{"title":"Translatology: What Hobbles It","authors":"Giridhar P.P","doi":"10.46623/tt/2022.16.1.no1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Noting that man hasn’t as yet awakened fully rationally to the life-giving life-enhancing power and life-refreshing life-sourcing civilization-deepening beauty of literary translation, the Note argues that the possible anodynity of (Literary) Translation Sciences as they obtain today cry out for a good deal of rationally illuminating rigorisation. Part of the anodynity is linguistic (and cultural) naiveté, as we argue. See Giridhar 2005 for a rational elucidation. Lexicalisations like the Sanskrit word dharma for example have been subjected to unacceptably naïve, irrational and supremacist, and hence glaringly unscientific, treatment. This has been demonstrated (See Giridhar op cit). We will talk about it here as well. Part of the problem is the waffly kind of demagoguery that sustains itself over the years. For example, people talk(ed) of eco-translation. Has any piece been translated with eco-translation in mind? If not, what is its status? It, as seems to be the case, exists in the air as cerebral gymnastics? Is there a translation precept which has no conceivable relation to translation praxis? Following Ramayana’s several regional avatars, there was some piquant and fashionably exultant buzz about originals undergoing several forms in response to the narrativisation requirements of target cultures. I know of no modern literary piece which has had such avatars because apparently, the translator doesn’t know what to do! Does it mean these different avatars, however nebulously defined, are theoretically optional? Adaptation, I rationally assume, is technically different from translation. Essentially, there is no ‘adaptation’, for example, for discursive or scientific discourse.","PeriodicalId":410199,"journal":{"name":"Translation Today","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translation Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46623/tt/2022.16.1.no1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Noting that man hasn’t as yet awakened fully rationally to the life-giving life-enhancing power and life-refreshing life-sourcing civilization-deepening beauty of literary translation, the Note argues that the possible anodynity of (Literary) Translation Sciences as they obtain today cry out for a good deal of rationally illuminating rigorisation. Part of the anodynity is linguistic (and cultural) naiveté, as we argue. See Giridhar 2005 for a rational elucidation. Lexicalisations like the Sanskrit word dharma for example have been subjected to unacceptably naïve, irrational and supremacist, and hence glaringly unscientific, treatment. This has been demonstrated (See Giridhar op cit). We will talk about it here as well. Part of the problem is the waffly kind of demagoguery that sustains itself over the years. For example, people talk(ed) of eco-translation. Has any piece been translated with eco-translation in mind? If not, what is its status? It, as seems to be the case, exists in the air as cerebral gymnastics? Is there a translation precept which has no conceivable relation to translation praxis? Following Ramayana’s several regional avatars, there was some piquant and fashionably exultant buzz about originals undergoing several forms in response to the narrativisation requirements of target cultures. I know of no modern literary piece which has had such avatars because apparently, the translator doesn’t know what to do! Does it mean these different avatars, however nebulously defined, are theoretically optional? Adaptation, I rationally assume, is technically different from translation. Essentially, there is no ‘adaptation’, for example, for discursive or scientific discourse.
注意到人类还没有完全理性地意识到文学翻译赋予生命的力量和赋予生命的力量,以及赋予生命的力量和赋予文明的深度的美,《注释》认为,(文学)翻译科学今天所获得的可能的平淡需要大量理性启发的严谨化。正如我们所认为的那样,这种冷漠的部分原因是语言(和文化)上的幼稚。参见Giridhar 2005的理性解释。例如,像梵语单词dharma这样的词汇化已经受到了不可接受的naïve,非理性和至上主义,因此明显不科学的对待。这已经被证明了(见Giridhar op city)。我们也会在这里讨论。问题的部分原因在于多年来持续不断的空洞的煽动性言论。例如,人们谈论生态翻译。有没有什么作品是用生态翻译来翻译的?如果不是,它的状态是什么?它似乎是存在于空气中的大脑体操?有没有一种与翻译实践毫无关系的翻译原则?在罗摩衍那的几个地区化身之后,出现了一些有趣的、时髦的、兴高采烈的关于原作经历几种形式以回应目标文化的叙事要求的嗡嗡声。据我所知,现代文学作品中没有这样的化身,因为很明显,译者不知道该怎么做!这是否意味着这些不同的化身,无论定义多么模糊,在理论上都是可选择的?我理性地认为,改编在技术上不同于翻译。从本质上讲,没有“适应”,例如,对于话语或科学话语。