충실한 번역에 관한 토론 패널

의견, 아이러니, 태도

1. b) Whether a translation should stay close to the original or read smoothlyNaomi는 번역이 충실해야 하는지 읽기 쉬워야 하는지 묻습니다.
2. c) That Naomi is right and he is eager to speak그는 자신이 잠깐만 참겠다고 농담하는데, 이는 먼저 말하고 싶어 안달이 났음을 인정하는 것입니다.
3. a) She finds it charming but mocks it for ignoring the reader그녀는 그것을 매력적이라고 부르지만, 불편한 집에 대한 아이러니한 언급은 그녀가 그것이 독자를 소홀히 한다고 생각함을 보여 줍니다.
4. d) Pleases himself rather than the reader그는 그런 번역가는 독자를 도운 것이 아니라 스스로를 치켜세웠다고 말합니다.
5. c) Every translation is shaped by two people, so it is never untouched그녀는 원문이 번역가에 의해 항상 달라지므로 두 이름이 모두 들어가야 한다는 뜻입니다.
6. b) Spoken dialogue in novels그는 대화가 자연스럽게 들려야 하며, 직역하면 법률 문서처럼 들릴 것이라고 인정합니다.
7. d) That she replaced a local word with a plain English one그녀는 안개를 뜻하는 현지어를 평범한 fog로 바꾸었고 독자들이 무언가를 잃었다고 생각합니다.
8. a) He is joking about protecting his image as stubborn그것은 농담입니다. 그는 고집스럽다는 평판을 소중히 여기므로, 동의하면 그 평판이 손상될 것입니다.

핵심 세부 사항

1. twenty / 20Naomi는 그가 중세 시를 20년 동안 연구했다고 소개합니다.
2. footnote그녀는 각주가 필요한 농담은 더 이상 농담이 아니라고 말합니다.
3. footnotes그는 소설 속 인물들은 각주처럼 말하지 않는다고 말합니다.
4. brave그는 그들을 친절하게 용감하다고 표현한다고 말합니다.
5. fog그 현지어는 한 종류의 안개를 가리키는 말이었습니다.
6. French그녀는 프랑스어 독자가 웃을 바로 그 순간에 영어 독자도 웃기를 바랍니다.

Naomi: Welcome to Word for Word. Tonight we ask a question that translators have argued about, politely and otherwise, for centuries: should a translation be faithful, or should it be readable? With me are Doctor Fabian Roux, who has spent twenty years translating medieval poetry, and Tola Adeyemi, who translates contemporary novels. Fabian, I suspect you'll want to go first.

Fabian: I shall resist the suspicion, though only for a sentence. My view is that a translator is a guest in someone else's house, and one does not rearrange the furniture. If the poet chose an awkward word, the awkwardness is part of the poem, and a translator who smooths it away has not helped the reader but flattered himself.

Tola: What a charming picture, and how convenient that the guest never has to explain to anyone why the house is so uncomfortable. I'd say the reader is the one who matters. If a joke needs a footnote, it has stopped being a joke. My job is to make an English reader laugh at the same moment a French reader would, even if I have to build a different joke to do it.

Fabian: Build a different joke, and you have written a different book. Whose name goes on the cover?

Tola: Both of ours, which is rather the point. Nobody pretends the novel reached you untouched. The only question is whether the touching was done with skill.

Naomi: Let me press you on that, Tola. Isn't there a danger that a fluent translation persuades readers that the foreign author was simply an English writer in disguise?

Tola: A real danger, and a flattering one for English. I try to leave a little strangeness in, a rhythm or an image that an English writer wouldn't quite choose, so that the reader senses a different mind at work.

Naomi: Fabian, is there any case in which you'd concede?

Fabian: Several, and I'm irritated to say so. Dialogue, for one. People in a novel do not speak like footnotes. If a character in the original swears, hesitates or sulks, the English must do likewise, and a literal rendering would make her sound like a legal document. I'd also concede that my own early translations, which I regarded as models of loyalty, are now unreadable. My students describe them, kindly, as brave.

Tola: I'll make a concession in return. When I worked on a novel set in a fishing village, I replaced a local word for one particular kind of fog with plain English fog. It was neat, it was fluent, and I have regretted it ever since. The reader lost something they would have enjoyed learning.

Naomi: So you've both moved towards the middle.

Fabian: Please don't say that in public. It would ruin my reputation for obstinacy.

Tola: Mine is already ruined, so I'm happy to be quoted. The truth is that the best translations feel faithful in spirit and free in detail, and nobody has ever agreed on which is which.

Naomi: On that note of cheerful disagreement, we'll take a short break.