Dear gcse,
Some English sentences have perfect French translations. For example,
we can render
I have no idea.
as
Je n'ai aucune idée.
without losing or gaining anything in the translation. We have
replaced English words with French equivalents and added the double
negation required by French grammar, but these are purely syntactic
differences. The semantic value of each sentence is precisely the same.
Other English sentences do not admit an exact translation. In many cases,
this is due to the presence of an idiom whose French equivalent uses words
carrying a different connotation. The idiomatic phrasing "about to", as in
I was about to leave.
can at best be substituted by
J'etais sur le point de partir.
which has an identical physical meaning but not the same emotional
shading. The French "sur le point" means literally "on the point",
giving the sentence a sharper, more abrupt tone than the vague and lazy
"about to".
To translate
It's about time we left.
we can do no better than
Il est grand temps que nous partions.
which, again, denotes the same fact with a different flavor. The French
"grand temps" means literally "large time", giving the sentence a more
haughtier, more aristocratic air than the earthy "about time". This
might have been a closer translation if the English sentence had used
"high time", which it does not.
Metaphors and similes are even more difficult to translate than mere
idioms. To speak a French sentence similar in meaning to
Your dad will hit the ceiling when he finds out.
or
I shall come down on you like a ton of bricks.
would require words entirely dissimilar, so that the picture forming in
the auditor's head would end up at odds with the original even if the
general sentiment were the same.
Then there are aphorisms, where the entire sentence is a metaphor come
to life. The English proverb
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
is not satisfactorily expressed by the French
Un tiens vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras.
which crudely states that one "you have" is better than two "you will
haves". Or consider that the English
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.
appeals to a different part of the mind than
Il ne faut pas vendre la peau de l'ours avant de l'avoir tué.
which says, literally, that
One must not sell the pelt of the bear before killing it.
Hatching a chicken is a rather different affair from killing a bear,
even if both images are harnessed to illustrate the same principle.
The implication is that each language is designed to explore and
formulate knowledge within the cultural conventions of the people who
use it. Insofar as the English differ from the French in their customs
and national attitude, the meaning of sentences spoken in their native
language differs from that of the French translations. For a Frenchman to
gain exactly the same benefit from an English sentence as an Englishman
does would require him to think like an Englishman, and to do so requires
that he listen to and comprehend the sentence in English.
Even then, the full import of the English sentence can be gained only
in the context of other English sentences which use different words to
similar effect, since those alternatives must have been declined for
some reason. Furthermore, the particular words employed in the English
sentence are given meaning by their usage in other English sentences,
which must also have been heard and understood in order to gain an
appreciation of the current one. It seems that nothing less than utter
fluency will allow the Frenchman to put himself in the same state of
mind incurred in an Englishman who hears the sentence.
This does not mean that the Frenchman cannot understand the thoughts of
an Englishman unless he is himself a fluent speaker and is exposed to
the raw English text without mediation. In fact, a French translation
is enough to impart the meaning of each sentence and that of the whole
to the mind of the Frenchman. He will not, however, receive this text
in an English state of mind. He inevitably filters the text through
his French understanding. To do otherwise, to receive the knowledge in
its pure state as originally conceived and uttered, would require the
original English words and a perfect English comprehension.
The end effect is that while an Englishman counts his eggs, the Frenchman
stalks a bear in the woods. The moral, while identical in each case, is
told through a story that appeals to the disparate mindset of each. The
linguistic divide is not a flaw but an advantage, for it remains true to
the cultural differences between each nation. Bridging the gap requires an
immersion in the language and therefore in the culture of the other. To
expect any less would be to deny the differences among cultures. It is
fit and proper that the knowledge of each should be amenable to perfect
enunciation only in its own language.
I have enjoyed addressing the matter of translation accuracy on your
behalf. If you feel that any part of my answer requires correction or
elaboration, please let me know through a Clarification Request so that
I have a chance to fully meet your needs before you assign a rating.
Regards,
leapinglizard |
