[Multilingual Monday] Lost in translation
I was very unsure why I had even gone to Shabbat services this Saturday, but I'm glad I did, as it gave me the inspiration to write this article and to pursue other phenomenon like it.
This past Saturday's Torah reading was in Deuteronomy, and discussed unclean animals.
יב וְזֶה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם: הַנֶּשֶׁר וְהַפֶּרֶס, וְהָעָזְנִיָּה. יג וְהָרָאָה, וְאֶת-הָאַיָּה, וְהַדַּיָּה, לְמִינָהּ. יד וְאֵת כָּל-עֹרֵב, לְמִינוֹ. טו וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה, וְאֶת-הַתַּחְמָס וְאֶת-הַשָּׁחַף; וְאֶת-הַנֵּץ, לְמִינֵהוּ. טז אֶת-הַכּוֹס וְאֶת-הַיַּנְשׁוּף, וְהַתִּנְשָׁמֶת. יז וְהַקָּאָת וְאֶת-הָרָחָמָה, וְאֶת-הַשָּׁלָךְ. יח וְהַחֲסִידָה, וְהָאֲנָפָה לְמִינָהּ; וְהַדּוּכִיפַת, וְהָעֲטַלֵּף. יט וְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף, טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם: לֹא, יֵאָכֵלוּ.
12. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 13. And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, 14. And every raven after his kind, 15. And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 16. The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, 17.And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, 18. And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. 19.And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.
And that's fine and dandy, except in this portion of the Torah (and in Leviticus, and the other pertinent "do not eat these animals" portions), several of the animals listed are merely guesses, and their true meanings have been well documented in various commentaries. עָזְנִיָּה, , azniyah, for instance, could be an "ospray", or it could be anything from an albatross to a black vulture. פֶּרֶס, peres, is here tarnslated as an "ossifrage," but others state it could be a bearded vulture. Same with the שָּׁלָךְ, shalax, wich is translated as a "comorant," but could be an owl, and the בַּת יַּעֲנָה, bat yaana, which here is an "owl" but in another English translation I have open is an "ostrich", and in other places an "eagle". Even תִּנְשָׁמֶת, here swan, is not clear, as it can be anything from a screeching owl to a bat! Elsewhere skinks might be snails and moles might really be gekos or even salamanders!
The point is: we don't know, and as we get further away from the time when these texts were written, we'll never really know, and I think at some point that needs to be acknowledged. Educational guessing is one thing, but certainly as long as such is admitted! In the Hebrew scriptures is is certainly NOT infrequent to come across words whose meanings we can only guess -- at times you can get a rough idea through context, but as the above shows that's not always possible.
This vagueness in translation isn't just in scripture, but in many older writings. James Legge, more than 100 years ago, did what is considered the definitive translation of The Works of Mencius,, but there are still parts that elude the writer, to which he admits in his ample footnotes. A sample of said confusing sentences: 廛無夫里之布，則天下之民皆悅而願為之氓矣。 His translation into English is, " If from the occupiers of the shops in his market-place he do not exact the fine of the individual idler, or of the hamlet's quota of cloth, then all the people of the kingdom will be pleased, and wish to come and be his people," but parts like 夫里 remained unclear to him. In his notes he writes, "We must leave the passage in the obscurity which has always rested on it."
Are there other examples of things getting lost in translation? I'd love to hear your examples!
This past Saturday's Torah reading was in Deuteronomy, and discussed unclean animals.
יב וְזֶה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם: הַנֶּשֶׁר וְהַפֶּרֶס, וְהָעָזְנִיָּה. יג וְהָרָאָה, וְאֶת-הָאַיָּה, וְהַדַּיָּה, לְמִינָהּ. יד וְאֵת כָּל-עֹרֵב, לְמִינוֹ. טו וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה, וְאֶת-הַתַּחְמָס וְאֶת-הַשָּׁחַף; וְאֶת-הַנֵּץ, לְמִינֵהוּ. טז אֶת-הַכּוֹס וְאֶת-הַיַּנְשׁוּף, וְהַתִּנְשָׁמֶת. יז וְהַקָּאָת וְאֶת-הָרָחָמָה, וְאֶת-הַשָּׁלָךְ. יח וְהַחֲסִידָה, וְהָאֲנָפָה לְמִינָהּ; וְהַדּוּכִיפַת, וְהָעֲטַלֵּף. יט וְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף, טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם: לֹא, יֵאָכֵלוּ.
12. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 13. And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, 14. And every raven after his kind, 15. And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 16. The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, 17.And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, 18. And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. 19.And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.
And that's fine and dandy, except in this portion of the Torah (and in Leviticus, and the other pertinent "do not eat these animals" portions), several of the animals listed are merely guesses, and their true meanings have been well documented in various commentaries. עָזְנִיָּה, , azniyah, for instance, could be an "ospray", or it could be anything from an albatross to a black vulture. פֶּרֶס, peres, is here tarnslated as an "ossifrage," but others state it could be a bearded vulture. Same with the שָּׁלָךְ, shalax, wich is translated as a "comorant," but could be an owl, and the בַּת יַּעֲנָה, bat yaana, which here is an "owl" but in another English translation I have open is an "ostrich", and in other places an "eagle". Even תִּנְשָׁמֶת, here swan, is not clear, as it can be anything from a screeching owl to a bat! Elsewhere skinks might be snails and moles might really be gekos or even salamanders!
The point is: we don't know, and as we get further away from the time when these texts were written, we'll never really know, and I think at some point that needs to be acknowledged. Educational guessing is one thing, but certainly as long as such is admitted! In the Hebrew scriptures is is certainly NOT infrequent to come across words whose meanings we can only guess -- at times you can get a rough idea through context, but as the above shows that's not always possible.
This vagueness in translation isn't just in scripture, but in many older writings. James Legge, more than 100 years ago, did what is considered the definitive translation of The Works of Mencius,, but there are still parts that elude the writer, to which he admits in his ample footnotes. A sample of said confusing sentences: 廛無夫里之布，則天下之民皆悅而願為之氓矣。 His translation into English is, " If from the occupiers of the shops in his market-place he do not exact the fine of the individual idler, or of the hamlet's quota of cloth, then all the people of the kingdom will be pleased, and wish to come and be his people," but parts like 夫里 remained unclear to him. In his notes he writes, "We must leave the passage in the obscurity which has always rested on it."
Are there other examples of things getting lost in translation? I'd love to hear your examples!