Poor translation: serious question

The translation is believed to have started from a poem written in Akkadian, a language close to Hebrew and Arabic, about Gilgamesh, the famous king of Sumer. By 3000 BC, the poem had been translated into five different Asian languages.

translation has its own dignity and importance. Without the beginning of translation, the reader would have remained unfamiliar with some of the best works. The reader would not be exposed to new knowledge and perspectives. Many translated works are also available in the market of Nepali literature. I have bought and read some books that I was impressed by. However, when reading that book, it was like being hit by a stone at the first bite. The list of such translated books is long. The most glaring example of taking the name of an author can be taken Taslima Nasrin's unauthorized translated book available in the Nepali market. The script is Devanagari, but difficult to understand. They are neither sentimental (which would be insulting to the original work), nor are they well-constructed, nor do the sentences convey any tangential meaning. In this sense, most of the books translated from foreign languages ​​into Nepali seem like bodies without life.

In this sequence the questions started to follow – What is the translation? How should it be? Does it have any structure? Or is the translation a presentation of the translator's personal art and ability? Is the meaning and significance of the translated work or not? If so, what is it? How to translate? What should be taken care of when translating the original work into another language? How many answers there are to these questions, how many should be searched and how many may not have been searched. Different scholars have different opinions, so the answer will also be different. Apart from that, some are in support of the translation, some say that the original work can never be translated. If we look at the

debate by the theory of reader response, it says 'death of the author' after the book is published - meaning that after the book is published, the author is empty, his role is completed and the readers interpret the work in their own way. The reader can interpret and analyze the work in his own way. If this principle is to be discussed as a basis, then the translation is also left to the reader. But is it fair? Maybe not. If we study the role of a translator, it is not just a job of translating from one language to another. Translation is an art, which does not merely translate words and sentences, it breathes life into the expression of the original author, and nurtures the soul of the original work like a baby. It is also a culture transfer process of different societies.

translation is also a way to enter the multilingual world. This medium introduces the reader to an environment and culture different from his own, explains the environment in which the author lived, helps to understand the author's point of view and philosophy. And, in this context, the question arises - what is the responsibility of the translator? How do readers benefit from translation? What qualifications are required to be a translator and what is the translator's first and foremost responsibility towards translation? Why is this question justified and imperative, while the role of translation is invaluable, it is not easy to do. In some cases, translation is as complete a matter as the translator himself writing the original work. There is a saying in English related to this context - Translation is not everyone's cup of tea.

In essence, not everyone can translate correctly. It is not enough to have only linguistic knowledge and translation skills when translating. For this, it is necessary to get acquainted with the environment of the original author's society and to know all the skills and techniques that the craftsman has to adopt before giving his art its final shape. The ideas that came to my mind about translation, the brainstorming done by Khulduli and Mastisk, got a concrete example when I happened to have an interview with a poem translated from Nepali to English. While searching, that poem composed in the year 2007 was written by Yugakavi Siddhicharan Shrestha. The title of the poem is 'Dhuwaan Nishka'in' and the poem is as follows:

I don't have time,

Don't call death.

I don't have time to wipe the blood from the split head

.

Beauty, don't confuse my growing feet

to see your behavior

I don't have time.

The people of my country are struggling

. Don't you see the

?

There is no smoke coming out of the chimney. The English translation of

is as follows:

No Smoke From The Chimneys

I don't have time,

Death, don't call me,

I don't have time to mop up

The blood from a broken head story -break Lady, do not detain my advancing feet,

I have no time for your blandishments

The people of my country

Have canceled their meals

And are struggling: look!

No smoke comes from their chimneys.

As soon as I got hold of that English translation-poem, my eyes immediately went to its title. Also in the title

especially in the word chimney. A question immediately arose in my mind - at the time Siddhicharan Shrestha wrote this poem, was the word Chimni or Chimni already in Nepal at that time? And when translated, Bhaupwal (Bhaupwa in Newar) is called Chimni in English. Chimney, a conspicuous outlet in the roof of a European house designed to carry smoke from a sitting room fireplace (not Angena) is an artistic jingti semi-circular hole in the roof of the Newar architecture of the Bhopwal Valley. At that time, the kitchens of the houses in the valley used to be in the buingal, the smoke exit from the bhappwal kitchen and also the way for the cat to shed its waste. In Newar language 'Bhau' means cat. Probably because of the cat's wanderings, the name of that hole remained Bhaupval. The literal meaning of Chimni and Bhaupwal are completely different. Apart from that, translating Sundari as Lady and Puchna as Mop and writing Look at the end of the poem, it is clear that the poem is funny and touchless instead of touchy. Would flattery be more poetic than blandishment?

As soon as the meaning changes, its meaning changes and the reader's understanding changes. Apart from that, the reader does not get a proper understanding of the culture, feeling, environment and structure of the society of the writing period. It is also the case that when translating a word from one language to another, it is difficult or sometimes impossible to find the word. What to do if not found? My guess is that entering the word visitor would be one way to do that. If the word and its symbol are not present in the mind of the respective reader, the reader cannot understand the text, the translation makes the work incomplete. The message given by the creator is lost. In the case of English readers, how would they have understood the meaning of our poet's poetry? How did the word selection and translation in this poem translated into English touch the hearts of the English-speaking people? Probably not. The above illustration indicates that if any work is translated into another language, the translator needs to know the social relations inherent in the words used in it, its subtext and how close to understanding it can be when exporting it to another language.

I remember one of my teachers saying. He said, 'Translation is a challenging task. Because while doing this work, it should reflect the culture and the environment and not just a literal translation. I have read many works in other languages, especially translated from English to Nepali and translated from Nepali to English. When translating, if the words and essence cannot be reflected with the words of such and such environment, then it will only lead to a loss of meaning. Ramesh Vikal's story 'Lahuri Bhainsi' has been translated into English as 'A Splendid Buffalo'. Splendid means splendid or excellent. Lahuri is a species like murra. Leal Bahadur Chhetri's 'Basai' has been translated as 'Mountain Painted with Turmeric'. The stay is judged by the English title, I don't think so. Haribhakt Katuwal's 'Yo Zindagi, Khai Ke Zindagi' was translated as 'This Life What Life is This' in English. Such a boring title should not be made while converting. Isn't it? What this means is that if the translator commits fraud, the chances of the language services rendered by him to be properly valued are lost.

In the 1930s to 1950s, some such theories centered on literature were propounded in the West, which gave a wider opportunity to understand life and the world in the world and a new dimension emerged. These include linguistics, psychoanalysis, literary criticism and structuralism. Structuralism values ​​underlying relationships over individual objects, which center any language and philosophy on the world and debate its structure. Its basic meaning is that every object in the world is inter-related with each other and to understand this structure, it is necessary to understand the larger structure. According to the theory of linguist Fardina du Sassura, the signifier means sound, image and expression (signified) means concept. According to him, when uttering any word, its image also comes to the mind and only the meaning comes out. Derrida also followed his father-in-law's idea. According to which the image created by the symbol becomes the expression. An image is a physical form of a symptom, while an expression is a verbal form. Derrida emphasizes the issue of reducing the distance and difference between these two. Even in translation, structure can remain central.

Other key concepts related to semiotics are 'sign' (first order signification) and 'meaning' (second order signification). Semiotics gives rise to meaning in words and other symbolic systems of communication. A word has meaning according to the dictionary and is associated with the concept and form of the object. In the debate on structuralism, Derrida embraces the concept of difference and dissolution, which he calls 'defer and difference'. Which means that any work has a different edge and therefore should be weighed by a different edge. But, the question is, in doing so, do we allow the original meaning of the original work to be destroyed and the context weakened or not? Perhaps the reader gets a taste of a wonderful multilingual work only if not given. Otherwise, there is a strong possibility that the text will be lost from the original issue.

As such, it is not the intention of this article to account for or evaluate the work of experts and individuals who have spent more than a decade on translation work. However, it cannot be denied that translation work needs to be paid attention to in a subtle way. And, while going through the translation process, it is necessary to address the questions raised in this article. In addition to having the meaning and ideas of the text relevant, readers also need to connect with the text and the culture in which the text is composed. In essence, a translation means that the original text is the same as the original text when it is reversed. A bad translation not only grossly dehumanizes the author to thousands of readers, but also encourages a 'criminal' as a 'translator' to attempt to roam free in society with impunity.

(Sultana, who holds a master's degree in English literature, is particularly interested in literature and philosophy.)