I'm continuing to teach myself Esperanto, albeit rather slowly. For practice, I want to start attempting to translate short documents (or extracts) into Esperanto. I decided on some 19th century English language material by or about Judaism. The source documents I've selected, as one might expect, contain incidental amounts of transliterated Hebrew, and a good deal of Jewish idiom. I was inspired along these lines, I think, by getting forwarded a Haggadah [a manual of service, for Passover] in Esperanto!

When translating these short documents into Esperanto, I want to preserve the Hebrew/Yiddish transliterations, and as many of the Jewish idioms as it makes sense to retain as well.

Is there a convention on how to handle non-Esperanto words transliterated into Esperanto? In English, for example, such words are often rendered in italics to make clear the word/phrase is not in English. Does Esperanto expect the same?

A specific usage example: if I were to encounter the phrase "sitting shiva" [a 7 day period of mourning for the dead] would "sidi ŝiva" work? I should note, I do intend to include explanatory footnotes where it makes sense to do so.

I'd love to get feedback on this.

Unless you actually speak Hebrew and know what the idioms are, I would really avoid using expressions like "sidi ŝiva". I personally think that in technical literature or specialised literature for a certain topic (like Jewish texts) it's ok to preserve a certain number of terms that are likely to be understood the world over by the community that cares about that topic. For an example in another field, I would certainly speak of a "Facebook-profilo" and not a "fejsbuka profilo".

As for terms like sitting shiva, in personal usage I could see myself using terms like "sidi ŝivon". But if I were writing a document I'd hold myself to a higher standard, and I would probably only use "sidi ŝivon" as a last resort, if I could think of absolutely no other word to describe this. Perhaps "observi ŝivon" (to observe the laws of shiva) would be that more descriptive term.

But you get the idea. I would preferably try your hardest to find a less idiomatic term before resorting to an idiom. Saying "to observe shiva" requires explaining to the reader just one word (shiva). Saying "to sit shiva" requires explaining the word "shiva", plus explaining the concept of sitting, so it doubles the required number of explanations. Ask yourself, "does the use of this word increase or decrease the amount of explanation I will need to give? And could I choose a different word to decrease the amount of explanation I need to give?"

Observing shiva probably decreases explanation. But using "traditional period of Jewish mourning" instead of "shiva" would probably lead to a very wordy document. So these are the kinds of questions you'll need to ask yourself when you translate. And then after the translation, perhaps have a person who knows the topic read it over (for correctness of translation), and also a person who doesn't know the topic (for clarity of explanations).

Though the vast majority of my translation experience involves Spanish, the principal translation concepts are the same with all languages. You want the target-language translation to read as though it were originally written in the target language, faithfully preserving both the spirit and the intent of the original. If the original document is replete with Hebraisms or Yiddish-derived expressions, then it was clearly intended for Jewish audiences. As a translator, your challenge is to create a rendition of that document that maintains that focus.

With that in mind, I would definitely keep the Hebrew/Yiddish-derived content in place (albeit in italic letters) with Esperanto-language explanations in parentheses. A good rule-of-thumb is this: if the foreign derived content was inserted into an English-language document (or whatever language you're translating from), then keep it intact--it was supposed to be there.

You have a little leeway with adding explanations because some words from foreign sources have worked their way into common parlance in some languages, but not in others. But remember that a translation is not an encyclopedia. You do not need copious amounts of explanatory documentation. Just a few words (I.E. sidi sxivon (tradicia Juda ritaro pri funebrado) to either sum up the meaning or define the words (depending on what is appropriate given your context) is all that I would put in. Again, it's not up to you to change the material content of the original, and if an ample explanation wasn't included by the original writer, then it's simply not there.

If some expression "rides the rail" and could go either way, and you're not clear about whether or not you should add an explanatory note, then I'd add one anyway to be on the safe side. That doesn't hurt anything. For example, if someone were translating a document into English that discussed Hispanic food, writing arroz con pollo (chicken with rice) would be a better choice than using either expression alone. The content and "flavor" of the original have not been changed, and the intent was preserved. By the same token, a short explanatory note that unobtrusively recaps an originally-added foreign expression should work for your situation as well, it seems.

erinja:Unless you actually speak Hebrew and know what the idioms are, I would really avoid using expressions like "sidi ŝiva".

I'd agree simply because I thought it was referring to Shiva .

"Now sit, Shiva. Ok, you're being a very good god of destruction today, aren't you?" *destruction is then unleashed and ensues*

What I don't understand is why "sidi" becomes transitive. Why not "sidi sxive/sxivae" aux "sidi laux la rito sxiva " ?

Altebrilas:What I don't understand is why "sidi" becomes transitive. Why not "sidi ŝive/ŝivae" aŭ "sidi laŭ la rito ŝiva " ?

I don't think it's because "ŝivon" is the object of sidi, but due to the omission of the preposition. You could say "sidi je ŝivo" and have the same result. But I also think that "sidi ŝive" sounds fine as well (possibly better).