Sdscompany.ru

Компьютерный журнал
2 просмотров
Рейтинг статьи
1 звезда2 звезды3 звезды4 звезды5 звезд
Загрузка...

Word for word translation is

word-for-word translation

1 word-for-word translation

2 word-for-word translation

translation circuit — схема перевода; схема преобразования

machine translation — автоматизированный, машинный перевод

3 word-for-word translation

translation circuit — схема перевода; схема преобразования

machine translation — автоматизированный, машинный перевод

4 word-for-word translation

5 word-for-word translation

6 word for word translation

7 word-for-word translation

8 word-for-word translation

9 word-for-word translation

10 word-for-word translation

11 word-for-word translation

12 word-for-word

13 буквальный перевод

См. также в других словарях:

word-for-word translation — pažodinis vertimas statusas T sritis radioelektronika atitikmenys: angl. word for word translation vok. wörtliche Übersetzung, f rus. дословный перевод, m pranc. traduction mot à mot, f … Radioelektronikos terminų žodynas

Word-for-word translation — Дословный перевод … Краткий толковый словарь по полиграфии

Translation — For other uses, see Translation (disambiguation). Translator redirects here. For other uses, see Translator (disambiguation). Contents 1 Etymology 2 Theory … Wikipedia

word for word — adverb using exactly the same words he repeated her remarks verbatim • Syn: ↑verbatim * * * 1 they took down the speeches word for word: VERBATIM, letter for letter, to the letter; exactly, faithfully … Useful english dictionary

translation — noun ADJECTIVE ▪ accurate, correct, exact, faithful, good ▪ approximate, free, loose, rough ▪ … Collocations dictionary

Word formation — In linguistics, word formation is the creation of a new word. Word formation is sometimes contrasted with semantic change, which is a change in a single word s meaning. The line between word formation and semantic change is sometimes a bit… … Wikipedia

word-for-word — ˈ ̷ ̷ ̷ ̷ˈ ̷ ̷ adjective Etymology: word for word : being in or following the exact words a word for word translation : verbatim the word for word transmission of legends George Grey * * * word for word «WURD fuhr WURD», adjective. = verbatim.… … Useful english dictionary

word for word — 1) they took down the speeches word for word Syn: verbatim, letter for letter, to the letter; exactly, faithfully 2) a word for word translation Syn: verbatim, literal, exact, direct, accurate, faithful; … Thesaurus of popular words

word-for-word — adjective Date: circa 1611 being in or following the exact words ; verbatim … New Collegiate Dictionary

Translation memory — A translation memory, or TM, is a type of database that stores segments that have been previously translated. A translation memory system stores the words, phrases and paragraphs that have already been translated and aid human translators. The… … Wikipedia

Word-sense disambiguation — Disambiguation redirects here. For other uses, see Disambiguation (disambiguation). In computational linguistics, word sense disambiguation (WSD) is an open problem of natural language processing, which governs the process of identifying which… … Wikipedia

Word for Word Translation

Advantages and disadvantages of Word for Word Translation

Word for word translation or literal translation is the rendering of text from one language to another one word at a time with or without conveying the sense of the original text. In translation studies, literal translation is often associated with scientific, technical, technological or legal texts.

A bad practice

It is often considered a bad practice of conveying word by word translation in non-technical texts. This usually refers to the mistranslation of idioms that affects the meaning of the text, making it unintelligible. The concept of literal translation may be viewed as an oxymoron (contradiction in terms), given that literal denotes something existing without interpretation, whereas a translation, by its very nature, is an interpretation (an interpretation of the meaning of words from one language into another).

Usage

A word for word translation can be used in some languages and not others dependent on the sentence structure: El equipo estГЎ trabajando para terminar el informe would translate into English as The team is working to finish the report. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. For example, the Spanish sentence above could not be translated into French or German using this technique because the French and German sentence structures are completely different. And because one sentence can be translated literally across languages does not mean that all sentences can be translated literally.

Literal translation can also denote a translation that represents the precise meaning of the original text but does not attempt to convey its style, beauty, or poetry. There is, however, a great deal of difference between a literal translation of a poetic work and a prose translation. A literal translation of poetry may be in prose rather than verse, but also be error free. Charles Singleton’s translation of The Divine Comedy (1975) is regarded as a prose translation.

Machine Translation

Early machine translations were famous for this type of translation because they simply created a database of words and their translations. Later attempts utilized common phrases which resulted in better grammatical structure and capture of idioms but with many words left in the original language.

The systems that we use nowadays are based on a combination of technologies and apply algorithms to correct the “natural” sound of the translation. However, professional translation agencies that use machine translation create a rough translation first that is then tweaked by a professional translator.

Mistakes and Jokes

Literal translation of idioms results quite often in jokes and amusement among translators and not only. The following famous example has often been told both in the context of newbie translators and that of machine translation: When the sentence “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak was translated into Russian and then back to English, the result was “The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten. This is generally believed to be simply an amusing story, and not a factual reference to an actual machine translation error.

LITERAL TRANSLATION

Literal translation is the translation that reproduces communicatively irrelevant elements of the source text, This usually happens when the translator copies the source language form on this or that level of the language.

According to the language level, there exist various types of literal translation:

1) on the sound level: this type of literal translation results in the so called “translator’s false friends”, that is words similar in sounds but different in meaning: conductor – not кондуктор, but дирижер; herb – not герб, but лекарственная трава; computer silicon chips – not компьютерные силиконовые чипсы, but кремниевые чипы компьютера.

2) on the syntactic level: copying the structure of the source language. Sometimes an inexperienced translator is hypnotized by the source language, and, to translate “accurately”, he tries to render the meaning word for word, thus breaking combination rules of his/her own language. As an example, We often heard his name mentioned. – *Мы часто слышали его имя упомянутым.

3) on the semantic level: giving the primary meaning of the word or its part, whereas a semantic transformation is required: But outside it kept on raining. — *Но снаружи шел дождь, which is incorrect. Or подполковник — *subcolonel, the word not existing in English.

4) etymological errors: disregarding language changes. Words acquire new meanings over time and use: There, there, don’t cry. — *Там, там, не плачь.

5) following the style of the source text: different registers require different language means. Thus, to use the example by V. Komissarov32, to a Russian, who got accustomed to brief and abrupt structures in the weather forecast, an English weatherman’s sentence can sound like a poem line: Mist covered a calm sea in the Strait of Dover last night. – Туман покрывал спокойное море в Па-де-Кале прошлой ночью. Therefore, to produce the same impact upon the receptor as does the original, the translator has to partition the English sentence and make it more adaptable to a Russian: Прошлой ночью в проливе Па-де-Кале стоял туман. Море было спокойно.33

Читать еще:  Look up a word

We can see that very often literal translation is not necessarily a word-for-word translation, although it is often associated with a rather negative evaluation of the translation.

Literal translation is sometimes referred to as formal, or grammar translation, though it is not the same.

However, sometimes literal translation on this or that level is a must. The translator cannot do without it when rendering proper and geographical names (Khabarov, Nakhodka); some borrowings (Red Guards – хунвэйбины is a literal translation (on a semantic level), into English of the Chinese hong (Red) wei bing (Guard), while the Russian word is a literal reproduction of the Chinese word on a sound level.

In some works, literal translation is called ‘faithful’ translation – this term does not necessarily imply the negative connotation of slavish literalism.

FREE TRANSLATION

Free translation is the reproduction of the source form and content in a loose way. This concept means adding extra elements of information or losing some essential ones.

Of course, it is not very accomplished of a translator to add details not described by the author, as was often done by a well-known (sometimes notorious) Russian translator I. Vvedenski. Neither is it proficient to contract the source text like A. Houdar de la Motte who reduced the twenty-four books of the Iliad to twelve in his translation, leaving out all the “anatomical details of wounds” and some other information.34 Scholars of translation usually take a negative view of this type of free translation, known as adaptation in history of translation.35

Nevertheless, free translation is appropriate in some cases: poetry translations are done with a certain degree of freedom. A translator is also free to modernize a classic text in order to subvert established target-language reader-response. Free translation is also admitted in the titles of novels, movies, etc. For instance, the outstanding Russian novel by Ilf and Petrov «Двенадцать стульев» is known in the United States as “Diamonds to Sit On”, which is accounted for by the bookselling advertising policies. The British movie “Square Peg” was translated into Russian as «Мистер Питкин в тылу врага», since the film translators did not find the adequate Russian idiom to convey the meaning “a person unsuitable for the place in which he works or lives” expressed by the English phrase “a square peg in a round hole”.

Recently translation theorists have begun to relate free translation to communicative translation, depending on the purpose of the translation, and literal translation to the so-called semantic translation. Communicative translation tends to undertranslate, i.e. to use more generic, catch-all terms in difficult passages. A semantic translation tends to overtranslate, i.e. to be more detailed, more direct, and more awkward.36 P. Newmark, however, distinguishes semantic translation — as the attempt to render as closely as possible the semantic and syntactic structures of the target language, from literal translation, when the primary senses of the lexical words of the original are translated as though out of context. He defines communicative translation as that which produces on its receptors an effect similar to that on the receptors of the original.376

§ 4. THE CONCEPT OF ‘UNTRANSLATABILITY’

It is a cardinal problem that is a cornerstone of the translation art and craft. The reasons for the lack of belief in achieving adequate translation have been expressed time and again. In trying to replace a message in one language with a message in another language, the translator loses some meaning, usually associative, either because s/he belongs to a different culture or because the receptor’s background knowledge does not coincide with that of the source text receptor (cultural overlap). Thus the transfer can never be total.38

There may be ‘referential’ loss and the translator’s language can only be approximate when describing an ethnic situation characterized by specifically local features: Americans, accustomed to Chinese cuisine and traditions, associate fortune cookie, served as a dessert in Chinese restaurants,with a thin folded wafer containing a prediction or proverb printed on a slip of paper. There are no such realia in Russia, so the translation can be only approximate, descriptive or analogous.

Reality is segmented differently by languages, which depends upon the environment, culture and other circumstances people live in. How can the translator make an African person, who does not know the beauty of the bright snowy morning, experience the same as Russians’ feelings when reading Pushkin’s immortal lines: Под голубыми небесами великолепными коврами, блестя на солнце, снег лежит…And, on the other hand, how to render in Russian or English the numerous shades of the white color in the speech of Northern people?

The loss of meaning may be attributed to the different language systems and structures. There is no category of noun gender in English, so the translation of the Russian sentence Студентка пришла by the English The student has come might be non-equal, since the English sentence is more generic and corresponds also to the Russian Студент пришел.

The loss of meaning can also be accounted for by idiosyncrasies, that is noncoincidence, of the individual uses of the speaker or text-writer and the translator. Peopleб speaking even the same languageб are apt to attach private meanings to some words. Hence various misunderstandings and communicative failures. (Can you guess what was meant in the sign written outside Hong Kong tailors shop? Ladies may have a fit upstairs. And what could the tourist understand from the advertisement for donkey rides in Thailand: Would you like to ride on your own ass?)39

Translators’ scepticism and pessimism came to be known in the Middle Ages. Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) claimed that no poem can be translated without having its beauty and harmony spoilt. Miguel Cervantes de Saavedra (1547-1616) likened the works in translation to the wrong side of a Flemish tapestry: you can see only vague figures and cannot admire the bright colors of its right side.

Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), a German philologist and translator, stressed that “no word in one language is completely equivalent to a word in another language”, and that “each language expresses a concept in a slightly different manner, with such and such a denotation, and each language places it on a rung that is higher or lower on the ladder of feeling.”40

No matter what reasons might be given by theorists, translation practice has been proving that this concept is groundless. Translators have always attempted to be not just a “window open on another world” but rather “a channel opened”, through which foreign influences can penetrate the native culture, challenge it, and influence it.41 So the concept of untranslatability is not shared by practical translators who help people of various countries to communicate.

Читать еще:  Повернуть страницу в word

Though sceptical and negative, the concept played its positive role in the history of translation. It has caused scholars to ponder over language and culture discrepancies and to give up the idea of one language mechanically overlapping another one to convey the message.

Word-for-Word translations

St. Rollin Weeks writes:

As an FMC member, I have attended two of your sessions.

I am interested in the prospect of time «before» the Big Bang, Time and Eternity, God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will, the Arrow of Time (Roger Penrose), Time Reborn (lee Smolin), and the books and papers on ‘time’ by William Craig Lane and J P Moreland of the Apologetics Dept. in Talbot Theol. Seminary at Biola.

But what I am really into right now is writing a paper on the King James Only (KJO) controversy. I have narrowed it down to 3 essential issues: (1 which are the best manuscripts (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) to use—the issue of Textual Criticism’? (2 if God preserved His Word perfectly throughout the ages, what mechanisms did He use, and where in the Scriptures do we find evidence that He would use these mechanisms?, and (3 how do we deal with the very intractable problem of translation from the original languages?

I have an MA in Linguistics, and I have done field work in Brazil with an indigenous tribal people. Some translation issues I have become aware of are:

ancient historical translations ((Coptic, Syriac, Septuigint) have used slightly different source texts. Were these the genuine Word of God?

Greek-to-English translation works fairly well, because both have highly developed vocabularies, but this is not the case when translating into a language with vastly different cultural emphases and interests, and

Greek and English are both members of the Indo-European Families. Ancient Hebrew to English is not so good a fit. When one gets into other wildly different languages, word for word translations become impossible.

I hope to join in again in one of your classes.

In Christ,
Rollin Weeks

Hi Rollin, I’m glad you enjoyed the classes. That’s a nice grab bag of issues you mention there, but since you highlight King-James-only-ism, I think I’ll focus on that. I find it difficult to even take the KJO view seriously, for a variety of reasons.

There is simply no such thing as a perfect translation. Even from Greek to English, word-for-word translation is not always the most accurate or faithful way to translate. I assume you know that Greek is a case language, meaning that (unlike English) it is the endings of the words, rather than their position in the sentence, which determines their grammatical role in the sentence (subject, object, possessor, etc.). Instead they used word order for purposes of emphasis. The first and last words in a sentence are the ones which are being emphasized.

Another issue is particles. In a normal Greek sentence, there are a few two or three letter words called «particles» which normally appear right after the first word. When you are first learning how to translate Greek, you simply leave these words out since they don’t seem to affect the basic meaning. For Greek experts (as I am not!) they show how the ideas in the sentence are connected to the ideas which have gone before.

There are various tricks which can be used to render these meanings into English, but they usually involve departing from the word-for-word ordering. In these respects, «paraphrases» like the New Living Version or St. Phillips’ translation can sometimes actually be more accurate than a more «literal» translation, since they have the freedom to signal emphasis and connection-between-ideas in other ways.

In the absence of a specific divine revelation, it is simply hubris to say that God specially favors one particular English translation, given the existence of numerous good translations both before and after the KJV. That being said, given the time and the lesser degree of scholarly knowledge, the KJV was a remarkably good translation, combining literalness with style in a skilled way (partly with the help of archaic English «particles» such as «lo!»). Another very nice feature is that when the original language is ambiguous, they tried to translate into English in a way which reflects that ambiguity, instead of just picking one possibility.

I said it was a good translation: since the meanings of many English words have changed over 400 years, and many passages now convey an incorrect meaning to modern readers. To use the KJV today, especially with uneducated readers, is to guarantee that they walk away with wrong ideas about what the Bible says.

Regarding issues of Textual Criticism, the Textus Receptus differs from the accepted scholarly text in numerous places. This has a lot to do with the fact that St. Erasmus’s Greek text was based on only 7 relatively late Greek manuscripts, each including only parts of the New Testament, and all but one from a single textual tradition. And we are supposed to believe that this is more accurate than all other more carefully compiled texts? That God miraculously preserved his word through Erasmus, while allowing all other scholars everywhere else to fall into error? Because of his special desire for later English-speaking people (but apparently not people in other cultures) to have a perfect translation? Ridiculous!

Regarding the Old Testament textual issues, you are right that the Septuagint seems to have been based on a somewhat different version of the Hebrew text than the Masoretic, which is used by almost all modern translations. Which text is more accurate in a given place is anyone’s guess, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are more similar to the Masoretic text. There are many instances in which we know that the Septuagint was poorly translated (sometimes they even left out large chunks which they didn’t know what to do with!), although in other cases we have to defer to them because the meaning of the Hebrew words is otherwise unknown, or in when the Masoretic text is corrupt (e.g. 1 Samuel 13:1, which in the Masoretic text says that Saul was one year old when he became king, and that he reigned for two years!)

I believe that God has promised this about his word:

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)

This, however, is not a promise about every word being preserved perfectly in some static sense. It’s a promise about God getting the results which he intended to get: namely a harvest of righteousness and justice in the lives of those who are transformed by God’s word.

The belief that this transformation will somehow be inhibited if we don’t have 100% certainty about every word (or even 100% certainty about which books should be in the Old Testament!) is a Fundamentalist notion which has little connection to actual progress in holiness. Yes, God’s word is fully inspired and should be treated with respect, down to the last «jot and title»—at least when we know what they are—but we can’t lose sight of why he gave us his word.

Читать еще:  Печать поверх текста в word

I believe that God is very unscrupulous in how he reaches people. His Spirit can sometimes even use translation mistakes to bring people closer to him (and in that sense, they may be God’s word to that particular individual), but we should still do our best to avoid making them.

There’s a very important word which is missing from this post so far. That word is «Jesus». Muslims believe that the highest revelation from God is a Holy Book, dictated to a prophet without any human contamination, and perfectly preserved from error through the centuries. We also have a Holy Book, but we believe that God’s final revelation is a Person. That’s why God chose to use the human personalities of the biblical authors as a means to communicate to us the personality of Jesus.

What we need is not a word-for-word translation onto paper, but a «Word-for-Word» translation onto our hearts and minds. Remember what St. Paul says:

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2 Cor 3:1-6)

Word-for-word translation

Literal translation, direct translation, or word-for-word translation is a translation of a text done by translating each word separately, without looking at how the words are used together in a phrase or sentence. [1]

In translation theory, another term for «literal translation» is «metaphrase»; and for phrasal («sense») translation — «paraphrase.»

Literal translation leads to mistranslating of idioms, which is a serious problem for machine translation. [2]

Contents

The term as used in translation studies [ ]

Usage [ ]

The term «literal translation» often appeared in the titles of 19th-century English translations of classical, Bible and other texts.

Cribs [ ]

Word-for-word translations («cribs,» «ponies», or «trots») are sometimes prepared for a writer who is translating a work written in a language he does not know. For example, Robert Pinsky is reported to have used a literal translation in preparing his translation of Dante’s Inferno (1994), as he does not know Italian. [ citation needed ] Similarly, Richard Pevear worked from literal translations provided by his wife, Larissa Volokhonsky, in their translations of several Russian novels. [ citation needed ]

Poetry to prose [ ]

Literal translation can also denote a translation that represents the precise meaning of the original text but does not attempt to convey its style, beauty, or poetry. There is, however, a great deal of difference between a literal translation of a poetic work and a prose translation. A literal translation of poetry may be in prose rather than verse, but also be error free. Charles Singleton’s translation of The Divine Comedy (1975) is regarded as a prose translation.

As bad practice [ ]

«Literal» translation implies that it is probably full of errors, since the translator has made no effort to convey, for example, correct idioms or shades of meaning, but it might be also useful in seeing how words are used to convey a meaning in the source language.

Examples [ ]

A literal English translation of the German word «Kindergarten» would be «children garden,» but in English the expression refers to the school year between pre-school and first grade. Literal translations in which individual components within words or compounds are translated to create new lexical items in the target language (a process also known as “loan translation”) are called calques, e.g., “beer garden” from German “Biergarten.”

Literal translation of the Italian sentence, «So che questo non va bene» («I know that this is not good»), produces «Know(I) that this not goes(it) well,» which has English words and Italian grammar.

The literal English translation of the Spanish term for orca, «ballena asesina», is «killer whale». Due to the lack of appreciation for Spanish grammar, the English’ official translation for the animal was erroneously literal*. Thus inadvertently changing the type of species; an orca is a type of dolphin that kills whales: «ballena asesina». The English’ literal translation misleads one to think that orcas are whales that kill when the proper translation (etymology and grammar* considered) correctly describes the orca as a «whale killer». Such capacities significantly distinguishes orcas from the other dolphin species in addition to their appearance. Orcas are well known for being an apex predator, feeding on what ever they find suitable which includes Great Whites and other large predators but most notoriously for the largest beings on the planet—whales,and of all sorts.

Machine translation [ ]

Early machine translations (as of 1962 [2] at least) were notorious for this type of translation as they simply employed a database of words and their translations. Later attempts utilized common phrases which resulted in better grammatical structure and capture of idioms but with many words left in the original language. For translating synthetic languages, a morphosyntactic analyzer and synthesizer is required.

The best systems today use a combination of the above technologies and apply algorithms to correct the «natural» sound of the translation. In the end though, professional translation firms that employ machine translation use it as a tool to create a rough translation that is then tweaked by a human, professional translator.

Pidgins [ ]

Often, first-generation immigrants create something of a literal translation in how they speak their parents’ native language. This results in a mix of the two languages in something of a pidgin. Many such mixes have specific names, e.g. Spanglish or Germish. For example, American children of German immigrants are heard using «rockingstool» from the German word «Schaukelstuhl» instead of «rocking chair».

Translator’s humor [ ]

Literal translation of idioms is a source of numerous translators’ jokes and apocrypha. The following joke has often been told both in the context of newbie translators and that of machine translation: When the sentence «The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak» (дух бодр, плоть же немощна, an allusion to Mark 14:38) was translated into Russian and then back to English, the result was «The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten» (водка хорошая, но мясо протухло). This is generally believed to be simply an amusing story, and not a factual reference to an actual machine translation error. [2]

Ссылка на основную публикацию
ВсеИнструменты 220 Вольт
Adblock
detector