Billing Act (USA) may allow for a credit card chargeback if the product is defective. But that only works if it's defective...so you might have to fight to prove the translation is, in fact, defective. Did I mention that I'm not a lawyer...Aye, that could get sticky. For a rank beginner like me, if I was trying to read a bad translation, and encountered something that didn't make sense, I'd assume I was at fault. Printed translations have typically enjoyed a presumption of quality that may now be uncalled for. Still, had I no access to a forum of this kind, it would likely me days of studying a grammar before I would feel right in telling myself, "This is wrongly done."
sudanglo (Vise profilen) 7. dec. 2015 10.18.11
However some translators you may never have heard of have produced very readable translations, and it would be a mistake to assume that early translations of classical works are necessarily not as good as later ones.
The early 1900's translation of Christmas Carol is excellent. I'll try and find the link for you - here it is
Miland (Vise profilen) 7. dec. 2015 10.46.57
Paul Gubbins, Star in a night sky
William Auld, La Ĉashundo de la Baskerviloj
Kalman Kalocsay, La Tempesto
Mike (Vise profilen) 9. dec. 2015 01.58.41
The (apparently) "good" translation of "Princess of Mars" is available at www.omnibus.se/inko, and was done many years ago, with the language having been "freshened up" recently.
The Oz books were all translated by Donald Broadribb, so he's ok for sure.
Eventually, I'll work my way up to more adult books, and original Esperanto works...someday...