Two passages for translation into Esperanto - about the problems of translation itself. (From the introduction to the NEB New Testament)

(a) "A word, indeed, in one language is seldom the exact equivalent of a word in a different language. Each word is the centre of a whole cluster of meanings and associations, and in different languages these clusters overlap but do not often coincide. The place of a word in the clause or sentence, or even in a larger unit of thought, will determine what aspect of its total meaning is in the foreground. The translator can hardly hope to convey in another language every shade of meaning that attaches to the word in the original, but if he is free to exploit a wide range of English words covering a similar area of meaning and association he may hope to carry over the meaning of the sentence as a whole."

(c) "The translators are as conscious as anyone can be of the limitations and imperfections of their work. No one who has not tried it can know how impossible an art translation is. Only those who have meditated long upon the Greek original are aware of the richness and subtlety of meaning that may lie even within the most apparently simple sentence, or know the despair that attends all efforts to bring it out through the medium of a different language."

And this is one of the reasons I so enjoy learning other languages, including Esperanto - it really does open your mind to new and different ways of seeing the world around you.

Saluton, I was hoping to see a forum for Esperanto beginners. My Esperanto lessons are enjoyable and I hope to finish them soon, so I can find the chats and audio chats to practice the langauge. Today, I notice a couple of curious things. I thought the idea in Esperanto was to keep things simple. Well, it seems part of that is to have some regularity. In the children's lessons I noticed that there were alternate spellings for father and mother which were taught to me as patro and patrino. I feel like "home language" should be part of teaching the language or Esperanto could become just as confusing as any other language. I mean I don't mean to put the author down or make anyone think I want senseless sensorship, but isn't that a basic common sense idea to keep Esperanto understandable to everyone? Then, I noticed that a "la" for the was not included in one sentence. Since Russians don't use articles like others do in their languages and I guess other languages omit it in their like way, I suppose the use of articles is not so easily understood. Could someone make a rule about either omiting or keeping a standard as that could be confusing too? How do the Esperanto experts decide when to formally adopt a new word into the standard Esperanto dictionary and could someone explain the big difference between Esperanto and AIS? I hope that Esperanto is not going to divide and multiply creating a new tower of Bable.

klnptrs78:In the children's lessons I noticed that there were alternate spellings for father and mother which were taught to me as patro and patrino.

Wasn't panjo and pacxjo (mom and dad), was it? Those sound like the kind of words you'd teach kids. Also, better put your questions in another thread, this one is supposed to be specifically about translation.

Hi Kaylene.

You have made several questions. In this message I'll address one of them. Surely other members of the forum will answer the rest of them.

You want to know when to use the article and when not to use it. Do you want a simple rule of thumb, or a more "serious" explanation?

In case you want the former, omission of the article in Esperanto is like using "a" or "an" in English. So, if you would say "a cat" in English, you say "kato" in Esperanto. If you would say "the cat" in English, you say "la kato" in Esperanto.

A more "serious" explanation would be that sometimes one wants to point out the precise identity of the being or beings meant by the noun, while in other cases one simply wants to express that you are referring to one or more beings of that class, their precise identity not being important.

Then, "kato" means "iu kato" (a cat), while "la kato" (the cat) means "tiu kato pri kiu ni parolas" (that cat we are talking about).

Mind you, the comparison with English (or with any other natural languages) not always works well, but in this case I think it is a reasonably good guide.

Regards,

Daniel

PS: I love Esperanto and cats.

klnptrs78: Saluton, I was hoping to see a forum for Esperanto beginners. My Esperanto lessons are enjoyable and I hope to finish them soon, so I can find the chats and audio chats to practice the langauge. Today, I notice a couple of curious things. I thought the idea in Esperanto was to keep things simple. Well, it seems part of that is to have some regularity. In the children's lessons I noticed that there were alternate spellings for father and mother which were taught to me as patro and patrino. I feel like "home language" should be part of teaching the language or Esperanto could become just as confusing as any other language. I mean I don't mean to put the author down or make anyone think I want senseless sensorship, but isn't that a basic common sense idea to keep Esperanto understandable to everyone? Then, I noticed that a "la" for the was not included in one sentence. Since Russians don't use articles like others do in their languages and I guess other languages omit it in their like way, I suppose the use of articles is not so easily understood. Could someone make a rule about either omiting or keeping a standard as that could be confusing too? How do the Esperanto experts decide when to formally adopt a new word into the standard Esperanto dictionary and could someone explain the big difference between Esperanto and AIS? I hope that Esperanto is not going to divide and multiply creating a new tower of Bable.

The purpose of this thread has been misunderstood. It is to translate the two passages (a) and (b) that I quoted, into Esperanto. People who wish to write to beginners and answer general questions privately, on in a thread set up for them, are welcome to do so, but I ask that we keep on topic here.

Kaylene, there is no set level in the English Forum.

Some of the discussions can be rather esoteric, but this doesn't mean that you can't ask basic questions about the language.

Not all the answers will be what you are looking for but some will be spot on topic.

OK, Miland, here's my effort (which I'm not entirely sure of, but since no one else has tried I figured I'd give it a go) -

Miland:(a) "A word, indeed, in one language is seldom the exact equivalent of a word in a different language. Each word is the centre of a whole cluster of meanings and associations, and in different languages these clusters overlap but do not often coincide. The place of a word in the clause or sentence, or even in a larger unit of thought, will determine what aspect of its total meaning is in the foreground. The translator can hardly hope to convey in another language every shade of meaning that attaches to the word in the original, but if he is free to exploit a wide range of English words covering a similar area of meaning and association he may hope to carry over the meaning of the sentence as a whole."

(c) "The translators are as conscious as anyone can be of the limitations and imperfections of their work. No one who has not tried it can know how impossible an art translation is. Only those who have meditated long upon the Greek original are aware of the richness and subtlety of meaning that may lie even within the most apparently simple sentence, or know the despair that attends all efforts to bring it out through the medium of a different language."

(a)Vorto, ja, en unu lingvo malofte estas preciza ekvivalento de vorto en malsama lingvo. Ĉiu vorto estas la centro de tuta fasko de signifoj kaj kunligoj, kaj en malsamaj lingvoj tiuj faskoj parte sed ne komplete kongruas. La vortpozicio en la klaŭzo aŭ en la frazo, aŭ eĉ en pli granda penso-unito, difinos la aspekto de ĝia totala signifo kiu antaŭstaros. La tradukisto apenaŭ povas esperi alialingve eligi ĉiujn nuancojn fiksitajn al la originala vorto; tamen se li liberas ekspluati vastan sortimenton de anglaj vortoj, kiuj tegas similan atingopovon de signifeco kaj de kunligeco, li eblas esperi transdoni la signifo de la tuta frazo en si.

(c)Tradukistoj konscias tiom, kiom iu eblas konscii la limigojn kaj la mankojn de sia verko. Neniu kiu ne penis traduki povas rekoni kiagrade ĝi estas neebla arto. Nur tiuj, kiuj longtempe meditadis pri la greka originalo konsciadas la riĉecon kaj la subtilaĵojn de signifeco kiujn eblas kuŝi eĉ enen la evidente plej simpla frazo, aŭ konas la malesperon kiu ĉeestas tutan klopodon eligi ilin per malsama lingvo.

How's that?

UUano:OK, Miland, here's my effort (which I'm not entirely sure of, but since no one else has tried I figured I'd give it a go) -

(a)Vorto, ja, en unu lingvo malofte estas preciza ekvivalento de vorto en malsama lingvo...

(b)Tradukistoj konscias tiom, kiom iu eblas konscii ..

How's that?

First of all, full marks for diligence! On the whole, I think you've done very well. Here's a few comments. They are only one opinion.

(a) You could use interkovriĝas for "overlap", but I also think that your parte sed ne komplete gets at the meaning very nicely. I would use subfrazo instead of klaŭzo which is a legal term. "Unit" is unuo. "Determine" is determini or maybe decidi. "Total" is tuta. Esperi should be esprimi, I'm sure that was just a slip; with it, you don't need eligi. Alilingve doesn't need a in the middle. I might use gamo for range, since sortimento suggests mixture. Instead of tegas similan atingopovon de signifeco kaj de kunligeco, I might use enhavas (or ampleksas) similan kampon de signifoj (kaj kunligoj). I might put the last bit komuniki la signifon de la frazo entute.

(b) For clarity, I would use the preposition instead of the accusative: pri la limoj kaj mankojn en sia verko. Your second sentence is not wrong, but I won't comment on it for now*. For konsciadas I would suggest konscias pri, and for subtilaĵojn, subtileco; kiuj doesn't have an accusative. Enen should be simply en. "Apparently" means "on the surface" here, so I would put this la plej ŝajne simpla frazo. Ĉe-estas should be akompanas with la afterwards.

* It will be worthwhile to study how other people try to translate it. But here's one suggestion:
Neniu, kiu ne provis tion povas scii kiel malfacil(eg)a arta (or beletra) traduko estas

Tangential I know, but I love the NEB New Testament! The NEB is one of the very few English translations of the Bible that is actually done the same way as other books are done--everything isn't made to fit "colloquial English" or "seventh-grade level English", while at the same time not being too archaic or literal/wooden.

I wonder if someone will eventually do a similar Esperanto translation, though I'm sure the need isn't as great because of Esperanto's greater acceptance of calques and foreign idioms (as long as they make some sort of logical sense).