Post by account_disabled on Dec 26, 2023 22:33:21 GMT -5
Paraphrasing the title of Philip Pullmann's trilogy, His Dark Materials , I take up here a discussion I took part in on Facebook, in which Alfredo Mogavero wondered if in a piece of the novel At the Bottom of the Swamp by Joe R. Lansdale there were too many "who ”. I report the piece present in the book, in the Italian translation therefore, putting the accused in bold: Considering that the couple of acres she cultivated was all sand and that her legs barely reached the plow handles, it must be said that she must have had some merit too.
Besides the fact that the Italian is not exactly correct, the original version written by Lansdale is: Considering the couple of acres she plowed were deep sand and Miss Maggie had legs about the size of hoe handles, and wasn't overall bigger than a large child, some credit had to go to her. In this period there is no "what", pardon the pun. But the game can Special Data also be fine, if we say that there is nothing wrong with the period. In the Italian version the translator even omitted the woman's name, adding a piece that does not appear in the original and cutting a part of the sentence... Trying to make a good translation, we could write: Considering that the couple of acres she plowed was deep sand and Miss Maggie had legs the size of a hoe handle, and overall was no bigger than a large child, some credit had to go to her.
At this point I ask myself: where did the translator get the word plough? The only tool Lansdale mentions is the hoe. Hoe is hoe. The verb to plow (or to plow ) means to plow and not to cultivate. Cultivate is to farm , to cultivate , to till . She also made a shift to the left by writing that she must have had some merit too , when, translating literally, she would have maintained the emphasis without incurring the shift. At this point the questions arise spontaneously: how much do translators know the language they translate? And how much do they know Italian? Do they translate meaningfully? Very often yes, unfortunately. It's bad.
Besides the fact that the Italian is not exactly correct, the original version written by Lansdale is: Considering the couple of acres she plowed were deep sand and Miss Maggie had legs about the size of hoe handles, and wasn't overall bigger than a large child, some credit had to go to her. In this period there is no "what", pardon the pun. But the game can Special Data also be fine, if we say that there is nothing wrong with the period. In the Italian version the translator even omitted the woman's name, adding a piece that does not appear in the original and cutting a part of the sentence... Trying to make a good translation, we could write: Considering that the couple of acres she plowed was deep sand and Miss Maggie had legs the size of a hoe handle, and overall was no bigger than a large child, some credit had to go to her.
At this point I ask myself: where did the translator get the word plough? The only tool Lansdale mentions is the hoe. Hoe is hoe. The verb to plow (or to plow ) means to plow and not to cultivate. Cultivate is to farm , to cultivate , to till . She also made a shift to the left by writing that she must have had some merit too , when, translating literally, she would have maintained the emphasis without incurring the shift. At this point the questions arise spontaneously: how much do translators know the language they translate? And how much do they know Italian? Do they translate meaningfully? Very often yes, unfortunately. It's bad.