Jump to content

Japanese Help Thread


Guest

Recommended Posts

I'm translating a line where a character talks about an evil gothic chick:

それにしても、あの子ホント怖いね

きっと、もう妖怪みたいなもんだよ。 歴代イッキの彼女に対する怨念を 抱えて柳の下とかに立ってるんだ

とりあえずさっきの番号は 『妖怪女』とでも登録しとこ。 で、着信拒否設定。うん

I don't get the second line... What does 柳の下とかに立ってる mean? (Aside the obvious.)

Other notes: Ikki is a male character who's got a fanclub, and あの子 is the president.

Help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

それにしても、あの子ホント怖いね

Even so, she really is quite scary.

きっと、もう妖怪みたいなもんだよ。 歴代イッキの彼女に対する怨念を 抱えて柳の下とかに立ってるんだ

Probably even on the level of a vengeful spirit. Like one that'd wait in ambush under a willow tree to get her murderous hands on Ikki's girlfriends and strangle her out of sheer animosity.

とりあえずさっきの番号は 『妖怪女』とでも登録しとこ。 で、着信拒否設定。うん

For now, I'll register her number into my phone as "Demon Girl." I should probably block her calls too... Yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm translating a line where a character talks about an evil gothic chick:

それにしても、あの子ホント怖いね

きっと、もう妖怪みたいなもんだよ。 歴代イッキの彼女に対する怨念を 抱えて柳の下とかに立ってるんだ

とりあえずさっきの番号は 『妖怪女』とでも登録しとこ。 で、着信拒否設定。うん

I don't get the second line... What does 柳の下とかに立ってる mean? (Aside the obvious.)

Other notes: Ikki is a male character who's got a fanclub, and あの子 is the president.

Help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously do not support this kind of translation style. This is not translating. It's inserting words and phrases the author didn't use to make explicit a connotation of your interpretation that the author likely did not even mean, just to force an interpretation on the story instead.

If you realize that Japanese and English are two completely different languages, then you should realize that different things constitute as 'good writing' for both languages respectively. In the Japanese line, there is clear sense of imagery (partly through cultural impact), in which case a literal translation would lack. In this sense, your so-called style of 'translating' would be butchering the original with horrendous writing. An experienced reader, in any language, would be able to recognize the tone of writing through reading it - it's not some arbitrary subjective interpretation, and it's definitely not rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you realize that Japanese and English are two completely different languages, then you should realize that different things constitute as 'good writing' for both languages respectively. In the Japanese line, there is clear sense of imagery (partly through cultural impact), in which case a literal translation would lack. In this sense, your so-called style of 'translating' would be butchering the original with horrendous writing. An experienced reader, in any language, would be able to recognize the tone of writing through reading it - it's not some arbitrary subjective interpretation, and it's definitely not rocket science.

can't agree more, i've seen many translation using the so called 'literal' style and they're plain unreadable. :amane:

japanese (VNs, novels) use idioms often. soo, yeah, literal style won't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you realize that Japanese and English are two completely different languages, then you should realize that different things constitute as 'good writing' for both languages respectively. In the Japanese line, there is clear sense of imagery (partly through cultural impact), in which case a literal translation would lack. In this sense, your so-called style of 'translating' would be butchering the original with horrendous writing. An experienced reader, in any language, would be able to recognize the tone of writing through reading it - it's not some arbitrary subjective interpretation, and it's definitely not rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flowery writing is not bad in Japanese; the two languages have very different styles. Like we agreed, they are different languages. You pretty much disregarded your own statement and contradicted yourself.

I did not. I'm glad you agree flowery writing is not bad in Japanese. In this case the writing style is simple. And we've agreed flowery writing is not bad. Therefore the author chose to write in simple style, he was not forced to by aesthetic value. It's not your place to make it flowery upon translation.

 

No one ever said that, and that is completely irrelevant. I simply said literal translations were bad. You are doing nothing more than putting words into my mouth.

You stated "constitute as 'good writing' for both languages", which I assume you imply that by flowering it up you wanted to keep a piece of good writing good. I apologize if that is not the case.

 

You are being kind of hypocritical by stating 'there's no way we can know the author's true intent,' while writing as if you are speaking for the author.

You misunderstood me.

We can not understand what the author intent as the correct interpretation. This is true. I do not believe the author intented for a violent, crazy girl. But you do. Both are possible and both are fine.

The problem is forcing our own interpretation on the reader, when the author does not. The author used language that left the extent of this trait open for interpretation (and perhaps later elaboration and contradiction). Therefore as translators we should also use language that leaves it open as well. If the author use vague language, we should not be building a clear scenary.

 

And let's be clear here. The language is vague. "Willow" is generic haunted location. "Hatred" is generic motivation. And the only clearly stated action is "standing" or like "appearing", which is itself very vague. There's no graphic imagery used here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, translating literary works is a slippery slope, and there is a reason why novels are usually done by university professors, and even have multiple translations.

Translating things "literally" usually puts you at the situation where not only your writing is nigh unreadable, but you are not getting the author's point across either (same words don't mean same things in different languages, if they did, we didn't need translators at all, we'd just need translation software).

 

So, translating literary works, in the end, comes down to translating nuance; the best of the best breakdown every single line of the novel, analyzing the intention with which it was written (setting the atmosphere, describing a fact, lightening the mood) and transcribe it in other language so it has the exact same effect and conveys most of the same information, usually, using completely different words. Remember, you are not only tling words, you are tling culture.

 

This, obviously, leaves readers at the mercy of the translator's interpretation abilities, somewhat, but very few professionals actually misinterpret the stuff that much. And I'd rather have a fine tl that gets most of the point across, rather than a garbled mess which neither makes sense, nor coincides with the writer's intent. xD

Here's an example of the best VN translation ever done by a man (this guy translates Haruki Murakami novels too, real pro work here).



https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4FE03279FA2A0C42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, translating literary works is a slippery slope, and there is a reason why novels are usually done by university professors, and even have multiple translations.

Translating things "literally" usually puts you at the situation where not only your writing is nigh unreadable, but you are not getting the author's point across either (same words don't mean same things in different languages, if they did, we didn't need translators at all, we'd just need translation software).

 

So, translating literary works, in the end, comes down to translating nuance; the best of the best breakdown every single line of the novel, analyzing the intention with which it was written (setting the atmosphere, describing a fact, lightening the mood) and transcribe it in other language so it has the exact same effect and conveys most of the same information, usually, using completely different words. Remember, you are not only tling words, you are tling culture.

 

This, obviously, leaves readers at the mercy of the translator's interpretation abilities, somewhat, but very few professionals actually misinterpret the stuff that much. And I'd rather have a fine tl that gets most of the point across, rather than a garbled mess which neither makes sense, nor coincides with the writer's intent. xD

Here's an example of the best VN translation ever done by a man (this guy translates Haruki Murakami novels too, real pro work here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, translating literary works is a slippery slope, and there is a reason why novels are usually done by university professors, and even have multiple translations.

Translating things "literally" usually puts you at the situation where not only your writing is nigh unreadable, but you are not getting the author's point across either (same words don't mean same things in different languages, if they did, we didn't need translators at all, we'd just need translation software).

 

So, translating literary works, in the end, comes down to translating nuance; the best of the best breakdown every single line of the novel, analyzing the intention with which it was written (setting the atmosphere, describing a fact, lightening the mood) and transcribe it in other language so it has the exact same effect and conveys most of the same information, usually, using completely different words. Remember, you are not only tling words, you are tling culture.

 

This, obviously, leaves readers at the mercy of the translator's interpretation abilities, somewhat, but very few professionals actually misinterpret the stuff that much. And I'd rather have a fine tl that gets most of the point across, rather than a garbled mess which neither makes sense, nor coincides with the writer's intent. xD

Here's an example of the best VN translation ever done by a man (this guy translates Haruki Murakami novels too, real pro work here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, translating literary works is a slippery slope, and there is a reason why novels are usually done by university professors, and even have multiple translations.

Translating things "literally" usually puts you at the situation where not only your writing is nigh unreadable, but you are not getting the author's point across either (same words don't mean same things in different languages, if they did, we didn't need translators at all, we'd just need translation software).

 

So, translating literary works, in the end, comes down to translating nuance; the best of the best breakdown every single line of the novel, analyzing the intention with which it was written (setting the atmosphere, describing a fact, lightening the mood) and transcribe it in other language so it has the exact same effect and conveys most of the same information, usually, using completely different words. Remember, you are not only tling words, you are tling culture.

 

This, obviously, leaves readers at the mercy of the translator's interpretation abilities, somewhat, but very few professionals actually misinterpret the stuff that much. And I'd rather have a fine tl that gets most of the point across, rather than a garbled mess which neither makes sense, nor coincides with the writer's intent. xD

Here's an example of the best VN translation ever done by a man (this guy translates Haruki Murakami novels too, real pro work here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seriously is good writing and translation.

 

You're kidding me.

 

"Every time I killed an enemy soldier, something like the stain of his blood would rise to the surface of the stone.  As you can see, it's almost solid black now after three years.  The stone is stained by the sins I've committed.  I call it my 'sin stone.'"

 

This??  This melodramatic crap is good writing??

"You don't have to blame yourself so harshly", says Kaim.

"You had to do it to stay alive."

 

Gee, that's original.

 

I can't even imagine someone narrating lines like these without cracking up.  If this is the peak of visual novels, I'm glad I'm no longer a fan.

 

No comment on the translation quality: I'd have to read the original first, as anyone with a valid opinion would have done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're kidding me.

"Every time I killed an enemy soldier, something like the stain of his blood would rise to the surface of the stone. As you can see, it's almost solid black now after three years. The stone is stained by the sins I've committed. I call it my 'sin stone.'"

This?? This melodramatic crap is good writing??

"You don't have to blame yourself so harshly", says Kaim.

"You had to do it to stay alive."

Gee, that's original.

I can't even imagine someone narrating lines like these without cracking up. If this is the peak of visual novels, I'm glad I'm no longer a fan.

No comment on the translation quality: I'd have to read the original first, as anyone with a valid opinion would have done.

No offense, but if someone you know in real life were to say those lines to you, you probably won't think its melodramatic crap.

And the translation flows pretty well. That's good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't flow well though... "something like the stain of his blood" is barely legible at all. How would a stain show up? Some of the sentence gives the impression of this blood moving, as it appears and disappears, but that's the exact opposite of what a stain is. A stain is a stain because it won't move, it won't go away and you can't make it go away. As visual imagery it's really odd. Didn't fit well at all, and doesn't seem like a good translation to me.

 

Also the fact that he uses stain twice. So the stone is stained with his sins which are stains of blood. We getting into stainception here. Also I think "stained with" is better than "stained by" in that case. Makes it feel more like a burden, and more like a stain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't flow well though... "something like the stain of his blood" is barely legible at all. How would a stain show up? Some of the sentence gives the impression of this blood moving, as it appears and disappears, but that's the exact opposite of what a stain is. A stain is a stain because it won't move, it won't go away and you can't make it go away. As visual imagery it's really odd. Didn't fit well at all, and doesn't seem like a good translation to me.

Also the fact that he uses stain twice. So the stone is stained with his sins which are stains of blood. We getting into stainception here. Also I think "stained with" is better than "stained by" in that case. Makes it feel more like a burden, and more like a stain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in England it does, and far as I know it's the same in America. If you spill some wine on a carpet, or get something on your clothes, you don't call it a stain, you'd say something like "I have to clean it or it'll stain." It will *become* a stain if it dries in. When things go past the point where they can cleaned off and removed, without a huge amount of effort, then they become stains. We never call things stains the second they happen, but leave it for a week and you will have a stain. It's similar to "scar" in that way. As soon as you cut yourself you don't call it a scar, you'd say it *will* (or could or whatever, something future tense) leave a scar. Once it goes past the point where it stops healing and the mark won't go away, then it becomes a scar. That's how I've always known it to be, and the only way I've ever heard it used.

 

In addition to that, have you ever seen blood dry (which is the state the blood would be in for it to be a stain, at least for me)? It becomes solid, it becomes something which you can scratch or pick at and peel off. It's certainly not something you can wipe away, it's not liquid at all. That's why I say it's confusing imagery, because the translation there is saying that it "would rise to the surface." That's not something dried blood can do. I can't think of any specific movie names, but you must have seen movies where they have some sort of ominous stone and it has like a flowing liquid inside it which "rises to the surface" when touched or something. That's the sort of impression I get from a liquid substance "rising" within a stone. But a huge spanner is thrown in the works by saying it's a blood stain, because a blood stain to me is dried and immovable.

 

Again it's what you make of it, but 染み is also a "spot," and that makes much more sense to me in this context, because then we can still talk about liquid blood, and it rising makes sense.

 

However, if you're looking at it a different way, and rather than the insides of the stone actually moving, and you're thinking that it is actually like a stain on the surface of the stone like this, then there's no way that, on what's effectively a 2d surface plane, can you determine that it's "rising to the surface." If you mean a stain in that way, then the whole "rising" part becomes weird. it's clashing imagery to me no matter which way you go.

 

I don't have a problem with "something like" in of itself, it's just in that context. The sentence seems pretty specific to use "something like." Calling it a stain of blood feels too specific given the way we use "stain" as per above. "What's 98574.1196 * 85.3789201?" "Oh I think it's something like 8416151.88125624396." Not only has he determined that the red substance is like blood rather than any other red substance, he's then further determined that it's dried blood. It's too specific an answer to use "something like". For me, it's weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in England it does, and far as I know it's the same in America. If you spill some wine on the carpet, or get something on your clothes, you don't call it a stain, you'd say something like "I have to clean it or it'll stain." It will *become* a stain if it dries in. When things go past the point where they can cleaned off and removed, without a huge amount of effort, then they become stains. We never call things stains the second they happen, but leave it for a week and you will have a stain. It's similar to "scar" in that way. As soon as you cut yourself you don't call it a scar, you'd say it *will* leave a scar. Once it goes past the point where the mark won't go away, then it becomes a scar. That's how I've always known it to be, and the only way I've ever heard it used.

 

In addition to that, have you ever seen blood dry (which is the state the blood would be in for it to be a stain, at least for me)? It becomes solid, it becomes something which you can scratch or pick at and peel off. It's certainly not something you can wipe away, it's not liquid at all. That's why I say it's confusing imagery, because the translation there is saying that it "would rise to the surface." That's not something dried blood can do. I can't think of any specific movie names, but you must have seen movies where they have some sort of ominous stone and it has like a flowing liquid inside it which "rises to the surface" when touched or something. That's the sort of impression I get from a liquid substance "rising" within a stone. But a huge spanner is thrown in the works by saying it's a blood stain.

 

Again it's what you make of it, but 染み is also a "spot," and that makes much more sense to me in this context, because then we can still talk about liquid blood, and it rising makes sense.

I should note here spot is a synonmy for stain the way it is used. Also he never once said (in either language) that it disappears, only that it appears. In fact it's heavily implied in both languages version (just short of outright stating) that it doesn't, disappear.

 

The word is used twice here. "something like the stain of his blood" and "stained by".

You are only thinking of "stain" as thinking of is dirt/grime type in daily usage. But here "stain" the translator use here also means "dye" "colouration" and "morally tarnished reputation". And it is also a used in its verb form. That's why the repeat makes poetic sense.

And stains can (or rather, usualy do by definition) soak into a material. It's not painting. It's absorbing. Of course it can rise to the surface of something.

I can picture it, the stain rising in the rock like the dark red stain of blood soaking into bandages. Something in the stone stains it darker and darker every time he kills someone. It is a constant reminder of his heart being stained darker and darker.

 

"Spot" can not do this.

 

The best part is the original Japanese does the exact same thing.

 

And what do you mean specific. It's very unspecific. He doesn't know what is staining the stone, so he's compairing to blood stains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there you go, you used exactly the word that I thought of instead with that meaning, "appear." That's how it would be described on, as I said, a 2d plane. Giving it 3d movement imagery is weird and contradictory. It would appear (something along the same meaning as that), rather than rise. I know it's in the original, but bad and contradictory imagery is bad and contradictory imagery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there you go, you used exactly the word that I thought of instead with that meaning, "appear." That's how it would be described on, as I said, a 2d plane. Giving it 3d movement imagery is weird and contradictory. It would appear (something along the same meaning as that), rather than rise. I know it's in the original, but bad and contradictory imagery is bad and contradictory imagery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...