Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Other Professor

Expand Messages
  • yuvalhol
    My job as a translator to make my translation as close as possible to the original. No translator will knowingly ignore such a big aspect of the translated
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 21, 2011
      My job as a translator to make my translation as close as possible to the original. No translator will knowingly ignore such a big aspect of the translated text. And I'm not so sure I agree that it mars the books so. Also, there are some references to his idiolect whithin the books - What whould you have me do then?
      I don't want the boy's idiolect to overshadow the plot, but I have to give it a place in my translasion, out of respect for the original, and the essence of the translating art.

      But, again, getting back to the point - What do you know about the other professor?



      --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
      >
      > On 21 Sep 2011, at 19:44, yuvalhol wrote:
      >
      > > For Bruno, You mean? I do struggle with translating the boy's idiolect.
      >
      > Don't. Carroll's use of "baby-talk" is one of the things that mars the book quite distinctly.
      >
      > > Seeing that there is at least one other Hebrew speaker in our midst, I'd love to here suggestions for coping with this cunundrum. I'd have asked sooner, if I'd known I could possibly find help of that kind.
      >
      > My recommendation: Proceed as though the "baby-talk" were not there.
      >
      > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
      >
    • Michael Everson
      ... Sure, but there are things which can and cannot be translated. ... Well, I am preparing a new edition of both Sylvie and Bruno books, and one of the things
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 22, 2011
        On 22 Sep 2011, at 05:17, yuvalhol wrote:

        > My job as a translator to make my translation as close as possible to the original.

        Sure, but there are things which can and cannot be translated.

        > No translator will knowingly ignore such a big aspect of the translated text.

        Well, I am preparing a new edition of both Sylvie and Bruno books, and one of the things I am doing -- with the blessing of many notable Carrollians -- is doing what someone should have done in the 19th century: editing that nonsense out because it ruins the book. In the first place, it doesn't sound like the talk of any toddler I ever met. In the second, it isn't cute. In the third, it just gets in the way of the plot and dialogue, because it has to be deciphered.

        Some people will not like my edition. That's fine. They can read someone else's. But Carroll, in this matter, needed an editor. His choice to use an unconvincing "baby-talk" was a poor one.

        Naturally I shall discuss all of this in my preface to the book.

        > And I'm not so sure I agree that it mars the books so. Also, there are some references to his idiolect whithin the books - What whould you have me do then?

        Deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

        > I don't want the boy's idiolect to overshadow the plot, but I have to give it a place in my translasion, out of respect for the original, and the essence of the translating art.

        Well, do what you like. But if you do use some sort of Hebrew "baby-talk" I hope it is in some way authentic.

        Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
      • yuvalhol
        We ll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, I d love to read the edition you re working on - maybe it ll change my mind. Now, can we finally get back to my
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 22, 2011
          We'll just have to agree to disagree.
          Anyway, I'd love to read the edition you're working on - maybe it'll change my mind.

          Now, can we finally get back to my original question? Is there a hidden meaning to the other professor? What is the deal with him?

          --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
          >
          > On 22 Sep 2011, at 05:17, yuvalhol wrote:
          >
          > > My job as a translator to make my translation as close as possible to the original.
          >
          > Sure, but there are things which can and cannot be translated.
          >
          > > No translator will knowingly ignore such a big aspect of the translated text.
          >
          > Well, I am preparing a new edition of both Sylvie and Bruno books, and one of the things I am doing -- with the blessing of many notable Carrollians -- is doing what someone should have done in the 19th century: editing that nonsense out because it ruins the book. In the first place, it doesn't sound like the talk of any toddler I ever met. In the second, it isn't cute. In the third, it just gets in the way of the plot and dialogue, because it has to be deciphered.
          >
          > Some people will not like my edition. That's fine. They can read someone else's. But Carroll, in this matter, needed an editor. His choice to use an unconvincing "baby-talk" was a poor one.
          >
          > Naturally I shall discuss all of this in my preface to the book.
          >
          > > And I'm not so sure I agree that it mars the books so. Also, there are some references to his idiolect whithin the books - What whould you have me do then?
          >
          > Deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
          >
          > > I don't want the boy's idiolect to overshadow the plot, but I have to give it a place in my translasion, out of respect for the original, and the essence of the translating art.
          >
          > Well, do what you like. But if you do use some sort of Hebrew "baby-talk" I hope it is in some way authentic.
          >
          > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
          >
        • John Tufail
          Hi. To a large extent I agree with you. Carroll, of course, was never married. He was completely devoid of the either the practicalities of infants or their
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 22, 2011
            Hi.
             
            To a large extent I agree with you.  Carroll, of course, was never married.  He was completely devoid of the either the practicalities of infants or their speech patterns.  he had to rely on the mushy literature of his day. 
             
            Nevertheless, i think his baby talk was making a point.  Rather than delete it completely, i think that you as a translator should at least attempt to replace it with an acceptable form of 'baby talk' as I think, Carroll was, however poorly attempting to make an imoratnat point - both in the development of language and of thought.
             
            Regards
             
            John Tufail
            On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
             

            On 22 Sep 2011, at 05:17, yuvalhol wrote:

            > My job as a translator to make my translation as close as possible to the original.

            Sure, but there are things which can and cannot be translated.

            > No translator will knowingly ignore such a big aspect of the translated text.

            Well, I am preparing a new edition of both Sylvie and Bruno books, and one of the things I am doing -- with the blessing of many notable Carrollians -- is doing what someone should have done in the 19th century: editing that nonsense out because it ruins the book. In the first place, it doesn't sound like the talk of any toddler I ever met. In the second, it isn't cute. In the third, it just gets in the way of the plot and dialogue, because it has to be deciphered.

            Some people will not like my edition. That's fine. They can read someone else's. But Carroll, in this matter, needed an editor. His choice to use an unconvincing "baby-talk" was a poor one.

            Naturally I shall discuss all of this in my preface to the book.

            > And I'm not so sure I agree that it mars the books so. Also, there are some references to his idiolect whithin the books - What whould you have me do then?

            Deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

            > I don't want the boy's idiolect to overshadow the plot, but I have to give it a place in my translasion, out of respect for the original, and the essence of the translating art.

            Well, do what you like. But if you do use some sort of Hebrew "baby-talk" I hope it is in some way authentic.

            Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/


          • mahendra373
            I must disagree with this proposed lessening of the baby-talk. Improving the baby talk is not quite translating, it s really adapting. Your reasons for doing
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 22, 2011
              I must disagree with this proposed lessening of the baby-talk.

              Improving the baby talk is not quite translating, it's really adapting. Your reasons for doing so are excellent, it's the worst part of the books but there's more to this than meets the eye.

              Many translators reach a moment of truth when they realize that they can easily improve a passage, both the sense and often the style. But where will it end? The attentive reader will begin to wonder about the rest of the text and maybe lose faith in you?

              It's the eternal dilemma of translation vs. betrayal.

              I think Jules Verne translated into English is a classic example of this. Translators who (sometimes) meant well took some considerable liberties with him and I'll admit that the speed and flow of his texts were improved at times. But the gentle neuroticism of accumulated details (and the occasional ugly racisms) are essential to the real Verne.

              best, Mahendra
            • John Tufail
              Hi Mahendra, Isn t translating adapting to a particular audience? Though I agree with your sentiment, I think that your rigour actually demands an annotated
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 22, 2011
                Hi Mahendra,
                 
                Isn't translating adapting to a particular audience?
                 
                Though I agree with your sentiment, I think that your rigour actually demands an annotated version of Sylvie and Bruno - a huge undertaking!
                 
                Let us agree that completely ignoring the baby-talk would mean huge mistake in any translation.
                Any translator would be obliged to understand the significance of the bay-talk and find some way of presenting it in a meaningful way
                .  Lewis Carroll was not an idiot.  he did not lose his senses when he used this baby talk medium. 
                 
                Regards
                 
                JT
                On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:43 AM, mahendra373 <mahendra373@...> wrote:
                 



                I must disagree with this proposed lessening of the baby-talk.

                Improving the baby talk is not quite translating, it's really adapting. Your reasons for doing so are excellent, it's the worst part of the books but there's more to this than meets the eye.

                Many translators reach a moment of truth when they realize that they can easily improve a passage, both the sense and often the style. But where will it end? The attentive reader will begin to wonder about the rest of the text and maybe lose faith in you?

                It's the eternal dilemma of translation vs. betrayal.

                I think Jules Verne translated into English is a classic example of this. Translators who (sometimes) meant well took some considerable liberties with him and I'll admit that the speed and flow of his texts were improved at times. But the gentle neuroticism of accumulated details (and the occasional ugly racisms) are essential to the real Verne.

                best, Mahendra


              • hagaysc
                Hi John, hi everyone, ... Indeed it is, but the good translator has to find the balance between adaptation and simple literary translation. A noteworthy
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 23, 2011
                  Hi John, hi everyone,

                      > Isn't translating adapting to a particular audience?

                  Indeed it is, but the good translator has to find the balance between adaptation and "simple" literary translation. A noteworthy Carrollian example is Vladimir Nabokov's translation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (probably already discussed by the group before?). Although I didn't read the translation for the obvious reason of not knowing the target language,  it is interesting to read about it here, comparing his quite liberate translation to Alice to his scholar-oriented translation to Pushkin's Eugene Onegin.

                  Another disucssion about Nabokov 's Alice translation can be found in this PDF , where you can find:
                  Vid Natalia, "Domesticated Translation: The Case of Nabokov's Translation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", NOJ: Nabokov Online Journal, Vol. II, 2008.

                  On the first page of this document you can find the following citation:

                  " What is translation? On a platter
                  A poet's pale and glaring head,
                  A parrot's screech, a monkey's chatter,
                  And profanation of the dead. "
                   
                  V. Nabokov, "On Translating 
                  Eugene Onegin" (1955)

                  Cheers,
                  Hagay

                  --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, John Tufail <johntufail@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Mahendra,
                  >
                  > Isn't translating adapting to a particular audience?
                  >
                  > Though I agree with your sentiment, I think that your rigour actually
                  > demands an annotated version of Sylvie and Bruno - a huge undertaking!
                  >
                  > Let us agree that completely ignoring the baby-talk would mean huge mistake
                  > in any translation.
                  > Any translator would be obliged to understand the significance of the
                  > bay-talk and find some way of presenting it in a meaningful way
                  > . Lewis Carroll was not an idiot. he did not lose his senses when he used
                  > this baby talk medium.
                  >
                  > Regards
                  >
                  > JT
                  > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:43 AM, mahendra373 mahendra373@...wrote:
                  >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I must disagree with this proposed lessening of the baby-talk.
                  > >
                  > > Improving the baby talk is not quite translating, it's really adapting.
                  > > Your reasons for doing so are excellent, it's the worst part of the books
                  > > but there's more to this than meets the eye.
                  > >
                  > > Many translators reach a moment of truth when they realize that they can
                  > > easily improve a passage, both the sense and often the style. But where will
                  > > it end? The attentive reader will begin to wonder about the rest of the text
                  > > and maybe lose faith in you?
                  > >
                  > > It's the eternal dilemma of translation vs. betrayal.
                  > >
                  > > I think Jules Verne translated into English is a classic example of this.
                  > > Translators who (sometimes) meant well took some considerable liberties with
                  > > him and I'll admit that the speed and flow of his texts were improved at
                  > > times. But the gentle neuroticism of accumulated details (and the occasional
                  > > ugly racisms) are essential to the real Verne.
                  > >
                  > > best, Mahendra
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • yuvalhol
                  I m very happy my translation has rased this thoroughly interesting discussion! I now have many views worth considering on the matter, and whatever desicion
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 23, 2011
                    I'm very happy my translation has rased this thoroughly interesting discussion!
                    I now have many views worth considering on the matter, and whatever desicion I'll eventually make, it won't be a light one.

                    I will surely read the essay on Nabokov's translation.


                    Now that you're all gathered here - Can you tell me what do you think is the deal with the other professor? does this character hold any hidden meaning?

                    --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "hagaysc" <hschurr@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi John, hi everyone,
                    >
                    > > Isn't translating adapting to a particular audience?
                    >
                    > Indeed it is, but the good translator has to find the balance between
                    > adaptation and "simple" literary translation. A noteworthy Carrollian
                    > example is Vladimir Nabokov's translation of Alice's Adventures in
                    > Wonderland (probably already discussed by the group before?). Although I
                    > didn't read the translation for the obvious reason of not knowing the
                    > target language, it is interesting to read about it here
                    > <http://www.leighkimmel.com/writing/academicpapers/nabokov2.shtml> ,
                    > comparing his quite liberate translation to Alice to his
                    > scholar-oriented translation to Pushkin's Eugene Onegin.
                    >
                    > Another disucssion about Nabokov 's Alice translation can be found in
                    > this PDF <http://etc.dal.ca/noj/articles/volume2/08_Vid.pdf> , where
                    > you can find:
                    > Vid Natalia, "Domesticated Translation: The Case of Nabokov's
                    > Translation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", NOJ: Nabokov Online
                    > Journal, Vol. II, 2008.
                    >
                    > On the first page of this document you can find the following citation:
                    >
                    > " What is translation? On a platter
                    > A poet's pale and glaring head,
                    > A parrot's screech, a monkey's chatter,
                    > And profanation of the dead. "
                    >
                    > V. Nabokov, "On Translating
                    > Eugene Onegin" (1955)
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    > Hagay
                    >
                    > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, John Tufail <johntufail@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hi Mahendra,
                    > >
                    > > Isn't translating adapting to a particular audience?
                    > >
                    > > Though I agree with your sentiment, I think that your rigour actually
                    > > demands an annotated version of Sylvie and Bruno - a huge undertaking!
                    > >
                    > > Let us agree that completely ignoring the baby-talk would mean huge
                    > mistake
                    > > in any translation.
                    > > Any translator would be obliged to understand the significance of the
                    > > bay-talk and find some way of presenting it in a meaningful way
                    > > . Lewis Carroll was not an idiot. he did not lose his senses when he
                    > used
                    > > this baby talk medium.
                    > >
                    > > Regards
                    > >
                    > > JT
                    > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:43 AM, mahendra373 mahendra373@...:
                    > >
                    > > > **
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > I must disagree with this proposed lessening of the baby-talk.
                    > > >
                    > > > Improving the baby talk is not quite translating, it's really
                    > adapting.
                    > > > Your reasons for doing so are excellent, it's the worst part of the
                    > books
                    > > > but there's more to this than meets the eye.
                    > > >
                    > > > Many translators reach a moment of truth when they realize that they
                    > can
                    > > > easily improve a passage, both the sense and often the style. But
                    > where will
                    > > > it end? The attentive reader will begin to wonder about the rest of
                    > the text
                    > > > and maybe lose faith in you?
                    > > >
                    > > > It's the eternal dilemma of translation vs. betrayal.
                    > > >
                    > > > I think Jules Verne translated into English is a classic example of
                    > this.
                    > > > Translators who (sometimes) meant well took some considerable
                    > liberties with
                    > > > him and I'll admit that the speed and flow of his texts were
                    > improved at
                    > > > times. But the gentle neuroticism of accumulated details (and the
                    > occasional
                    > > > ugly racisms) are essential to the real Verne.
                    > > >
                    > > > best, Mahendra
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Keith
                    All, I tried to send my latest magazine through the yahoo group as a PDF file but I appear to be blocked from this – if anyone wants a PDF can they let me
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
                      All,
                       
                      I tried to send my latest magazine through the yahoo group as a PDF file but I appear to be blocked from this – if anyone wants a PDF can they let me know off list please?
                       
                      Keith Wright
                      Daresbury Lewis Carroll Society.


                    • Keith Sheppard
                      Keith I should quite like a PDF copy of the Daresbury Chronicle, please. As a suggestion, rather then having to send it out separately to everyone who requests
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011

                        Keith

                        I should quite like a PDF copy of the Daresbury Chronicle, please.

                        As a suggestion, rather then having to send it out separately to everyone who requests it (which sounds like a lot of work) could you not just post a copy on your web site and then send out a direct link to everyone on your circulation list?

                         

                        Regards

                        Keith Sheppard

                         

                        Wonderland Revisited and the Games Alice Played There.

                        Keith Sheppard's "Wonderland Revisited and the Games Alice Played There" is available now from Amazon, Fishpond and all good bookshops.

                        http://www.WriterMan.org.uk

                         

                      • Michael Everson
                        ... You can upload the file via the list s website. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                        Message 11 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
                          On 6 Oct 2011, at 14:33, Keith wrote:

                          > I tried to send my latest magazine through the yahoo group as a PDF file but I appear to be blocked from this – if anyone wants a PDF can they let me know off list please?

                          You can upload the file via the list's website.

                          Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                        • John Tufail
                          Hi Keith, I am an avid reader of the Chronicle. Please keep me on you list. By the way, you should try to get permission to publish this article: *Mad
                          Message 12 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
                            Hi Keith,
                             
                            I am an avid reader of the Chronicle.  Please keep me on you list.
                             
                            By the way, you should try to get permission to publish this article:
                             
                            It appears to me that very few 'Carrollians' are actually aware of the fact that Carroll is more relevant today than in any point since he first wrote his wonderfully absurdist books.
                             
                            It depresses me that Carroll appears now to be being marginalised by the very people who say that they carry his beacon.  The emphasis continues to be on Alice!
                             
                            Regards
                             
                            JT
                             
                            regards
                             
                            JT 


                            On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Keith <keith@...> wrote:
                             

                            All,
                             
                            I tried to send my latest magazine through the yahoo group as a PDF file but I appear to be blocked from this – if anyone wants a PDF can they let me know off list please?
                             
                            Keith Wright
                            Daresbury Lewis Carroll Society.



                          • Doug Howick
                            Dear Keith, As usual, John T makes a lot of sense! Please keep me on your Chronicle list also. Doug Howick From: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
                            Message 13 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011

                               

                              Dear Keith,  As usual, John T makes a lot of sense!

                              Please keep me on your Chronicle list also.

                              Doug Howick

                               

                               

                               

                               

                               

                              From: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Tufail
                              Sent: Friday, 7 October 2011 12:23 PM
                              To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Daresbury Chronicle Magazine

                               

                               

                              Hi Keith,

                               

                              I am an avid reader of the Chronicle.  Please keep me on you list.

                               

                              By the way, you should try to get permission to publish this article:

                               

                              It appears to me that very few 'Carrollians' are actually aware of the fact that Carroll is more relevant today than in any point since he first wrote his wonderfully absurdist books.

                               

                              It depresses me that Carroll appears now to be being marginalised by the very people who say that they carry his beacon.  The emphasis continues to be on Alice!

                               

                              Regards

                               

                              JT

                               

                              regards

                               

                              JT 

                               

                              On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Keith <keith@...> wrote:

                               

                              All,

                               

                              I tried to send my latest magazine through the yahoo group as a PDF file but I appear to be blocked from this – if anyone wants a PDF can they let me know off list please?

                               

                              Keith Wright

                              Daresbury Lewis Carroll Society.

                               

                               

                            • Keith
                              John, thank you for your email. If you want a hard copy then send me your address off list. My next magazine is not until the new year and by then the
                              Message 14 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
                                John,
                                 
                                thank you for your email. If you want a hard copy then send me your address off list.
                                 
                                My next magazine is not until the new year and by then the financial situation will be much worse than it is now but I have printed out the Guardian article and will check its relevance at that time. I usually have no problem getting permission to print newspaper articles as I’m not in the commercial field with my magazine – I don’t think the Guardian would consider me as a threat!
                                 
                                The Liddon article came from a visit to Martyn Percy at Cuddesdon when I was researching Bishop Wilberforce.  Discussing Wilberforce is one thing but Liddon is quite another prospect altogether and folk in the church clam up at the mention of his name! There’s no doubt that Liddon ploughed his own furrow at Cuddesdon and disregarded the strength of feeling on the opposition, something Lewis Carroll would never have done.  Liddon’s biographers skirt around this but they themselves had links to Cuddesdon and/or the Church of England. This interest in Wilberforce, and hence to Liddon, came from the book of thirty Victorian clergy photographs found in Ripon Cathedral, Wilberforce is represented there as was Bickerstaffe and Tait, plus many more that Lewis Carroll knew personally. At one time it was suspected that he took the images but now this is considered to be unlikely. It is a unique record of the late 1850’s.
                                 
                                I’m not sure about LC being marginalised and beacon carriers tend to get things wrong because they wear blinkers when it comes to the subject’s faults. I’m still unsure about LC, after two decades my opinion keeps shifting as I read more. Alice Liddell also has much more to her than we appear to know although she became a much narrower person than LC. LC’s open-mindedness is actually quite astonishing for his age and is a much neglected aspect of his personality.
                                 
                                Perhaps trying to define LC by 21st century bigotry is not the best thing to do!? Strange to say, we do not do that with other Victorians!
                                 
                                Best wishes,
                                 
                                Keith
                                 
                                Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:23 AM
                                Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Daresbury Chronicle Magazine
                                 
                                 

                                Hi Keith,
                                 
                                I am an avid reader of the Chronicle.  Please keep me on you list.
                                 
                                By the way, you should try to get permission to publish this article:
                                 
                                It appears to me that very few 'Carrollians' are actually aware of the fact that Carroll is more relevant today than in any point since he first wrote his wonderfully absurdist books.
                                 
                                It depresses me that Carroll appears now to be being marginalised by the very people who say that they carry his beacon.  The emphasis continues to be on Alice!
                                 
                                Regards
                                 
                                JT
                                 
                                regards
                                 
                                JT


                              • Keith
                                This is the leaflet which I use in the village and for visitors. It’s meant to be a gentle introduction to Lewis Carroll. Keith This is the leaflet which I
                                Message 15 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
                                This is the leaflet which I use in the village and for visitors. It’s meant to be a gentle introduction to Lewis Carroll.
                                 
                                Keith


                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.