Once more, then i'll (probably) shut up about this:
Originally Posted by Marco B
You should translate the narrative. Not try to change the story into something you think people will want to hear, or something you think they will understand better.
If Gevaert used a wick, people versed in the field of pouring emulsions may (or may not) scratch their heads, and think it odd (and it doesn't matter what they find odd: the use of the word or the use of a wick).
But they need to hear what (in this case) the film's narrative says. Nothing else.
Again, if "manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid" if you 'corrected' the thing Gevaert used (according to this account of what Gevaert used) to something else he didn't, just because you want to use the "general term".
You are then bending the narrative to mean, not what Gevart reportedly did, but to what other manufactures "generally" do.
That's not translating. That's revising.
The narrative says they used a wick (clearly audible: "wiek"), you're co-translator told you that they (said that they) used a wick.
So ... still want to revise? Or translate?
The instances i was alluding to - of translators goofing because they don't understand what they are translating - invariably would have not gone wrong if they just had translated what was said.
But they, not understanding, try to make sense of it, turning out nonsense instead.
If they only would have enough confidence in the people whose words they are translating, and not instead try to make something else of it, something that they understand, we would have much better subtitles. )
Last edited by Q.G.; 01-02-2010 at 09:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.