|
 |
English Translations of Shakespeare. | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Meadowmeal Pentaglot Groupie Netherlands Joined 5711 days ago 43 posts - 57 votes  Speaks: Dutch*, French, English, German, Polish Studies: Romanian | Message 17 of 33 28 May 2009 at 10:52pm | IP Logged | ||
That illustrates my point: to modern day anglophone readers, Shakespeare's works are far less accessible than he himself intended them to be, for I bet that "fardel" and "orison" were recognisable words for his contemporary audience. The comprehensibility problems we experience today do Shakespeare an injustice: he never meant to be as "difficult" an author as he has become because of the evolution of the language. Therefore, translations of his work in modern English, of the same quality as the best translations in French, Dutch or German, are to be welcomed for those who are not fluent in 16th century English. I don't see why French, Dutch or German audiences should be privileged compared to anglophone audiences. And if the Bible can be translated into modern English without bastardising it, Shakespeare can. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Dario8015 Diglot Newbie United Kingdom Joined 6001 days ago 37 posts - 43 votes Speaks: English*, Italian Studies: Russian, Swedish | Message 18 of 33 28 May 2009 at 11:00pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Then of course, you could always simply refer to the notes and glossary of any decent edition without having to destroy the poetry of the original by rendering it into a modern idiom. In any event, how would you go about 'translating' Shakespeare's English into modern English? Turn it into prose as Charles Lamb did? Or try to 'modernise' the poetic forms? Either way, it wouldn't be Shakespeare any longer - it would be a poor imitation, or at best, an adaptation.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Meadowmeal Pentaglot Groupie Netherlands Joined 5711 days ago 43 posts - 57 votes Speaks: Dutch*, French, English, German, Polish Studies: Romanian | Message 19 of 33 28 May 2009 at 11:16pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Well one would have to try to preserve as much of the content and beauty of the original as possible and compensate for the rest, while producing a text that is as modern for today's readers/audience as the original was to the then audience. One should aim at attaining the same overall effect/experience. Edited by Meadowmeal on 28 May 2009 at 11:24pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Russianbear Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 6775 days ago 358 posts - 422 votes 1 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, Ukrainian Studies: Spanish | Message 20 of 33 28 May 2009 at 11:20pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I guess I am with Meadowmeal. One should not assume a translator is a complete moron who necessarily corrupts the material with his very involvement. Now, some of the modern English translation of Shakespeare may be special cases, as the translators do not aim to reproduce the esthetic qualities of the works - as some translations are only done to ease the understanding of the original, and thus they do not even strive for comparable artistic value. But let's take Russian translations of Shakespeare. I think Russian is a language with some extremely talented translators. One of the more famous translators of Shakespeare was Samuil Marshak, who was a talented poet in his own right (in fact, he is one of the preeminent children's poets in all of Russian literature), in addition to being a talented translator. Now, who is to say then when he translated Shakespeare's sonnets, he didn't do a good enough job that a few of them ended up being superior to the original? Who is to say that when Nabokov translated Pushkin into English, he didn't occasionally outdo the original - even if Puskin is generally considered by many to be one of the greatest (if not the greatest) poets in Russian literature? Edited by Russianbear on 28 May 2009 at 11:25pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Meadowmeal Pentaglot Groupie Netherlands Joined 5711 days ago 43 posts - 57 votes Speaks: Dutch*, French, English, German, Polish Studies: Romanian | Message 21 of 33 28 May 2009 at 11:25pm | IP Logged | ||
|
What I wanted to add to my last post, but then Russianbear already responded, so I put it in a seperate message:
But there will always be a gap, either between the text and the reader, or between Shakespeare and the text. Either you get the real Shakespeare in a language that will never be as familiar as the language you "live", or you will have a text in a language that's really your own, but it's not real Shakespeare. It's the doom of literary works that see the language evolve away from them. I don't think one option is good and the other one is bad. On this forum it's of course more obvious to favour the language above the experience, yet on the other hand, the challenge of translating is all about the love of languages as well. Edited by Meadowmeal on 28 May 2009 at 11:26pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Meadowmeal Pentaglot Groupie Netherlands Joined 5711 days ago 43 posts - 57 votes Speaks: Dutch*, French, English, German, Polish Studies: Romanian | Message 22 of 33 28 May 2009 at 11:30pm | IP Logged | ||
What about this: a good translation of Shakespeare in modern English, is like a good execution of Bach on a grand piano.
And these are like Bach on a toy piano :) Edited by Meadowmeal on 28 May 2009 at 11:38pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Dario8015 Diglot Newbie United Kingdom Joined 6001 days ago 37 posts - 43 votes Speaks: English*, Italian Studies: Russian, Swedish | Message 23 of 33 28 May 2009 at 11:40pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Sorry - that won't wash - you're still playing Bach's original music
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Meadowmeal Pentaglot Groupie Netherlands Joined 5711 days ago 43 posts - 57 votes Speaks: Dutch*, French, English, German, Polish Studies: Romanian | Message 24 of 33 28 May 2009 at 11:55pm | IP Logged | ||
Yes, but the sound and ornamentation contribute just as much to the listening experience. It depends on what you consider to be essential. To go back to Shakespeare: with jokes, looking at the notes won't work, to understand it is not the same as to actually laugh about it, the way contemporary audiences did. If one favours the effect above the exact wording, one would have to find an equivalent joke for modern audiences. And there we have a key notion in translation theory: equivalence. There are infinitely many opinions about what it means. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
