i often see in translations of russian books a phrase like:
>"suppose we are on A street and want to get to B street."
i understand that this is a russian convention when posing a hypothetical and that these streets to not actually exist but i find it annoying that the translators never seem to convert it to the very common and analogous english convention that would read:
>"suppose we are on street A and want to get to street B."
are there any translators that write it this way?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Yes P&V do in their translation of Anna Karenina but not in their other translations. What you’re looking for is called idiomatic translation
Is it A and B tho? Or is it just the first letter of the street? In English you would Baker Street or Washington Boulevard, no?
>is it just the first letter of the street?
no becuase the characters i'm describing are not talking about real streets that exist within the contexts of their stories.
NTA but I've got a gripe too, in some translations of Dostovesky's work it'll completely omit the name of a bridge or street. As in
>he walked up ____ prospect
Why is this a thing? I'm aware some translations go out of their way to trace the footsteps of the characters in the novel but wtf is the deal with this?
i think they wanted to aim towards a faithful translation (which is a selling point) since the author had done that in the original version
footnotes would tell you the full name, they just wanted to emulate the original through the main text
…huh? Why not just transliterate the name?
Oh you mean Dosto wrote it as K____ bridge or whatever in the original text? If so, why did he do that?
Yes
B нaчaлe июля, в чpeзвычaйнo жapкoe вpeмя, пoд вeчep, oдин мoлoдoй чeлoвeк вышeл из cвoeй кaмopки, кoтopyю нaнимaл oт жильцoв в **C—м** пepeyлкe, нa yлицy и мeдлeннo, кaк бы в нepeшимocти, oтпpaвилcя к **К—нy** мocтy.
It was a way to steal the general form of a real place without constraining the story to its every particularity, so K--- Bridge as the elided form of Katherine Bridge refers not to the real-world Katherine Bridge as such, but a fictional location with analogous qualities; a simulation of the real place, to serve the purpose of the novel. In this way an author protects his story from the reader's pedantry like: "Oh, well it's not *exactly* like that in reality, this is stupid!"
Makes sense. But were readers back in the day genuienly moronic or something? Did they not understand the concept of creative liberty?
This is why Celine is the real chad. He just intentionally wrote incorrect geographic/historic details just to make readers seethe.
I thought he removed them because autistic book tourists were shitting up all the locations by being weirdos.
>C—m
>C—ny
heh
when i write in my diary i try to avoid specific loacations and i always explain contemporay tech or media as if the reader is unfamiliar with them so that if someone reads it someday it won't feel out of place/date but like like something that could have been written by someone living in their time. maybe dosto had a similiar mindset.
>if someone reads it someday
it's easier to write when you imagine an audience. it helps you choose a tone among other things.
This also drives me nuts and I would like to know why
It's because of censorships
Generally British translators will do it the first way and American the second because that is how they do such things in their country. Exception being translations which are going for accuracy over style.
B-but Wall Street
>Let's go for a walk on Johnson's street.
makes more sense than
>Let's go for a walk on street Johnson.
the situation is due to most streets being named after someone