Somewhere in between. Make it so the translation is actually enjoyable to read while also trying to keep the subtle shit. If something can't be translated correctly, have a TL note instead of trying to adapt/use a similar western equivalent.
>I'm hungry Localized garbage >my stomach is empty conveys meaning in an equivalent phrase, best choice but often not possible >my stomach/insides has diminished/decreased what the fuck are you doing retard
>>133134760 For manga I am okay with either, for anime, strict. I don't get put off by weird sentance structure in subs because I hear the Japanese speech sounding natural. Localized shit often destroys the original meaning, so I greatly prefer a literal translation that looks weird but is understood. Though T/L notes should be used only when extremely necessary
>>133135944 A dub like Ghost Stories' can make for a very hilarious anime, but it still is the destruction of the original dialogue. If I was interested in Ghost Stories, not the dub, I would see the dub as extremely shitty because the original story I was interested in was lost.
Same with many Woolsey games. His translations drastically change the games, people just happened to like his version. The original stories were still withheld from english speakers when Woolsey was hired to deliver it. He failed
>>133134760 Please stop trying to frame it as one extreme or the other, as many people have pointed out not only does a middle ground exist but it is by far the better option. They are not mutually exclusive.
All of you bitching about shit getting lost in localization don't speak japanese any way. What I hate is watching shit with EORs and seeing something like "it would make no sense for us to do that" presented in the subs as "that would be dishonorable."
But none of you faggots caught that bullshit this weekend, did you? None of you noticed a leader's confidence in his well executed plan reduced to "muh honoru." So how about you either learn japanese or take the shit you're given and quit pretending you know shit all of what you're bitching over?
>>133141633 Learning Japanese takes a fucking long time, and if I'm going to learn Japanese and it would be stupid for me to ignore the Kanji. You shouldn't have to learn Japanese to compensate for bad translation groups.
>>133141864 I never said I'm not learning Japanese but my point was it's a huge investment not everybody has time for and there wasn't a problem with getting decent subs until groups like GG and commie came along with their meme shit. Same problem applies to video games where some companies such as Atlus don't add dual audio or NISA whos translations make commie look redeemable.
It doesn't have to be this way, I'm learning Japanese partly because of their incompetence.
>>133142101 There were a lot of shit groups in the mid 2000s but most of them had died at that point so obviously I'm not talking about them. GG started it but commie took it to another level of awful shit.
>>133142474 >>133142573 I remember as a kid I was so confused by what sort of fucking donuts they were. I assumed they must have been some sort of American donut you can't get here in Britbong, because at the time I just thought Pokemon was an American cartoon.
>>133134760 If it's a fan translation, it should be as literal as possible while remaining in proper english.
If it's an official translation, no hold's barred with localization so long as the tone and meaning of the original is loosely preserved.
Fan translations exist to make a work accessible to fans, and should preserve as much of the original as is humanly possible. At the end of the day, it's not their job to attempt to 'improve' upon the original or make it easy to understand. A fan can easily google anything particular cultural idiosyncrasy they do not understand. Any change made beyond the absolute minimum necessary to make it readable in english is essentially changing the work. People come looking for a fan translation because they want to know what the author wrote, not because they want to see how the fan translator interpreted it.
Official translations are creating their own brand out of the product within their own market, and shouldn't consider themselves under the same obligations to preserve the integrity of the original work. Their translation is a commodity and a product whose rights they own and for whom selling to the consumer is the goal. Their target audience isn't limited to existing fans and they shouldn't feel any obligation to them. If an official translation believes they can improve upon the original or make it more enjoyable or easily comprehensible to their target audience, they should make whatever changes they deem beneficial. One would expect a professional to have the expertise to make those decisions adequately, and execute them effectively.
A fan translation isn't to make a work accessible to fans. It's work done BY a fan. I'd trust someone who enjoyed the work and wants to share it with the world with more leeway in terms of errors and localisation than I would some retard who translates half a dozen shitty JRPGs a month "professionally" with no real regard for the content, and far too much power. What happens when the "pro" decides that the game is too risque for American audiences? It's a judged under different standards than a patch, so they butcher the dialogue.
Honestly, I don't give a fuck either way, I wouldn't be caught dead with translated material because it's always inferior.
>>133144169 I've wasted a bit of money on crappy translations (mostly stuff like Atelier) over the years and I have to wonder why would they do something like that to those games? They seem to be completely oblivious to their fan market which doesn't make sense as they're rather niche titles. NISA is the fucking worst and I don't think Atlus USA deserves any praise either.
>>133144720 They know they're the only option. Once they have the licence, that's it, nobody will ever take it away from them. All localisation companies are basically built on hiring cheap translators, getting a few English major interns in to edit the script, and making a ton of money off the Jap's inability to understand English.
>>133144897 A strict translation is a translation that adheres strictly to the tone, diction, syntax and meter of the original.
Localizations are deliberate deviations from the tone, diction, syntax or meter of the original for the purpose of making the translated script more comprehensible to a reader, or in an attempt to better appeal to that reader.
>>133145062 >A strict translation is a translation that adheres strictly to the tone, diction, syntax and meter of the original. That would just be the original language. You can't possibly maintain all of those things during the translation to a new language.
>>133145062 >A strict translation is a translation that adheres strictly to the tone, diction, syntax and meter of the original. You have no idea what translating something entails. I doubt you even speak 2 languages.
>>133145062 >a translation that adheres strictly to the tone, diction, syntax and meter of the original That doesn't even work all the time. For instance with Japanese or Chinese to Western languages. A strict translations merely maintains the content and tone precisely. Nobody gives a shit it's two words longer or shorter, especially if that would make the translation less accurate. In essence your conception is impossible and contrary to itself.
>>133134760 Most shows aren't really that impressive to begin with, so you don't lose much by throwing out some subtlety. Do you really need your generic harem SoL, or your shonenshit to perfectly mirror the original japanese?
>>133145245 It's an idiom that most people use without knowing that it originates from the names of two stars from Chinese nine star ki astrology.
If someone used the English idiom "turn a blind eye", would you translate it literally and put (TL NOTE: This is an idiom referencing when Admiral Horatio Nelson ignored a flag signal order by putting a telescope to his blind eye and saying he did not see the signal)?
In philosophy there's this idea called a proposition, which is basically the pure, language independent concept, idea meaning or thought conveyed by words, phrases and statements.
So like the the proposition conveyed by 'black' when you say "the black night" is different from the proposition conveyed by black in 'the black man," but that first sentence conveys the same proposition as "le nuit noir." It doesn't matter what language you're using to convey a proposition, what matters is the proposition.
The first priority in a translation should be conveying the same proposition as the original by whatever means best accomplish that.
The secondary priority should that, wherever possible, the translator should choose of the possible ways of clearly communicating that proposition the one that best matches the aesthetic aspects of the original.
So for example, when translating poetry, a translator should aim to preserve things like the number of syllables per line, the pattern of stress placed on those syllables, the rhyme scheme, alliteration and the general flow if and only if these things can be preserved while conveying the proposition of the original.
Meaning is primary and aesthetic/linguistic features are desirable but secondary.
Fortunately, I think the vast majority of japanese media for which this concerns is simple enough in language that there's rarely, if ever, anything worth preserving beyond the meaning itself.
>>133135035 You would never translate it to "my stomach is empty" because that would be fucking stupid. You translate it to "I'm hungry", or if the character is really emphasizing their hunger; "I'm starving" or "I'm famished". When translating you should whenever possible localize just enough to make conversations feel natural in the language you translate to. It's very much possible to localize something without going full RUB-A-DUB-DUB THANKS FOR THE GRUB.
>>133145856 It's not THAT hard to translate Japanese in romance languages.
The main problem is with the English language. Just the fact the English language is extremely limited in showing degrees of closeness when talking to other makes it a very hard language to translate from even most romance languages. >>133146110 >When translating you should whenever possible localize just enough to make conversations feel natural in the language you translate to. the problem with this is "what feels natural changes from person to person".
Still, a generally good rule is "people don't want YOUR version and interpretation of this, they want the original rendered in a different language. Don't change anything you can keep, even if it sounds weird as long as it's correct".
>>133146161 Translating poetry while keeping it poetry is objectively futile and meaningless, unless you are lucky enough the original language is REALLY similar to yours.
>>133146110 It's also worth noting that the fact the japanese mentions the stomach at all is simply a grammar quirk and trying to keep grammar equivalent between 2 languages with fundamentally different writing systems is comically absurd. Just because japanese needs to reference the specific body part of the subject when referring to an attitude of that subject doesn't mean it's actually relevant to the meaning of the statement in english. It's similar to how translating from japanese to english often forces you to insert a subject into the sentence because japanese is a language that allows the subject to be omitted or implied under certain circumstances while english requires it almost always. You infer and insert the subject when translating into english because you're translating grammar.
Times when grammatical differences between languages cause meaning to be lost by necessity are called linguistic incompatibilities. It's actually something that people have only really begun to become aware if in the past 100 years or so. It's part of the reason why Petrarch's sonnets tend to sound exceptionally masturbatory when translated into english, and english studies of it have been blissfully unaware of that misapprehension until relatively recently.
>>133146069 >but that first sentence conveys the same proposition as "le nuit noir." It doesn't matter what language you're using to convey a proposition, what matters is the proposition. That is plain not true. Even something as simple as colors has different meanings in different languages. In English, blue is considered a sad color. In Japanese, there is very little distinction between blue and green. Their green traffic lights are *almost* blue too. Something might go from being a *go* signal to a melancholic atmosphere all without changing the wording a single bit.
Languages are philosophies. Some languages have a bunch of words to differentiate between things that in a different language are one and the same. German has two words for the same, because the same is not necessarily the same. Das gleiche is just something that is alike, while dasselbe is actually the original item you were talking about. That sort of distinction matters to Germans.
>>133146389 >"people don't want YOUR version and interpretation of this, they want the original rendered in a different language. They're gonna have a hard time getting that when it's always gonna be someone's interpretation.
>>133146389 >"people don't want YOUR version and interpretation of this, they want the original rendered in a different language. Don't change anything you can keep, even if it sounds weird as long as it's correct". Translating MEANS interpreting. There is a reason why a professional translator is called an interpreter.
>>133134760 Strict. There are some subs I just don't fucking understand because they use outdated slang or American words I don't know the meaning of (like their school years).
I was watching Gundam Wing and they subbed oyasumi as "I'm sacking in". Not only would "goodnight" be totally fine, I've never heard that slang before in my life, it's either old or not used in my country. I could've inferred the meaning without knowing the Japanese but it sounds unnatural as fuck.
>>133146434 English word for blue and the japanese word for 'blue' don't carry the same propositional meaning. You're getting caught up on semantics. The french example was just apt because both languages have a single word for a single colour that both also happen to convey the same proposition within an extremely similar sentence. The goal with translating by proposition is not to find some magical word that perfectly captures everything possibly meant by the original word and plug it right into the sentence, but to construct a sentence from scratch that ultimately conveys the same proposition as the one conveyed in the original language, regardless of the kind of language of choices of words necessary to make that happen.
That a single word's meaning can be ambiguous or imply a double-entendre is an aesthetic property to the syntax and preserving it comes secondary to ensuring that the proposition itself is clearly conveyed in the new language.
>>133146690 >but to construct a sentence from scratch that ultimately conveys the same proposition as the one conveyed in the original language, regardless of the kind of language of choices of words necessary to make that happen. A lofty goal, considering people are still coming up with new translations to classics within the same language family. It's basically impossible to accomplish. But sure, that's what you should strive for.
Strict translation. I know enough about Japan to fill in the blanks. I wish they'd even keep the grammar structure similar. Nothing annoys me more than hearing "nee-san" near the end of a sentence, yet they translated it right in the beginning.
>>133146432 I partly agree with you, but if you read less localized subs/manga for a while, you'd get used to it and understand more about Japanese grammatical structure, and probably learn more words while watching anime.
>>133146432 >It's part of the reason why Petrarch's sonnets tend to sound exceptionally masturbatory when translated into english, ...even MORE than in Italian?
>>133146463 Of course. That's why a good translator should do their hardest to keep it as impersonal as possible.
>>133146563 Actually, there is difference. An Interpreter "just" has to translate the "meaning", fuck the nuances(unless they are part of the meaning).
A translator should try to translate the forms and nuances.
>>133146757 That's not true. The problem is how it's limited in conveying nuances.
For example, the Italian Sei bellissima. and Siete bellissima. would both translate to "You are beautiful", even though there is a BIG difference, as "Siete" is second plural person which denotes a level of distance\reverences\etc (Honorifics are usually not translated from Japanese to Italian because the difference is normally rendered with the use of different persons(and, sometime, synonyms) )
This applies a great many things in English, it's simply NOT an efficient language for grammatical subtleties.
Not to say it doesn't have its really good point: it's great to express simple things efficiently.
>>133146799 >considering people are still coming up with new translations to classics within the same language family People have been translating and retranslating Beowulf for a thousand years, but it's not because they don't feel they've adequately captured the meaning of it.
Rather we're so intimately familiar with its meaning as an academic community that the goal has been through most of this translation and retranslation to fit or mimic the aesthetic properties of the original as closely as humanly possible. This is why you can go to a bokstore and pick up an english-translated copy of beowulf that's completely in metered verse and preserves all of the alliteration and much of the rhyming scheme of the original.
It took a very long time to get there and 'perfection' in that aspect is impossible, but translating aesthetics is very different from simply translating meaning.
>>133146069 >In philosophy there's this idea called a proposition, which is basically the pure, language independent concept And in psychology, there's the concept that language actually influences how we think, so some ideas may be impossible to perfectly convey in another language, which completely obliterated the concept of proposition.
>>133147100 >You should never have your translation consist of grammaticaly incorrect sentences It doesn't have to be grammatically incorrect. Any sentence in English you give me that is sufficiently long I can re-write in 8 different ways while maintaining proper grammar. Also, there are levels of grammatical correctness. For instance, "How are you?" "Really hungry". "Really hungry" is not a sentence, yet it is completely natural in English.
>>133147203 >But psychology is a joke and a complete pseudoscience Actually, this is a concept in cognitive psychology, which is basically a hard science as it's so closely related to biology. The experiments they've done on the subject are quite conclusive.
>>133147372 >Now remain true to that and construct a correct English sentence. I'm sorry, you seem to be mistaking me for someone who argued we should construct grammatically incorrect sentences. I never said this.
>>133147239 No, that's not even close to what just happened. What just happened was that psychology got called out for peddling lies as facts and pretending it knows anything about things it really knows nothing about, and parading itself as a science without actually following scientific method or producing results that are reproducible or verifiable in experimental environments.
Please stop trying to salvage the joke degree you wasted so much time and money on. I know the sunk cost hurts, but you should really try to move on
>>133147500 No, you are the one who argued for no-interpretations, perfectly true to the original translations for the purpose of learning Japanese.
Adding subjects to sentences that don't have them is an interpretation, isn't it? They never said that it was actually X who did Y. They just said Y. By what right does the translator claim that it was X?
>>133147577 >no-interpretations, perfectly true to the original translations No, I said "less localized". Like, they may translate it as "want to come with me to the store" when the sentence was really more like "I'm going to the store, want to come with" There are often times when they could translate things a little more awkwardly while still maintaining grammar and have it be closer to the actual flow of the Japanese. Mind you, this mind of mine properly works with convoluted grammar, even. Everyone is not capable of following, easily, a sentence with grammar (although proper) that does not flow easily.
>>133147527 >No, that's not even close to what just happened. What just happened was that psychology got called out for peddling lies as facts and pretending it knows anything about things it really knows nothing about, and parading itself as a science without actually following scientific method or producing results that are reproducible or verifiable in experimental environments. Psych major here, and I agree with this statement. However, what I said earlier came out of a field of psychology that uses actual experimentation, so your point is invalid.
We think in different languages, and the language we learn influences our thinking greatly.
>>133146606 >Not only would "goodnight" be totally fine But if you wanted to be strict, "oyasumi" is "rest". Oyasumi is the abbreviated form of oyasuminasai, which is the polite imperative form of "rest" (ie: please rest well).
Good night is the abbreviated form of "I wish you a good night".
(Good) night is therefore a localization of oyasumi (nasai) because they are both salutations used either before going to sleep or when parting at night; they do not literally mean the same thing.
>>133147755 >Everyone is not capable of following, easily, a sentence with grammar (although proper) that does not flow easily. What? Unless the grammar is REALLY convoluted(like with multiple multiple negations), I've never met anybody with such a problem.
Maybe is a problem with the English language? It has an extremely simple grammatical structure, maybe it makes harder for native speakers to follow more complex sentences?
>>133147933 >which is getting on to being 100 years out of date now Naw, I'm talking about stuff done in the last 20 years.
>>133148037 >Unless the grammar is REALLY convoluted(like with multiple multiple negations), I've never met anybody with such a problem. The sentences I gave as examples were fairly convoluted, and have what I would describe as low readability. Doing things like splitting the subject from the action by an entire sentence will trip people up. It's poor practice in grammar, and slows people down while reading it, which is undesirable for subs unless your target audience has the hardware to rapidly decode fragmented grammar.
In a manga it doesn't even matter since you don't have the original playing in the background.
>>133147947 See the problem with what you're doing is attempting to criticize ascribing english equivalency to japanese words by ascribing english equivalency to japanese words.
Translating Oyasumi as 'rest' is every bit as wrong as translating it as 'good night.' A japanese speaker doesn't query the english use of the word 'rest' before saying 'oyasumi.' They have an intended meaning which they attempt to communicate by saying 'oyasumi' and english simply finds the nearest equivalent through which to understand the meaning conveyed.
Also, Good night isn't an abbreviation. It's simply omitting the pieces of the sentence which are clearly implied by its context, which is a grammatical tool common to virtually every language's conversational tone.If you wanted to be anal, good night means something more along the lines of "I wish that your night be blessed by the graces of our Lord."
>>133148355 >"Good" is a corruption of "God" or "with God." No it's not. Similar words exist within all germanic languages and have existed from way before christianity made its way to northern europe.
>>133147947 It's almost like there's a middle fucking ground between retarded, literal translations of things that have a natural, widely accepted english equivalent, and gratiutious, slang riddled localization because the translator thinks they can make the script more interesting.
That same subber kept translating arigatou as random niceties when they could've just said thank you. It's not fancy, but it's accurate. It comes across like the translator thinking they know better than the original writer.
>>133147755 >Everyone is not capable of following, easily, a sentence with grammar (although proper) that does not flow easily. I think this is mainly why subtitles especially, prefer to simplify grammar and rearrange to avoid needing to use conjoining conventions whenever possible. The less time it takes the average reader to read and completely understand a line of subtitles the better. Subtitles are time sensitive, not only because they can only be rendered readable for a short amount of time before moving on, but also because every moment spent trying to read or decipher the grammar and sentence flow of the subtitle is a moment spent not focusing on what is actually happening on the rest of the screen. The less time spent staring at the bottom of the screen, the better.
>>133148598 Yes, I can read. The point is, >>133146606 doesn't want strict translations, he wants something that sounds good in english. Strict translations sound more awkward than well localized translations.
Good night also has its variation across germanic languages and once again it has existed since before christianity made its way here. Compare with the German 'guten nacht', Swedish 'god natt' or Icelandic 'góða nótt'.
>>133148721 >The less time spent staring at the bottom of the screen, the better. That is why, although strict is a preference of mine, optimizing for sentence flow may be the better approach.
But when you have, like, 4 groups all subbing the same shit, I will go for the strictest translation. And yes, i will download multiple subs and compare them. If they translate "nee-san" as a fucking proper name or brother...
>>133148601 >It's almost like there's a middle fucking ground That is my point.
>literal translations >widely accepted english equivalent A literal translation means it follows the strict meaning of the word without context. "Good night" does not have the same strict meaning of "oyasumi", but they have the same context as nighttime/resting time salutations. It is a localization.
>>133148557 Gods have also existed in germanic cultures long before christianity appeared, but they appropriated much of their existing language into the way they spoke of chistian subjects when it did arrive because it's the only language they had.
"God" as a word does not exist in latin, nor is their any similar word which would have made it to germanic cultures alongside the roman imperialism that spread christianity. Hell, the latin words to refer to the christian deity aren't the same as the ones actually used by its culture of origination. They just appropriated hierarchical and feudal terminology to address the abrahamic deity because the bible in translation made some vague mention of the Tetratgrammaton being a forbidden word.
Languages apply existing words to new concepts, and those new concepts alter the way they're used. News at 11.
>>133148913 Goodnight is essentially a strict translation of oyasumi because they have the exact same meaning and use, you don't have to break words down into their components and express it literally to make it strict.
>>133149055 >But, again, I'm not a native English speaker Ah, you'd rarely see anyone speak sentences like I wrote unless they were literally formulating what to say as they spoke.
>the two sentences are actually DIFFERENT because one implies I'm going to the store regardless That they are, so I suppose I could change the one to "Come with me to the store?" though non-native speakers may not pick up on the implied "going with or without you" there.
>>133149566 >Ah, you'd rarely see anyone speak sentences like I wrote unless they were literally formulating what to say as they spoke. I admit I had to re-read the sentence. I kept expecting a comma between "I wrote" and "unless" and wondering what I was missing. I think I took the bad habit of abusing commas, over my years on the net.
>>133149566 >though non-native speakers may not pick up on the implied "going with or without you" there. Yeah, as a not-native I "read" it as "I'm going anyway". I suspect it's because it lacks "WANT" as first part of the sentences, which puts emphasis on the query for the subject's will.
My knowledge of all things grammatical in the English language is next to absent, so I fear I will have to stop my ramblings here
>>133149055 >while "strict" implies "correct" What the hell? Not that guy, but that's not the connotation I have for that word at all. Even if you look at it that way, "good night" is changing what "oyasumi" actually means to something more natural for English-readers which is exactly what a localization is, it's not "correct". A strict translation would be literal.
>>133150049 >My knowledge of all things grammatical in the English language is next to absent It is my experience that non-native speakers typically know the rules better than native speakers do. But the majority of native English speakers are anything but perfect, grammatically.
>>133147155 >translating aesthetics Yeah, please never. If you want the original aesthetic, then read the original. Except for cases where the substitute is equally as good and the original had no meaning to begin with. Pic related, as the original tongue-twister would not have worked in English.
>>133150314 Call me a retard or something but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. A strict translation translates the words. A localization translates the meaning. Changing "oyasumi" to "good night" is a localization. "Strict" implies that it does not deviate from the rules, it's pretty much literal. It's possible for a strict translation to not sound awkward but it largey depends on how similar the sentence is to an English structure, if you change it too much in order to make it more comprehensible then it's no longer "strict". >>133150532 >It is my experience that non-native speakers typically know the rules better than native speakers do. I'm a native speaker and will agree with this somewhat (regarding grammar at least, although I feel that the nuance of certain words is sometimes different to non-native speakers), but English translations are generally targeted towards native speakers and should at least be understandable to them.
>>133134760 We already had this thread a couple weeks ago. Strict translations like the kind you get from teenagers trying to scanlate manga are shit, and commie "localizations" are equally shit. Good translations balance things out and always preserve the author's voice and intent while also preserving verbiage when it's possible to use those words naturally in English.
>>133146069 If only there was a sub group that did this, especially the >The secondary priority should that, wherever possible, the translator should choose of the possible ways of clearly communicating that proposition the one that best matches the aesthetic aspects of the original. part of your post. Oh wait.
>>133150853 >Changing "oyasumi" to "good night" is a localization. Not him, but you're an idiot. おやすみ means "good night" in Japanese, just as much as it means "day off" or "rest". By your logic, two half siblings saying "We're half siblings on our fathers side" being translated into 腹違い in Japanese would be a localization. It's clear that you don't have a strong grasp on idea exchange between the two languages, so stop pretending you do.
>>133153262 版 aside, that would be a strict translation of "good night" in Japanese. A strict translation prioritizes the words literally. It's a localization's job to get the meaning across to the reader with the equivalent alternative, that's what "localization" means.
>>133153096 >By your logic, two half siblings saying "We're half siblings on our fathers side" being translated into 腹違い in Japanese would be a localization. Yes, it is a localization, and there's nothing wrong with that. The more literal "we came out of different bellies" would be understood, but hardly anybody would say it like that.
Now... >種違い >half siblings on mother's side >we were seeded from different dudes
>>133153817 >The latter will adhere to the exact words Many words between particular languages have no precise partner. Even cognates are often used to refer to different things, have different uses, or have different connotations. There's no such thing as a "strict" translation.
>>133153646 >that would be a strict translation of "good night" in Japanese. And "This evening is a good evening" is a strict translation of "good night" by your standard. You're completely ignoring that fixed ideas exist and can be translated between languages.
>>133153699 >Yes, it is a localization Oh ok, so you're retarded. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>133153899 I think these are good examples of a strict translation in this very thread like this one >>133153699 but the point I'm trying to get at is that a strict translation doesn't work because nobody talks like that. Localization can definitely be pushed too far but with a language that's as different from English as Japanese is you will have to use it a lot if you want something to be understandable. And if you mean something that's in between literal and "who wants doughnuts" then plain old translation is fine. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that localization isn't as much of an extreme as strict translation, and the 4kids tactic of completely altering a concept and Commie's meme subs should have a different name (if "woolseyism" won't catch on) since it's taking the idea to an extreme that it normally isn't.
>>133154015 >And "This evening is a good evening" is a strict translation of "good night" by your standard. But it is. >You're completely ignoring that fixed ideas exist and can be translated between languages. And they can. But if the words don't match up then it's not a strict translation, it's just a normal translation.
>>133154484 >But if the words don't match up then it's not a strict translation Do you know what the word "translation" actually means? Putting the word "strict" before "translation" doesn't change the basic definition of the word translation.
>>133154484 >But if the words don't match up then it's not a strict translation Japanese and English don't match up like that. Most languages don't. You can't find a perfect parallel in Japanese for every English word. Languages don't work like that.
>>133154648 >Putting the word "strict" before "translation" doesn't change the basic definition of the word translation. It alters the nuance. Without it, it has a broader meaning, once you add "strict" as an adjective, it specifies the function of the word to something less flexible. >>133154660 That's my point, strict translation doesn't work because the languages are too different. >>133154830 Yes, but a strict translation can't add words that aren't there. It's not about translating the meaning, it's about translating the words.
>>133154909 You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You are talking about words as if that concept is universally understood and that every language has a the same concepts that they define using words and that therefore you can translate from one language to another using those precisely defined concepts. You can't though, because different languages choose to define different concepts and you can have a concept that it strictly defined with a word in one language that isn't in another. That's why loan words exist. That's why languages change at all. Language exists to convey meaning, so when you translate anything, you're main purpose is to get that meaning across as best you can.
>>133154952 The meaning of words can overlap. A translation can function in several different ways, a "strict" one implies focus on transliteration. Otherwise, what's the point of specifying it over "translation"? >stop posting Nah.
>>133154909 >Yes, but a strict translation can't add words that aren't there. How much crack are you smoking? By your definition, any "strict translation" of a work in Russian, Latin, or even Spanish to English would have horribly broken grammar.
>>133155080 I'm saying that a strict translation is not feasible specifically because it's not about conveying the concept, it's about conveying the words themselves. >>133155242 Translation is a broader word than transliteration. When you add certain modifiers to a word, it narrows down the meaning. And hold up a sec, a transliteration would just be romaji, wouldn't it? That's not what I'm talking about at all.
Sorry if I'm pissing you guys off, I really don't see what about this is so upsetting. People will say dumb shit all the time, I find it kind of comforting. ドンマイ
>>133155419 I don't think a strict translation can exist and I think many people are confusing it with an accurate or faithful translation. Honestly though, I feel like I've gotten way too pedantic at this point, and I'm not sure why I've taken it so far. Guess I got swept up in the argument.
>>133155847 >When you add certain modifiers to a word, it narrows down the meaning. Strict translations implies using original verbiage. Strict translation does not mean forgoing grammar rules (subject, object, verb order) of your target language. That's transliteration. Again, you are objectively wrong, and you are an idiot. Stop posting.
>And hold up a sec, a transliteration would just be romaji, wouldn't it? No, you fucking idiot. Let me break it down for you. スーパーへ行って鶏肉を買った。 is my starting sentence. A strict translation is "I went to the supermarket and bought chicken." A transliteration is "Supermarket towards went to, chicken was bought."
"Strict translation" is not transliteration. Why are you so fucking stupid?
>Guess I got swept up in the argument. You're arguing concepts you don't actually understand.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.