-----------------
Don't you see the relationships about you? Don't you see your immediate relatives living near you? You should make efforts to enhance your abilities to notice the linguistic relationships taking place side by side on the prose, that is, the realistic sentences and paragraphs.
Text:
The PATRIOT Act certainly puts a new spin on the word "search." But this is to be expected, right? After all, if the government has probable cause and a search warrant, nothing has changed, has it? As all good civics students know, the Fourth Amendment continues: "no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (The Search, John Battelle, p.199) (The Korean version, p.312)
Dano's comments:
At kindergartens, pre-school children learn how to behave as kids. The students of social studies learn how to behave as young men and ladies, that is, how to keep manners. In the same context, the students of civics are taught how to behave as citizens, that is, to learn about the U.S. Constitution or community affairs. The statements show mutual relationships: They define each other.
It has been a sorry thing for the Korean translator to interpret the bold-typed sentence as to mean "good-natured students..." It's not about students' character. In this case, the adjective 'good' is related to one's abilities. When you say Ann is a good swimmer, you mean that Ann is good at swimming, that is, Ann swims well. In short, the bold-typed "good civics students" does not mean good-natured students but means the students who are well versed in civics problems.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Status Offenses
------------------
Though it had been a wrong interpretation, it looked just all right on the surface. On the Korean version at least. Not a problem. Almost all the Korean readers will not notice the difference. However, it turned out to be an utterly contradictory version to the original text.
Text:
We had a tougher time when it came to gay rights. Two years later, Attorney General Jim Guy Tucker had spearheaded a new criminal code through the legislature. It simplified and clarified the definitions of more than one hundred years of complicated and overlapping crimes. It also eliminated so-called status offenses, which had been condemned by the Supreme Court. A crime requires committing a forbidden act, intentionally or recklessly; just being something society deems undesirable isn't enough. For example, being a drunk wasn't a crime. Neither was being a homosexual, though it had been before the code was adopted. (My Life, Bill Clinton, p.247) (The Korean version, p.365~p.366)
Dano's comments:
The translator gives a lie to the readers of the Korean version. According to the translator, three protagonists--Attorney General, the Supreme Court, and the writer himself--unanimously agreed on the crminality of the so-called status offenses. Did they?
The bold-typed (by myself of course) clause said they did not. The Supreme Court had condemned the status offenses. The Korean translator has made a distortion of the clause in question by stating to the effect that "...and it had been made null by the Supreme Court..." The word condemned here means that the court considered it guilty and ruled so.
The English language is the language of relationships. The translator does not have the idea. He or she has not the concept of relationships in mind. Don't you see the relationships between the bold-typed clause which had been condemned by the Supreme Court and the bold-typed and underlined clause though it had been before the code was adopted. Don't you see?
Though it had been a wrong interpretation, it looked just all right on the surface. On the Korean version at least. Not a problem. Almost all the Korean readers will not notice the difference. However, it turned out to be an utterly contradictory version to the original text.
Text:
We had a tougher time when it came to gay rights. Two years later, Attorney General Jim Guy Tucker had spearheaded a new criminal code through the legislature. It simplified and clarified the definitions of more than one hundred years of complicated and overlapping crimes. It also eliminated so-called status offenses, which had been condemned by the Supreme Court. A crime requires committing a forbidden act, intentionally or recklessly; just being something society deems undesirable isn't enough. For example, being a drunk wasn't a crime. Neither was being a homosexual, though it had been before the code was adopted. (My Life, Bill Clinton, p.247) (The Korean version, p.365~p.366)
Dano's comments:
The translator gives a lie to the readers of the Korean version. According to the translator, three protagonists--Attorney General, the Supreme Court, and the writer himself--unanimously agreed on the crminality of the so-called status offenses. Did they?
The bold-typed (by myself of course) clause said they did not. The Supreme Court had condemned the status offenses. The Korean translator has made a distortion of the clause in question by stating to the effect that "...and it had been made null by the Supreme Court..." The word condemned here means that the court considered it guilty and ruled so.
The English language is the language of relationships. The translator does not have the idea. He or she has not the concept of relationships in mind. Don't you see the relationships between the bold-typed clause which had been condemned by the Supreme Court and the bold-typed and underlined clause though it had been before the code was adopted. Don't you see?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
----------------
Why lie to the readers? Why bend conscience and twist facts? Why are the Korean translators not loyal to the pursuit of the lexicological meaning of words to begin with?
Text:
Eric Schmidt had no interest in visiting Google even as he walked in to meet with Sergey Brin and Larry Page in December 2000. The first thing he noticed was that they had projected his biography on the wall. He heard that Google was a flaky place, and this seemed to confirm it. "I thought that was really odd," he said. (The Google Story, David A. Vise and Mark Malseed, p.103) (The Korean version, p. 162)
Dano's comments:
I don't think the translator didn't know the lexicological difference between biography and portrait. Then how come he misinterpreted the bold-typed phrase as to mean "projected his portrait? It's a sheer nonsense. The portrait could be an inclusion of his biography. However, as the biography is to a portrait so is the whole to a part. The Google team had been projecting the visitor's entire life at the time.
Why lie to the readers? Why bend conscience and twist facts? Why are the Korean translators not loyal to the pursuit of the lexicological meaning of words to begin with?
Text:
Eric Schmidt had no interest in visiting Google even as he walked in to meet with Sergey Brin and Larry Page in December 2000. The first thing he noticed was that they had projected his biography on the wall. He heard that Google was a flaky place, and this seemed to confirm it. "I thought that was really odd," he said. (The Google Story, David A. Vise and Mark Malseed, p.103) (The Korean version, p. 162)
Dano's comments:
I don't think the translator didn't know the lexicological difference between biography and portrait. Then how come he misinterpreted the bold-typed phrase as to mean "projected his portrait? It's a sheer nonsense. The portrait could be an inclusion of his biography. However, as the biography is to a portrait so is the whole to a part. The Google team had been projecting the visitor's entire life at the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)