Like-Blog
Presenting you the most interesting translation solutions
Why Like-Blog? Now, first of all, this blog is a blog that you should like (and read regularly) – at least, if you are interested in translation. Then, the topic discussed here is one in which the meaningful likeness between a text and its translation in the language pair English-German plays a key role. On this page, I will take a close look at some interesting translation solutions that I have come across in the course of my work as a translator and translation scholar.
A translation solution is only as good as the arguments that support it. This means that any translation criticism, whether positive or negative, needs to be justified. The quality of a translation solution shows only when we compare it to other possible translation solutions in a given translation situation. Therefore, a translation critic should not only say why a translation solution is bad, but also demonstrate what a better solution might look like. I will try to stick to these principles of translation criticism. So if you have any questions regarding my line of argument or if you disagree, please, let me know your opinion by phone at +49 4171 6086525 or by e-mail to bittner@businessenglish-hamburg.de. So much for the introduction. I hope you’ll enjoy reading this blog!
Trigger-happy deputies (November 2020)
Dictionaries are a useful tool for translators. As a general rule, monolingual dictionaries help to find out the meaning(s) of a word, whereas bilingual dictionaries provide suggestions for a suitable translation solution. Occasionally, though, mono- and bilingual dictionaries are not sufficient. The context will tell the translator when this is the case.
On 2 September 2020, tagesschau.de published the following news: “Nachdem zwei Polizisten in Los Angeles einen Schwarzen erschossen haben, gibt es viele offene Fragen. Vor dem Hintergrund anhaltender Proteste gegen Polizeigewalt und Rassismus sorgt der Fall für Aufsehen. [...] ‚Die Abgeordneten haben im Wesentlichen einen Mann hingerichtet, der Fahrrad fährt‘, sagte Najee Ali, ein Aktivist der Gemeinde, als er neben einigen Verwandten von Kizzee am Ort der Schießerei stand. ‚Sie werden sagen, dass er eine Waffe hatte, aber sie werden nicht sagen, dass er nicht mit der Waffe bewaffnet war. Er richtete die Waffe nicht. Es gab keinen Grund für Abgeordnete, einen rennenden Mann zu erschießen.‘”
This is what the Los Angeles Times wrote about the incident: “‘The deputies essentially executed a man riding his bicycle,’ Najee Ali, a community activist, said Tuesday while standing beside some of Kizzee’s relatives at the scene of the shooting. ‘They’ll say he had a gun, but what they won’t say was that he was not armed with the gun. He did not point the gun. ... There was no reason for deputies to shoot a running man.’”
The question is why, in the translation, the two policemen (“Polizisten”) suddenly turn into members of parliament or congressmen (“Abgeordnete”). It seems that the translator was desperately looking for a German equivalent of the English word “deputy”. While bilingual dictionaries basically suggest “Stellvertreter” and “Abgeordneter” as the only renderings, monolingual dictionaries just give the same meanings in English. That the “deputies” in the Najee Ali quote must refer to some kind of police officers becomes clear only from the context. In doubtful cases, the context takes precedence over any mono- or bilingual dictionaries.
Well, the “deputies” are actually “L.A. County sheriff’s deputies”. In Los Angeles, they are police officers who are responsible for law enforcement, among other things.
When I read the Tagesschau news on the day it was published, I immediately noted it down for reference later. Taking a look at the news on the following day for the purpose of writing my blog post, I read: “‚Die Polizisten haben im Grunde einen Mann hingerichtet, der Fahrrad fährt‘, sagte Najee Ali, ein Aktivist der Gemeinde, als er neben einigen Verwandten von Kizzee am Ort der Schießerei stand. ‚Sie werden sagen, dass er eine Waffe hatte, aber sie werden nicht sagen, dass er nicht mit der Waffe bewaffnet war. Er richtete die Waffe auf niemanden. Es gab keinen Grund für die Polizisten, einen rennenden Mann zu erschießen.‘”
Obviously, a reviser noticed the blunder and undid the strange transformation of the two policemen into congressmen. He or she also spotted the syntactic incompleteness of “Er richtete die Waffe nicht” and turned it into a proper sentence.