Translational Leap of Faith
October 15th, 2005While reading A Traveller’s History of Spain, I came across the following phrase: Tierras sin hombres, hombres sin tierra.
Only 3 words: tierra, which is “land”, sin, “without”, and hombres, “men”, all of which add up to my fairly straightforward translation of “Land without men, men without land”.
Now for the author’s translation: “deserted fields and landless peasants”.
It rather blew me away for a moment. I think it shows just how far my translation abilities have to go.
Literally I am quite correct. I even double-checked my dictionary for the Spanish equivalents of peasant and the English equivalent of hombre — no connection.
I’m not really wrong, it’s just that he’s more right.
My translation lacks style. It is functional but not artistic. The translation presented by Juan Lalaguna fits with the more erudite tone of the English text, which I found to be quite well-written. “Deserted” and “landless” make the phrase come alive.
My translation does not take the context into account. A major theme through hundreds of years of Spanish history is the unequal distribution of land — always concentrated in the hands of a wealthy minority. Such tactics naturally leave out peasants, and in any case many had left the rural parts of Spain for various reasons. Even today there are often very low concentrations of people in the rural areas of Spain.
“Translational leap of faith” was my initial diagnosis. I meant to accuse, but upon further reflection am only able to admire a very neat piece of work.
are you sure that he is more right? often, we write literally to puctuate precisely the words we choose to express our feelings. often, we do not intend for there to be allusions, or layers, to be peeled back. it is what it is. of course, there are plenty of times, too, that we use words to evoke emotions that are far more complex, and with more context, than “just” the words. these are the times, i suppose, that people describe as “words cannot describe how i feel.”
in any case, i am not certain who is more right. there is beauty in the economy of words. there is too beauty in the depth of interpretation from those exact same few words…
My take: “Land without men, men without land” may in fact be a more poetic translation, but it loses much of the meaning of the quote. This quote came about in a certain context that is lost in that translation. “Deserted fields and landless peasants” maintains more of that context. This is what makes translation so difficult - idioms even more so. The Italians have a saying that holds up pretty well under translation: “Traduttori traditori” - means translators are traitors.
more from both of you on this subject of literal vs. __________ , please! ironic, oblique, loosely related tangents…i don’t care about style…be direct if you want!….just keep it coming!
(((i am not even sure what word goes in that blank up there…figurative? poetic? true?)))
seeing this stuff through a glass very darkly,
Neither translation carries over any of the flavor of the words themselves, nor of their sounds. For the latter, something like “terrain no humans, humans no terrain” would come closer.
Your real point is the question of how large a context must be considered in translation. For the bare six words, clearly your translation is best. We can’t judge whether the author’s is better without more context. Perhaps a paragraph would be enough to know that. But you move from six words to “hundreds of years of Spanish history”; rather a large jump in context.
Ultimately, I suppose, only God, Who knows everything, can truly fully understand anything spoken or written, because only He can know the complete context, including the status of the heart of the speaker or writer.
The practical translator must consider what sorts of things the reader is looking for in the translation — history, poetry, flavor, or how to turn on the silly foreign manufactured electronic frustration generator?