Sunday, November 27, 2016
Translations
A student from Spain joined our Thanksgiving crowd. She told us they had to study Don Quixote in school, and virtually nobody finished it. She asked if anybody else had. I pled guilty, and said I actually liked it--the sequel not so much. But I read it in translation, and she in archaic Spanish. Perhaps there was some poetry in the original that I completely missed, but the story by itself was fine enough to survive translation. I wonder if Shakespeare is easier in translation too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
A Tolkien or a Lewis, poets who were extremely familiar with the text and language, could in theory do a modern paraphrase of Shakespeare. But likely they couldn't, because they knew and loved too many phrases and would have felt the poetry was being destroyed by changing. They might be excellent translators of works from other languages, however, because they wouldn't feel the tie to the "sacredness" of the ancient texts and phrases that a native would feel. Also, they would be able to either do a straight translation, as the first hearers might have felt about it, or to imbue the English with older phrasings and occasional archaisms to give us a similar experience to what current speakers of the language - like your visitor - hear.
Tolkien actually does change to older word-orders and phrasings to give some of the formal speeches and even dialogue an ancient feel.
Having dealt with both Shakespeare and Cervantes in their original languages, my opinion is that Shakespeare's language is more different from contemporary English than Don Quixote's language is from contemporary Spanish. The vocabulary of Shakespeare is vastly different from contemporary English. There is considerably less difference between the vocabulary of Cervantes and the vocabulary of contemporary Spanish. In part this is because Spanish, at least as practiced in Spain, has had a Royal Academy to enforce standards, whereas English flows like the Mississippi, changing river channels at will.
While there is a slight difference in vocabulary between the Spanish of Cervantes and that of today, there is a bigger difference in pronouns and verb tenses between the Spanish of Cervantes and contemporary Spanish. There are also differences today in pronouns and verb tenses within Latin America, and between Latin America and Spain, dealing with the second person plural and singular pronouns. For example, Spain and most of Latin America use tú for the second singular pronoun, whereas Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay,Paraguay, Maracaibo [Venezuela] and much of Central America use vos and also different verb endings - which is an archaic form that has died out elsewhere.
Having had extensive practice in Latin America with both tú and vos second singular pronouns, and having read Spanish literature with second plural pronoun use different from Latin America, the archaic grammar in Don Quixote didn't bother me much. In fact, a it sounded a bit like what I had heard in vos-speaking countries. I suspect that those who hadn't been exposed to such variety, such as someone growing up in Spain, would not have the same opinion.
Several months ago I ran across a "child's version" of Lazarillo de Tormes, a 16th century Spanish novella that was the first picaresque work.This "child's version" was in Spanish, and thus also in contemporary Spanish. I read it simultaneously with the original. The different grammar of the original didn't throw me off very much. In the whole book, which was about 60 pages long, there was only one phrase in the original that I couldn't see how it got translated to contemporary Spanish. And I assure you my Spanish isn't the greatest.
But Don Quixote is a LOONNG book. I have never completed it in any language. I am currently reading a novel by the Chilean author Roberto Ampuero,one of his mystery novels. As he left the left, with some years in Cuba, he has a history I can identify with. But Post Commie instead of Post Liberal.Unfortunately, only one of his books has been translated into English.
Having dealt with both Shakespeare and Cervantes in their original languages, my opinion is that Shakespeare's language is more different from contemporary English than Don Quixote's language is from contemporary Spanish. The vocabulary of Shakespeare is vastly different from contemporary English. There is considerably less difference between the vocabulary of Cervantes and the vocabulary of contemporary Spanish. In part this is because Spanish, at least as practiced in Spain, has had a Royal Academy to enforce standards, whereas English flows like the Mississippi, changing river channels at will.
While there is a slight difference in vocabulary between the Spanish of Cervantes and that of today, there is a bigger difference in pronouns and verb tenses between the Spanish of Cervantes and contemporary Spanish. There are also differences today in pronouns and verb tenses within Latin America, and between Latin America and Spain, dealing with the second person plural and singular pronouns. For example, Spain and most of Latin America use tú for the second singular pronoun, whereas Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay,Paraguay, Maracaibo [Venezuela] and much of Central America use vos and also different verb endings - which is an archaic form that has died out elsewhere.
Having had extensive practice in Latin America with both tú and vos second singular pronouns, and having read Spanish literature with second plural pronoun use different from Latin America, the archaic grammar in Don Quixote didn't bother me much. In fact, a it sounded a bit like what I had heard in vos-speaking countries. I suspect that those who hadn't been exposed to such variety, such as someone growing up in Spain, would not have the same opinion.
Several months ago I ran across a "child's version" of Lazarillo de Tormes, a 16th century Spanish novella that was the first picaresque work.This "child's version" was in Spanish, and thus also in contemporary Spanish. I read it simultaneously with the original. The different grammar of the original didn't throw me off very much. In the whole book, which was about 60 pages long, there was only one phrase in the original that I couldn't see how it got translated to contemporary Spanish. And I assure you my Spanish isn't the greatest.
But Don Quixote is a LOONNG book. I have never completed it in any language. I am currently reading a novel by the Chilean author Roberto Ampuero,one of his mystery novels. As he left the left, with some years in Cuba, he has a history I can identify with. But Post Commie instead of Post Liberal.Unfortunately, only one of his books has been translated into English.
That's very interesting. I'm trying to imagine how well such a Royal Academy would have been received in Great Britain. There was the King's English, of course, and presumably some pressure to use that in official dealings, and after a while they standardized in school materials. I should research that.
From some comments about the phrase "golden boys and girls all must, like chimney sweepers, come to dust" I got the impression that multiple dialects of English rubbed shoulders in Shakespeare's orbit. Perhaps some of his vast contribution of new words and phrases were borrowed from extinct dialects.
Perhaps some of his vast contribution of new words and phrases were borrowed from extinct dialects.
Sounds plausible.
Spain before the unification of Aragon and Castile with the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabel, followed by conquering the last Muslim realm of Granada in 1492, was a country of several languages.Or dialects, if you will. Castilian became the standard for Spanish. In some Spanish-speaking countries, Spanish is known not as Espanol, but as Castellano- Castilian.
Even today, Spain is a country of multiple languages. The Basques still hang onto their original tongue which is not related to another, though most also speak Spanish. Catalonia, which includes Barcelona, speaks Catalan, though also Spanish. The pop singer Julio Iglesias had a hit back in the '70s sung in Gallego/Galician, the language of Galicia in the northwest: Canto A Galicia. I am reminded of Al Jolson's Mammy. Galicia is of note for at least three things. It could be called the cradle of dictators, as Fidel Castro's father and Francisco Franco were from Galicia. BTW, Franco and Fidel got along pretty well. Second,Galicia is Celtic, and like Scotland, uses bagpipes in its music. As Galicia was conquered 2000 years ago by the Romans, most words in the Galician language/dialect have Latin roots. Third,Galicia sent a lot of emigrants to Cuba, Argentina, and Venezuela up to the 1950s. Like Ireland and Scotland to the US and Canada. Rather like Scotland and Ireland.
Post a Comment