Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff
I really don't understand why this debate keeps popping up again and again and again. People keep going "hurp durp neither style is wrong", but a translation that doesn't translate shit is by definition a bad fucking translation. End of discussion.
|
You misunderstand me. It all depends on who the intended audience of the translation is. The first approach assumes that the audience is already familiar with the culture to a certain extent while the second assumes absolutely no familiarity. The aptness of each is entirely contextual.
While a translation that doesn't translate anything obviously can't be called a good translation, there's still the matter of expressions that do not have any close equivalent to the other target language. I'm not taking about common expressions like "itadakimasu" or "yoroshiku onegaishimasu". This comes up as more of an issue when it comes to the use of honorifics and Japanese wordplay. A translation that only captures the vague "idea" of a scene rather than the actual meaning can't be called a good translation either if that's how you feel.