|
||
Новости Энциклопедия переводчика Блоги Авторский дневник Форум Работа Декларация Поиск О нас пишут Награды Читальня Конкурсы Опросы | ||
|
||
Новости Энциклопедия переводчика Блоги Авторский дневник Форум Работа Декларация Поиск О нас пишут Награды Читальня Конкурсы Опросы | ||
Модератор: LyoSHICK
Drunya писал(а):неизбежно теряется
Для того, чтобы отвечать той высокой и ответственной роли, какая возложена на подстрочный перевод (в известной мере заменять оригинал), подстрочник должен в неизменном виде абсолютно точно передавать как общее содержание произведения, так и всю систему его образов, а также особенности его лексики с сохранением синтаксической и интонационной структуры поэтической речи автора оригинала.
Принимая во внимание существующие различия между отдельными языками народов СССР и возникающие отсюда трудности при переводе на другой язык отдельных слов, понятий, образов и целых синтаксических комплексов оригинала, считать обязательным составление подстрочников в двух редакциях. В одной редакции (дословной) должен быть дан перевод каждого слова оригинала с обязательным сохранением порядка слов, свойственного оригиналу. Другая редакция (смысловая) призвана открыть переводчику смысл каждой фразы оригинала с раскрытием (расшифровкой) каждого словесного комплекса и образа, не всегда ясных при дословном переводе.
Подстрочник должен быть сопровожден описанием (рисунком) ритмической структуры оригинала с обязательным описанием строфики, порядка цезур, чередования рифм и их характеристикой.
К подстрочнику должен быть приложен оригинал произведения в русской транскрипции или же в транскрипции того языка, на какой произведение переводится. Без представления такого оригинала подстрочный перевод не может лечь в основу художественного перевода.
ПРИМЕЧАНИЕ: В тех случаях, где дух языка это разрешает, в оригинале должны быть расставлены ударения в словах.
К подстрочнику должны быть приложены краткие сведения как об авторе оригинала, так и о произведении, предназначенном к переводу (принадлежность автора к той или иной литературной школе, дата написания произведения и т.п.). Помимо того, подстрочник должен быть широко прокомментирован в отношении всех содержащихся в нем образов, докладных выражений и отдельных слов, могущих быть понятыми превратно или неправильно.
Drunya писал(а): Левонтин — друг Шенгели; стоит ли это учитывать, слыша про highly appreciative talk (типа может ли он или та же Ахматова, шпынявшая Байрона, быть объективен по отношению к Шенгели, нет ли тама conflict of interests какого)?
Susanna Witt писал(а):Nationalities translation was singled out as a particularly problematic field: “If we find startling examples of hackwork (khaltura) in several comrades’ translations from Western languages, then, comrades, the most stupendous things are going on when it comes to translations from the languages of our Union.”
...
The phenomenon of podstrochnik translation was also touched upon by the bureau. A specific concern was its low prestige: “We have an entire gradation of scornful attitudes here: on the part of the writer toward the translator, on the one hand, on the translator’s part toward that translator who works from podstrochniki, and so on.”
...
During the following year, the primary concerns of the Translation Bureau and its successor, the Translators’ Section of the Soviet Writers’ Union (officially formed in October 1934), wеre registration, assessment, and education of the “cadres,” including authors of podstrochniki as a specific category. ... However, it appears from the discussions that problems with these texts may have had other reasons than lack of competence. Due to the low level of payment, the podstrochnikisty were often anxious to increase the number of lines (the basis for calculation), thus “losing the literary style of the work.” The economic incentives for such “adding” translation were signicant: makers of the interlinear received from one-tenth to one-sixth of the translator’s fee, which in turn was about the same as the original author’s.
...
The First Congress of Soviet Writers, held in August 1934, had a particular focus on nationalities literatures. Despite the vivid discussions and preparations that had been going on at the Translation Bureau, no speech was devoted exclusively to the topic of translation. Several delegates, however, touched on the problem of bad translations from their respective nationality literature into Russian. Paradoxically, it was an instance of podstrochnik translation that received most favorable attention at the congress, namely, Boris Pasternak’s and Nikolai Tikhonov’s recent rendering of Georgian poets. They were hailed as exemplary models and subsequently referred to with envy by representatives of nationalities blessed with less famous and successful translators.
...
An additional problem was highlighted by Pavel Zenkevich, head of the Translators’ Section, who criticized the common type of translator “from all languages” that had emerged together with the podstrochnik practice. ... The resolution of the conference reflected these concerns ...: "Noting the extremely low quality of interlinear translations and the howling examples of distortions and ad-libbing (otsebiatina) in translation from the nationalities languages into Russian, suggest to publishing houses that they raise their demands in terms of quality of their podstrochniki and, with the aim of attracting highly qualified cadres, at the same time increase the payment offered for podstrochniki by as much as possible."
Susanna Witt писал(а):At a translation conference in 1943, it was noted that “a Soviet schoolboy firmly knows straight from school that the best Soviet writers are Gorky, Mayakovsky, Furmanov, Gladkov, Fadeev, Stal’skii, Serafimovich, Dzhambul. Sometimes he does not even know that Dzhambul writes in Kazakh and not in Russian (although this is of course a bad thing).” Apart from the detail that Dzhambul did not write in any language since he was an illiterate representative of an oral tradition, the remark is useful as an illustration of both the magnitude and the pervasiveness of these folk authors of Stalin panegyrics and patriotic party poetry.
Within this particular sphere, initiatives on the part of individual translators, and sometimes authors, interplayed with administrative actions taken by the state and the literary apparatus. For example, in connection with Dzhambul’s “seventieth anniversary as an author” in 1938, steps were taken to facilitate his literary production: a service organization was set up for him including a “bureau of podstrochnik translators” and personal secretaries (prominent Kazakh poets of a younger generation) for the continual transcription of the oral creations of the bard. Other decisions made at the moment concerned a bilingual edition of Dzhambul’s works in one volume, a volume of verse dedicated to the Kazkah bard, the set-up of a brigade for “organizing the Dzhambulogists’ elaboration of research problems pertaining to Dzhambul’s life and works, and also for producing popular books and monographs on the bard,” a series of stamps dedicated to him and the arrangement of a contest for the best translations of Dzhambul’s poems into the nationalities languages; the last initiative presumably involving indirect practices to a significant degree. Dzhambul was also to enter the canon of the next generation: a book on him and an edition of his prose was to be produced by the Publishing House of Children’s Literature (Detizdat).
A large number of texts with various degrees of authority thus came to circulate in subregions of the literary system. The resulting confusion is mirrored in a series of meetings at the Nationalities Commission in 1939 ... A concise travel report was presented by Grigorii Korabel’nikov (a critic and editor, head of the Dagestani Commission), who had been assigned the task of clarifying the state of Suleiman Stal’skii’s literary legacy in Dagestan in connection with the approaching seventieth anniversary of the poet, who had passed away the previous year. The report gives a picture of the efforts put into the “production of authenticity” on part of all the agents of translation.
Korabel’nikov told the Nationalities Commission that an alarming textological situation had been revealed as no original editions of Stal’skii’s work had appeared since 1935. Thus the source readership did not have access to the most “politically mature” part of his output. Over thirty works published in Russian translation (among which were “famous poems such as ‘Dagestan,’ ‘Sergo Ordzhnikidze,’ and ‘Dumy o rodine’”) were found to lack any original texts whatsoever. ... In cases where original texts had been localized, new podstrochniki nevertheless had to be made as the earlier ones were of such poor quality. This was attributed to the fact that they had been carried out by nonspecialists: “everyone who knows a bit of the language and wants to make some money is doing them.”
The relationships between original text, podstrochnik and translation were brought to a head in the further discussion that focused on Stal’skii’s translator Effendi Kapiev (North Caucasus resident and secretary of the Writers’ Union in Dagestan), whose work had been singled out as most “deviant” from the extant podstrochniki. The fact that there were no original Lezgian transcriptions for most of these works had given rise to “certain rumors” in Dagestan. Explaining these deviations, Kapiev pointed out that his working process differed from that of the Russian translators. They received their podstrochniki “through a number of instances” while Kapiev had worked in close contact with Stal’skii himself. As Kapiev did not know the Lezgian language, he communicated with the poet in “Turkic,” that is Azerbaijani. Kapiev gave an account of this process, devoting specific attention to aspects of authority and reliability:
This was on the eve of the celebration of Sergo Ordzhonikidze. I was told at the krai committee in Piatigorsk that a poem by Suleiman Stal’skii was necessary for the celebration. I stopped by at Suleiman’s house and told him that he had to compose a poem. He asked me to put together a rough outline of the piece. I did so. When I returned to him the poem was finished, and he recited it to me. [...] With this podstrochnik I came to Piatigorsk. When I had translated it, the publishing house demanded Suleiman Stal’skii’s stamp of approval on the translation. I went to him and read the poem aloud to him in the presence of Alikberov. Alikberov himself wrote me a document stating that Efendi Kapiev had read the poem to Suleiman Stal’skii, that Stal’skii had approved of it and agreed with all the corrections, and said that the poem should be printed in this form without further changes.
... Kapiev argued, as Stal’skii had a personal secretary who was obliged to keep updated Lezgian originals of his output.
Wladimir писал(а):Левину
Drunya писал(а):Wladimir писал(а):Левину
У рутении сломался файнридер
eCat-Erina писал(а):на что рассчитывали, публикуя ... ?
L. B. писал(а):Что до меня касается, то "существо", по-моему, удачно схвачено Азовым (если оно, конечно, то существо, коего взыскует Константин):
L.B. писал(а):также трудно понять, как... ваш последний блогопост
L.B. писал(а):что есть, по-вашему, *существо*
L.B. писал(а):Так что Wladimir беспочвенно себя в дилетанты с упрямством записывает - обходится без подстрочника, знает язык оригинала, лезет, можно сказать, из калашного ряда...
Uncle A писал(а):Кстати, уважаемые знатоки теории, не подскажете: существует ли определение точности в художественном переводе? У меня есть учебник Модестова, но рыться в нем лень.
Вернуться в Центральный дом литературного переводчика
Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 3