2007년 4월 17일 화요일
I Am Sorry
I am sorry. I am so sad. I can't find words to express my sorrows. God, punish us sinners.
2007년 4월 16일 월요일
English Is the System of Repetitions!
[원문]:Finally, outsiders are likely to perceive people who share something in common as a collective entity before those people do and even if major differences exist among them. Looking at their North American colonies from London, the British saw them as a whole before the colonists did. "The British worried about the whole," John M. Murrin states, "because they did not understand the parts, and they reified their concerns into totality they called America...In a word, America was Britain's idea." (Who Are We? Samuel P. Huntington)
[원문역]: 마지막으로, 외부인들은 무언가를 공유하는 사람들이 그러는 것 보다 먼저 (그들 사이에 상당한 차이들이 있는 경우에도) 그들을 하나의 집단적 단위로 보는 속도가 빠르다. 런던에서 북미의 식민자들을 보며, 영국인들은 그들보다 앞서 그들을 하나의 전체로 보았다. “영국인들은 그 전체에 대해 걱정했다”고 존 M. 마린은 얘기한다. “왜냐하면 그들은 그 안의 부분들을 이해하지 못했기 때문이다. 그래서 그들은 자신들의 걱정을 미국 America이라는 이름의 통합체로 형상화시켰다...한 마디로 말해서, 미국은 영국이 만들어낸 개념이었다. (새뮤얼 헌팅턴의 미국, 김영사)
[정역]: 마지막으로 말하고 싶은 것은, 뭔가 공통점을 가진 사람들이 있는 경우에 그들이 스스로 공통점을 가진 단일체라고 보기 전에 바깥에서 이를 보는 사람들은 이들을 하나의 집단적 주체로 보는 경향이 있다 (사실은 그들이 차이점이 많은데도 불구하고). 식민지 인민들이 스스로를 단일한 총체라고 보기도 전에 런던에서 북미의 영국 식민지 인민들을 보던 영국인들은 이들 식민지를 하나의 전체로 보았던 것이다....중략...한 마디로 말해서, 미국이라는 나라는 영국이 만들어낸 개념이었다.
[comments]::1)What is the most salient characteristic of a mistranslation? It is equivocation. The translator equivocates, that is, he or she makes ambiguous utterances, as if muttering to himself or herself. As a natural result, the reader or the audience doesn't understand what the translator or the interpreter is talking about.
2)This kind of self-deception is caused by the translator's laziness which braves the incompleteness of his understanding. As a result, when asked by his or her audiences what it means by this or that he or she can't clarify his or her statement. I am not being facetious, but the translator will have to say, shrugging his or her shoulders, "I don't know, either," when hearing his or her audiences express their doubts.
3)The culprit, which has caused the mistranslation, or the translator's equivocation, has been the translator's misunderstanding of the verb do. The verb do represents the preceding verb perceive, of course, but does not just represent the verb perceive but represent its objectives. So you can rewrite the sentence as follows:{{Finally, outsiders are likely to perceive people who share something in common as a collective entity [before those people perceive that they share some in common] and even if major differences exist among them.}}
4)You as well as the translator himself or herself should know that the English language is the structure of repetitions. To refer to the paragraph at issue, the four sentences have mutually related, similar and repetitious statements, so the following equation is established: Sentence A=Sentence B=Sentence C=Sentence D.
5)What is the theme of the paragraph? It is about a specific outsiders' tendency of views, one of which was that Britain had conceived the divided parts of the North American colonies as the whole American entity. In plain English, Britain had begun from earlier times to consider her own American colonies as one sovereign entity.
[원문역]: 마지막으로, 외부인들은 무언가를 공유하는 사람들이 그러는 것 보다 먼저 (그들 사이에 상당한 차이들이 있는 경우에도) 그들을 하나의 집단적 단위로 보는 속도가 빠르다. 런던에서 북미의 식민자들을 보며, 영국인들은 그들보다 앞서 그들을 하나의 전체로 보았다. “영국인들은 그 전체에 대해 걱정했다”고 존 M. 마린은 얘기한다. “왜냐하면 그들은 그 안의 부분들을 이해하지 못했기 때문이다. 그래서 그들은 자신들의 걱정을 미국 America이라는 이름의 통합체로 형상화시켰다...한 마디로 말해서, 미국은 영국이 만들어낸 개념이었다. (새뮤얼 헌팅턴의 미국, 김영사)
[정역]: 마지막으로 말하고 싶은 것은, 뭔가 공통점을 가진 사람들이 있는 경우에 그들이 스스로 공통점을 가진 단일체라고 보기 전에 바깥에서 이를 보는 사람들은 이들을 하나의 집단적 주체로 보는 경향이 있다 (사실은 그들이 차이점이 많은데도 불구하고). 식민지 인민들이 스스로를 단일한 총체라고 보기도 전에 런던에서 북미의 영국 식민지 인민들을 보던 영국인들은 이들 식민지를 하나의 전체로 보았던 것이다....중략...한 마디로 말해서, 미국이라는 나라는 영국이 만들어낸 개념이었다.
[comments]::1)What is the most salient characteristic of a mistranslation? It is equivocation. The translator equivocates, that is, he or she makes ambiguous utterances, as if muttering to himself or herself. As a natural result, the reader or the audience doesn't understand what the translator or the interpreter is talking about.
2)This kind of self-deception is caused by the translator's laziness which braves the incompleteness of his understanding. As a result, when asked by his or her audiences what it means by this or that he or she can't clarify his or her statement. I am not being facetious, but the translator will have to say, shrugging his or her shoulders, "I don't know, either," when hearing his or her audiences express their doubts.
3)The culprit, which has caused the mistranslation, or the translator's equivocation, has been the translator's misunderstanding of the verb do. The verb do represents the preceding verb perceive, of course, but does not just represent the verb perceive but represent its objectives. So you can rewrite the sentence as follows:{{Finally, outsiders are likely to perceive people who share something in common as a collective entity [before those people perceive that they share some in common] and even if major differences exist among them.}}
4)You as well as the translator himself or herself should know that the English language is the structure of repetitions. To refer to the paragraph at issue, the four sentences have mutually related, similar and repetitious statements, so the following equation is established: Sentence A=Sentence B=Sentence C=Sentence D.
5)What is the theme of the paragraph? It is about a specific outsiders' tendency of views, one of which was that Britain had conceived the divided parts of the North American colonies as the whole American entity. In plain English, Britain had begun from earlier times to consider her own American colonies as one sovereign entity.
2007년 4월 13일 금요일
Few People Came Up to Our Box to Say Hello=>The Cool Treatment
[원문]:He also owned a couple of Burger King restaurants. One day in the early spring, he invited me to go to the races with him at Oaklawn Park in Hot Springs. I had been out of office only a couple of months, and Bill was surprised that so few people came up to our box to say hello. Instead of discouraging him, the cool treatment I got fired his competitive instincts. He decided he was going to get me back to the governor's office come hell or high water. (My Life, Bill Clinton)
[원문역]:그는 버거킹 식당도 세 개 소유하고 있었다. 어느 날 이른 아침, 그가 핫스프링스 오크론 파크에서 경마를 보자고 권유했다. 주지사직에서 밀려난 지 두 달밖에 안 되었을 때였다. 그때 빌은 우리 좌석으로 찾아와 인사를 하는 사람이 너무나 적다고 흥분했고 오히려 나는 냉소적인 태도를 보이고 있었다. 그런데 빌은 내 태도에 실망하기는커녕 경쟁의식을 불살랐다. 그는 죽기 살기로 나를 주지사직에 복귀시키겠다고 결심했다. (빌 클린턴의 마이 라이프, 도서출판 물푸레)
[구문론의 무지]:영어 구문 조직의 무지에서 비롯된 오역입니다. 적어도 본격 번역 작업에 나선 자는 구문론에 대한 완전한 지식을 구유해야 합니다. 우선은 구문론에 대한 지식이 “번역자의 기본”이라고 할 수가 있습니다.
[the cool treatment]:the cool treatment를 “냉소적인 태도” 운운으로 번역했으나 그러한 번역에 앞서서 discourage의 주어가 되는 것을 아는 게 중요합니다.
[the cool treatment가 discourage의 주어가 됨을 보임]:1)문제의 명사구가 또한 동사 discourage의 주어가 됨을 보입니다. 2) 오역을 가져 온 그 문장을 전환해 보면 알 수가 있습니다. {{Instead of discouraging him, the cool treatment I got fired his competitive instincts.}}=>{{The cool treatment I got did not discourage him but fired his competitive instincts, instead.}}=>{{The cool treatment I got, rather discouraging him, fired his competitive instincts, instead}}=>{{Although I got the cool treatment, it did not discourage him but did fire his competitive instincts, instead.}}
[정역]:...전략...그때 빌은 우리 좌석으로 찾아와 인사를 하는 사람들이 얼마 되지 않는다는 사실에 놀랐다. 그러나, 그는 내가 받은 냉대에 기가 꺾이기는커녕 되레 투지를 불살랐다. ...후략...
[comments]::1)A translator of the English messages should be armed with the knowledge of the English syntax. He or she must not display his or her ignorance about that, for the knowledge is a must, a fundamental.
2)What is the syntax, then? In plain words, it is the knowledge that you should know elements of English sentences. To elaborate, you should know what element comprises the subject, what element the predicate verb, and what element the objective of a specific verb.
3)The translator does not know that the phrase at issue, 'the cool treatment', is the potential or hidden subject of the verb 'discourage.' The translator or translators should have known that various transformations of expression are made from the existing sentence {{Instead of discouraging him, the cool treatment I got fired his competitive instincts.}}
4)The translator or translators have got it wrong. Utterly wrong in that they have construed the sentence in question {{Instead of discouraging him, the cool treatment I got fired his competitive instincts.}}to mean that "...He showed cynicism..blah blah blah.." Why can't you see relationships between relevant sentences and phrases? Don't you see that the sentence {{few people came up to our box to say hello.}}have made a relational conversion into the phrase {{the cool treatment}}?
[원문역]:그는 버거킹 식당도 세 개 소유하고 있었다. 어느 날 이른 아침, 그가 핫스프링스 오크론 파크에서 경마를 보자고 권유했다. 주지사직에서 밀려난 지 두 달밖에 안 되었을 때였다. 그때 빌은 우리 좌석으로 찾아와 인사를 하는 사람이 너무나 적다고 흥분했고 오히려 나는 냉소적인 태도를 보이고 있었다. 그런데 빌은 내 태도에 실망하기는커녕 경쟁의식을 불살랐다. 그는 죽기 살기로 나를 주지사직에 복귀시키겠다고 결심했다. (빌 클린턴의 마이 라이프, 도서출판 물푸레)
[구문론의 무지]:영어 구문 조직의 무지에서 비롯된 오역입니다. 적어도 본격 번역 작업에 나선 자는 구문론에 대한 완전한 지식을 구유해야 합니다. 우선은 구문론에 대한 지식이 “번역자의 기본”이라고 할 수가 있습니다.
[the cool treatment]:the cool treatment를 “냉소적인 태도” 운운으로 번역했으나 그러한 번역에 앞서서 discourage의 주어가 되는 것을 아는 게 중요합니다.
[the cool treatment가 discourage의 주어가 됨을 보임]:1)문제의 명사구가 또한 동사 discourage의 주어가 됨을 보입니다. 2) 오역을 가져 온 그 문장을 전환해 보면 알 수가 있습니다. {{Instead of discouraging him, the cool treatment I got fired his competitive instincts.}}=>{{The cool treatment I got did not discourage him but fired his competitive instincts, instead.}}=>{{The cool treatment I got, rather discouraging him, fired his competitive instincts, instead}}=>{{Although I got the cool treatment, it did not discourage him but did fire his competitive instincts, instead.}}
[정역]:...전략...그때 빌은 우리 좌석으로 찾아와 인사를 하는 사람들이 얼마 되지 않는다는 사실에 놀랐다. 그러나, 그는 내가 받은 냉대에 기가 꺾이기는커녕 되레 투지를 불살랐다. ...후략...
[comments]::1)A translator of the English messages should be armed with the knowledge of the English syntax. He or she must not display his or her ignorance about that, for the knowledge is a must, a fundamental.
2)What is the syntax, then? In plain words, it is the knowledge that you should know elements of English sentences. To elaborate, you should know what element comprises the subject, what element the predicate verb, and what element the objective of a specific verb.
3)The translator does not know that the phrase at issue, 'the cool treatment', is the potential or hidden subject of the verb 'discourage.' The translator or translators should have known that various transformations of expression are made from the existing sentence {{Instead of discouraging him, the cool treatment I got fired his competitive instincts.}}
4)The translator or translators have got it wrong. Utterly wrong in that they have construed the sentence in question {{Instead of discouraging him, the cool treatment I got fired his competitive instincts.}}to mean that "...He showed cynicism..blah blah blah.." Why can't you see relationships between relevant sentences and phrases? Don't you see that the sentence {{few people came up to our box to say hello.}}have made a relational conversion into the phrase {{the cool treatment}}?
2007년 4월 12일 목요일
Steve Hosted the Analyst Call
[원문]: It was the kind of hidden, fiscally conservative move that wasn't usually associated with Steve Jobs, but it made a big difference. For fiscal 1998, Apple's sales fell to $5.9 billion, but the company nonetheless managed to eke out a profit. When Steve hosted the analyst call that year, he had what he called his "Schwarzenegger announcement," playing off the famous line from Terminator II, “We will be back." (Steve Jobs, Jeffrey S. Young, William L. Simon)
[원문역]:이것은 어쩐지 스티브 잡스와는 어울리지 않는 보수적인 재무관리 같지만 여기서 대단한 성과가 나왔다. 1998 회계연도에 애플의 매출은 59억 달러로 떨어졌지만 회사는 오히려 약간의 수익을 남겼다. 그해 애널리스트들의 전화를 받았을 때 스티브는 [터미네이터 II]에 나오는 유명한 대사로 대답했다. “우리는 다시 돌아옵니다. (We will be back)" (스티브 잡스, 민음사)
[말도 안되는 번역]:1)“...그해 애널리스트들의 전화를 받았을 때 스티비는...” 운운이 오역입니다. “스티브가 애널리스트들의 전화를 받았다”가 그야말로 넌센스죠. 2) 우리말 번역 부분을 다시 영어로 옮긴다고 생각해 봐요. 그 번역 부분은 영어로 대강 “when he got calls from analysts" 정도로 될 수밖에 없는데 원래의 영어 문장과 비교해 보면 너무나 동떨어진 번역이라는 걸 알 수가 있겠죠.
[host라는 동사]:1)host라는 타동사는 “주인 노릇을 하다” (act as a host)입니다. 2)스티브가 CEO로서 회사 내에서 그 어떤 행사를 주도한다면 바로 그런 경우 “Steve hosted..."라고 할 수가 있죠. 3)”Steve hosted the analyst call"은 따라서 우선 “스티브는 애널리스트 콜을 주관했다”의 의미로 되는 것입니다.
[the analyst call]:1)우선 이 경우는 ‘애널리스트 콜’이라고 음역할 수가 있어요. 2)그렇게 음역한 후에는 괄호 속에 또는 별항을 잡아 역자주 (translator's note)를 달아주면 되요. 2)잘 모르는 게 있으면 “무조건 구글에 물어봐요.” (Ask Google!) 거기에 해답이 다 나와요. 그러노라면, 번역자 당신은 상장회사의 경우 결산보고를 하면서 주주들에게 이익배당을 하는 자리에서 “애널리스트 (회사의 재정 분석가)가 투자자들의 전화 또는 온라인 질의를 받고 응답하는 일”을 말하는 것입니다.
[정역]:...전략...스티브 잡스가 그해 애널리스트 콜 (애널리스트가 투자자들의 전화 또는 온라인 질의를 받고 응답하는 행사:역자)을 주관하면서...후략
[comments]::1)I find myself speechless when seeing the ludicrous translation. Why, among all things, not pursue the lexical meaning of the verb 'host'? The verb 'host' means that you "act as a host."
2)The translator has got it wrong. Utterly wrong because he has construed the phrase in question {{When Steve hosted the analyst call that year,}}to mean to the effect that "Steve got calls from the analysts..." This kind of mistranslation results from a bad habit of yours unruly, lazy, reckless, and irresponsible which ignores the red light, braving the crash.
3)The translator should have held on to the lexical meaning of the verb 'host' to the last. Steve hosted something, which means "Steve acted as a host," "Steve presided over something," an event in this case.
4)"Steve accommodated something." "The analyst call" must be foreign to you, which is just like a social jargon. In that case, why don't you ask Google? All that you have to do is type in 'the analyst call' onto www.google.com, and you'll get the answer. In brief, Steve presided over an event, which is called the analyst call, in which the analyst gets calls or questions from the investors of the company and gives responses to them.
[원문역]:이것은 어쩐지 스티브 잡스와는 어울리지 않는 보수적인 재무관리 같지만 여기서 대단한 성과가 나왔다. 1998 회계연도에 애플의 매출은 59억 달러로 떨어졌지만 회사는 오히려 약간의 수익을 남겼다. 그해 애널리스트들의 전화를 받았을 때 스티브는 [터미네이터 II]에 나오는 유명한 대사로 대답했다. “우리는 다시 돌아옵니다. (We will be back)" (스티브 잡스, 민음사)
[말도 안되는 번역]:1)“...그해 애널리스트들의 전화를 받았을 때 스티비는...” 운운이 오역입니다. “스티브가 애널리스트들의 전화를 받았다”가 그야말로 넌센스죠. 2) 우리말 번역 부분을 다시 영어로 옮긴다고 생각해 봐요. 그 번역 부분은 영어로 대강 “when he got calls from analysts" 정도로 될 수밖에 없는데 원래의 영어 문장과 비교해 보면 너무나 동떨어진 번역이라는 걸 알 수가 있겠죠.
[host라는 동사]:1)host라는 타동사는 “주인 노릇을 하다” (act as a host)입니다. 2)스티브가 CEO로서 회사 내에서 그 어떤 행사를 주도한다면 바로 그런 경우 “Steve hosted..."라고 할 수가 있죠. 3)”Steve hosted the analyst call"은 따라서 우선 “스티브는 애널리스트 콜을 주관했다”의 의미로 되는 것입니다.
[the analyst call]:1)우선 이 경우는 ‘애널리스트 콜’이라고 음역할 수가 있어요. 2)그렇게 음역한 후에는 괄호 속에 또는 별항을 잡아 역자주 (translator's note)를 달아주면 되요. 2)잘 모르는 게 있으면 “무조건 구글에 물어봐요.” (Ask Google!) 거기에 해답이 다 나와요. 그러노라면, 번역자 당신은 상장회사의 경우 결산보고를 하면서 주주들에게 이익배당을 하는 자리에서 “애널리스트 (회사의 재정 분석가)가 투자자들의 전화 또는 온라인 질의를 받고 응답하는 일”을 말하는 것입니다.
[정역]:...전략...스티브 잡스가 그해 애널리스트 콜 (애널리스트가 투자자들의 전화 또는 온라인 질의를 받고 응답하는 행사:역자)을 주관하면서...후략
[comments]::1)I find myself speechless when seeing the ludicrous translation. Why, among all things, not pursue the lexical meaning of the verb 'host'? The verb 'host' means that you "act as a host."
2)The translator has got it wrong. Utterly wrong because he has construed the phrase in question {{When Steve hosted the analyst call that year,}}to mean to the effect that "Steve got calls from the analysts..." This kind of mistranslation results from a bad habit of yours unruly, lazy, reckless, and irresponsible which ignores the red light, braving the crash.
3)The translator should have held on to the lexical meaning of the verb 'host' to the last. Steve hosted something, which means "Steve acted as a host," "Steve presided over something," an event in this case.
4)"Steve accommodated something." "The analyst call" must be foreign to you, which is just like a social jargon. In that case, why don't you ask Google? All that you have to do is type in 'the analyst call' onto www.google.com, and you'll get the answer. In brief, Steve presided over an event, which is called the analyst call, in which the analyst gets calls or questions from the investors of the company and gives responses to them.
2007년 4월 11일 수요일
Why Do I Have To Do This?
Why do I have to do this? To review translation works of Korean authors? To criticize and accuse them of their poor jobs? To announce in public that "This is bull shit!" Or to shout with blood-shot eyes to domestic ears, "Cut the crap, you dullard?"
I begrudge their fame and higher earnings a little bit actually. My righteous mindset rests on the welfare of the pathetic readers who have been taken advantage of their trust and subsequently been ripped off by the ignorant, lazy and cunning translators and their publishers. The truth might lie somewhere in between.
The productivity of Korean translators is so poor and local publishers' disregard of the readers is so severe that it's high time somebody blew a whistle. That some drastic measures have to be taken to remedy the ages-old social malady. Although it might be extremely difficult to provide exact statistics and there might exist some disparities in credentials and productions from translator to translator, My conservative guess is that MTR (message transmittance rate) ranges between 70% and 80%.
What caused these cultural ills to take place? I think that the social practice of mutual concessions and co-defendant mentality might be to blame. What I mean by the social practice of mutual concessions is that members of the Korean society tend to show tolerance and magnanimity for others' mistakes (To err is human!). And what I mean by co-defendant mentality is that responsible social and cultural pundits, including the literati, are inclined to hold "live and let live" attitudes (A translation is a creation, giggling off).
Is there any reason that I don't accede to the establishment and compromise with it? Because I think that folks who earn money should take more or less responsibility for their earnings. The irony is that "the super rich", who have earned their lives through errorful translations, feel little or no remorse for their "sins", much less take a least responsibility.
Somebody does have to be an odd man out, I think, to do the dirty job of taking the sinner to task and awaken the tardy atmosphere of error-ridden translation world. Granted, why do I not do that at home, that is, locally, at the inside, without no further fuss? Why do I have do this vociferously, outside of my country, internationally?
I had done that at the local site:www.etnews.co.kr for a considerable period of nine full months and drawn a muted 90,000 viewers. Jests and ridicules aside, there had been doubts expressed about the efficacies of my performance. Their logical argument had been that if the reviewer and the reviewee argue over their own veracity, who will be there to verify their claims?
That is why I am here on this esteemed Google blog house to talk to the global citizens, especially to the native speakers of the English language. I want to get approval of my job from the American population, especially from the American academia. I hereby ask a sincere question of my Korean nationals studying in the United States or young Korean Americans residing here, who had been "locally and traditionally" trained by mediocre teachers in your motherland, to what degree you can make your job work for you, and to what degree you are succeeding in getting verbal and non-verbal English messages across to you.
I begrudge their fame and higher earnings a little bit actually. My righteous mindset rests on the welfare of the pathetic readers who have been taken advantage of their trust and subsequently been ripped off by the ignorant, lazy and cunning translators and their publishers. The truth might lie somewhere in between.
The productivity of Korean translators is so poor and local publishers' disregard of the readers is so severe that it's high time somebody blew a whistle. That some drastic measures have to be taken to remedy the ages-old social malady. Although it might be extremely difficult to provide exact statistics and there might exist some disparities in credentials and productions from translator to translator, My conservative guess is that MTR (message transmittance rate) ranges between 70% and 80%.
What caused these cultural ills to take place? I think that the social practice of mutual concessions and co-defendant mentality might be to blame. What I mean by the social practice of mutual concessions is that members of the Korean society tend to show tolerance and magnanimity for others' mistakes (To err is human!). And what I mean by co-defendant mentality is that responsible social and cultural pundits, including the literati, are inclined to hold "live and let live" attitudes (A translation is a creation, giggling off).
Is there any reason that I don't accede to the establishment and compromise with it? Because I think that folks who earn money should take more or less responsibility for their earnings. The irony is that "the super rich", who have earned their lives through errorful translations, feel little or no remorse for their "sins", much less take a least responsibility.
Somebody does have to be an odd man out, I think, to do the dirty job of taking the sinner to task and awaken the tardy atmosphere of error-ridden translation world. Granted, why do I not do that at home, that is, locally, at the inside, without no further fuss? Why do I have do this vociferously, outside of my country, internationally?
I had done that at the local site:www.etnews.co.kr for a considerable period of nine full months and drawn a muted 90,000 viewers. Jests and ridicules aside, there had been doubts expressed about the efficacies of my performance. Their logical argument had been that if the reviewer and the reviewee argue over their own veracity, who will be there to verify their claims?
That is why I am here on this esteemed Google blog house to talk to the global citizens, especially to the native speakers of the English language. I want to get approval of my job from the American population, especially from the American academia. I hereby ask a sincere question of my Korean nationals studying in the United States or young Korean Americans residing here, who had been "locally and traditionally" trained by mediocre teachers in your motherland, to what degree you can make your job work for you, and to what degree you are succeeding in getting verbal and non-verbal English messages across to you.
2007년 4월 10일 화요일
English Consists of Relationships!
[원문]: And how did they feed them in return? They poured water into a pot, and the best one might expect was that they would drop unscrubbed small potatoes into it, but otherwise black cabbage, beet tops, all kinds of trash. Or else vetch or bran, they didn't begrudge these. (100 Banned Books, Nicholas J. Karolides, Margaret Bald and Dawn B. Sova)
[원문역]: 그렇다면 일을 마치고 돌아온 사람들은 무엇을 먹는가? 냄비 하나에 물을 붓고 작은 감자를 껍질째 안에 넣고 끓인다. 그나마 감자는 가장 좋은 먹을 거리다. 검은 양배추나 비트 잎 등 온갖 잡동사니를 끓여 먹는 날도 있다. 살갈퀴나 겨가 나오더라도 군말 없이 먹는다. (100권의 금서, 예담)
[in return]:1)오역입니다. 2)역자는 “돌아온 사람들은” 운운하고 있으나 아무런 의미없는 번역입니다. 즉, 역자는 “in return"을 ”when they returned"의 의미로 옮긴 것입니다.
[in return]:1)영어는 관계입니다. 관계 속에서 의미를 파악하지 않고는 결코 “대한민국의 번역자들은 오역을 면할 수는 없을” 것입니다. 2)"in return"은 이디엄이며 그 의미는 바로 앞 패러그래프와 관련되어 있는 것입니다. 3)바로 앞 패러그래프에서는 구 소련 정치범 수용소에 수용되어 있는 죄수들의 비참한 강제 노역이 그려져 있는 것입니다. 따라서 “비참한 강제 노역”=>in return의 관계인 것입니다. 따라서, 그 바른 의미는 “그러한 강제 노역을 하고” “강제노역의 대가로”가 되는 것입니다.
[정역]:그렇게 강제노역을 한 그들은 그 댓가로 무엇을 먹었나?...이하 생략...
[comments]::1)I find myself heaving "a heavy sigh" whenever I spot this kind of mistranslations. I wish, among all things, to accuse the sense of the translator. What I mean by "the translator's sense" is that he should have felt strange when he had construed the phrase in question to mean to the effect "when they returned."
2)The author did not mention the time but the condition in which the prisoners were treated. In brief, the phrase {{in return}} is an idiomatic expression, the meaning of which should have been sought in terms of the relationship with the immediately preceding paragraph.
3)The English language is relationships. In other words, it consists of relationships. English is the system of relationships. The language is constructed on the principle of relationships. The meaning of a specific word or phrase in a specific English prose lies somewhere in the relationships and between the relationships because the language holds the structure of relationships. The phrase {{in return}}means "as a reward for something," whose meaning should have been "the prisoners' hard toils" of the preceding paragraph. The translator should have also taken notice of the elliptical element of the phrase. The phrase in question {{in return}} naturally means "in return (for hard toils)."
[원문역]: 그렇다면 일을 마치고 돌아온 사람들은 무엇을 먹는가? 냄비 하나에 물을 붓고 작은 감자를 껍질째 안에 넣고 끓인다. 그나마 감자는 가장 좋은 먹을 거리다. 검은 양배추나 비트 잎 등 온갖 잡동사니를 끓여 먹는 날도 있다. 살갈퀴나 겨가 나오더라도 군말 없이 먹는다. (100권의 금서, 예담)
[in return]:1)오역입니다. 2)역자는 “돌아온 사람들은” 운운하고 있으나 아무런 의미없는 번역입니다. 즉, 역자는 “in return"을 ”when they returned"의 의미로 옮긴 것입니다.
[in return]:1)영어는 관계입니다. 관계 속에서 의미를 파악하지 않고는 결코 “대한민국의 번역자들은 오역을 면할 수는 없을” 것입니다. 2)"in return"은 이디엄이며 그 의미는 바로 앞 패러그래프와 관련되어 있는 것입니다. 3)바로 앞 패러그래프에서는 구 소련 정치범 수용소에 수용되어 있는 죄수들의 비참한 강제 노역이 그려져 있는 것입니다. 따라서 “비참한 강제 노역”=>in return의 관계인 것입니다. 따라서, 그 바른 의미는 “그러한 강제 노역을 하고” “강제노역의 대가로”가 되는 것입니다.
[정역]:그렇게 강제노역을 한 그들은 그 댓가로 무엇을 먹었나?...이하 생략...
[comments]::1)I find myself heaving "a heavy sigh" whenever I spot this kind of mistranslations. I wish, among all things, to accuse the sense of the translator. What I mean by "the translator's sense" is that he should have felt strange when he had construed the phrase in question to mean to the effect "when they returned."
2)The author did not mention the time but the condition in which the prisoners were treated. In brief, the phrase {{in return}} is an idiomatic expression, the meaning of which should have been sought in terms of the relationship with the immediately preceding paragraph.
3)The English language is relationships. In other words, it consists of relationships. English is the system of relationships. The language is constructed on the principle of relationships. The meaning of a specific word or phrase in a specific English prose lies somewhere in the relationships and between the relationships because the language holds the structure of relationships. The phrase {{in return}}means "as a reward for something," whose meaning should have been "the prisoners' hard toils" of the preceding paragraph. The translator should have also taken notice of the elliptical element of the phrase. The phrase in question {{in return}} naturally means "in return (for hard toils)."
A Fresh Start:My Determination
I had been a flint man, that is, I was a son of a flint man. I am a relatively senior citizen of a small country divided by the Truce Line and torn by ideologies. I appreciate everything to begin with. I appreciate the opportunity I have been given by the esteemed company of Google.
I have been one of tens of millions of Korean beneficiaries of all things American, ranging from the beautiful language of English, the western movies, the country songs, jazzs and everything else. I have enjoyed them all my life.
I confess that I am not a smart person. On top of that, as I have said above, I am a relatively old man. As a result, I am all thumbs about all things electronic. My laziness and years-old habit of consulting my sons for the electronic distress have caused all the undesirable consequences of today. I seek, of all things, your understandings for all the troubles I inflict on you in the course of blogging and something.
Money has not been the object of my interest all along. Actually, I have never imagined myself earning some money thanks to my poor blog postings. I have always thought that there has been something wanting in my English expository prose. And the topics, which I have been dealing with, have not been appealing.
I am going to make a fresh start, with hopes that I shall be more successful in addressing the woes of the mistranslations of and by the Korean authors. Thanks again for the Internet Era and the brilliant Google Guys and their colleagues who work for them.
I have been one of tens of millions of Korean beneficiaries of all things American, ranging from the beautiful language of English, the western movies, the country songs, jazzs and everything else. I have enjoyed them all my life.
I confess that I am not a smart person. On top of that, as I have said above, I am a relatively old man. As a result, I am all thumbs about all things electronic. My laziness and years-old habit of consulting my sons for the electronic distress have caused all the undesirable consequences of today. I seek, of all things, your understandings for all the troubles I inflict on you in the course of blogging and something.
Money has not been the object of my interest all along. Actually, I have never imagined myself earning some money thanks to my poor blog postings. I have always thought that there has been something wanting in my English expository prose. And the topics, which I have been dealing with, have not been appealing.
I am going to make a fresh start, with hopes that I shall be more successful in addressing the woes of the mistranslations of and by the Korean authors. Thanks again for the Internet Era and the brilliant Google Guys and their colleagues who work for them.
피드 구독하기:
덧글 (Atom)