scholarly journals Etumos Apistos, “Truly Doubtful”: Confounding Etyma in Scientific Nomenclature

10.29007/lkss ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan José Calvo

From the early 16th century, Western European science systematically resorted to Latin and Greek, the two fundamental languages of its culture, to construct their terminology. The various Renaissance anatomical atlantes, the early 18th century zoological and botanical taxonomies, the neo-Hellenisms of the late Ancient Régime chemists … scientific nomenclature at large, systematically relied upon the premise of a shared cultural soil, regardless of nation of origin, mother tongue or field of knowledge. The neologism, the neo-Greek and/or neo-Latin construct shall, thus, be a common reference to all Western European languages and, consequently, the eventual linguistic mediator would not have to worry about transmission values except for lesser (spelling, phonetic, morphological, syntactical) adaptations and for fine, even subtle adjustments of the technical or the semi-technical terms. And yet, that confidence does not always turn out to be trustworthy and there are too many instances in which the source language etymon and the target language etymon do not match and the linguistic mediator, the translator or interpreter, is forced to rethink the inferred ‘univocal’ nature and the referential invariability of the terminology that is to be transferred.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Etika Ariyani

This research is aimed: (1) to reveal that interference of bahasa Indonesia interrupt when the students at the sixth semester of FKIP in Muhammadiyah University of Mataram translate the English narrative past tense text; (2) to know the kinds of factors interupted the students’ in translating English narrative the text. The population of study were students in FKIP Muhammadiyah University of Mataram. They consist of three classes from class A to C. The number of population were 64 students so, the writer took only the 17 students to be sample, by using purposive sampling technique. The results of research showed that: (1) among 17 students in class A do some intereferences, they have less ability to construct the translation target text into the accuracy, acceptable and understandable/readable sentences by the reader. Moreover, there are two main Indonesian interference found by the researcher, they were morphological interference by misunderstand of using past tense sentences and sintactical interference by unstructural sentence in the target text, (2) The students’ only could get the range from 4 score to 8 score, where 5 students get very poor, 4 students get poor, 2 students get fair, 3 students get fairly good, 3 students get good. The students’ translation percentage for each standard such as accuracy is 16,5%, acceptable is 10,11%, readability is 5,47% and for total all of students’ mean score is 51,9%, where it took on poor score of translation (3) There are 4 factors made the students difficult to translate the target text, they were 1. Disloyalty of the speakers and receiver 2 Insufficient of vocabulary in translating the source language into target language, 3. The prestige of the source language and style, 4. Daily habits in the mother tongue influence target text, (4) The students’ translations result are 6 students got score of 0-3 namely very low level, 6 students got score of 5,5-6,5, who categorized as the low level, 2 students got the range score of 6,6-7,5, who categorized “sufficient level”, there are 3 students got this “high level” with the range score of 7,6-9,5, and no one getting the “highest level” score in the range of 9,6-10. 


Author(s):  
Brian D. Joseph

The behaviour of compounds in language contact situations is examined here through the consideration of case studies involving the influence of Greek on English, of Western European languages, especially English, on Russian, of Western European languages, especially French, on Greek, and of French on English. It is shown that in the borrowing of compounds and compounding structures, languages seem not to engage in adaptation to native language patterns, and that once a new structure enters a language via borrowing it takes on a life of its own, so to speak, and can assume forms that are quite different from their form in the source language. The question of simplification versus complexification under conditions of language contact is also treated against the backdrop of compounds and contact.


Babel ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-132
Author(s):  
Laurence Wong

Abstract This paper discusses the relationship between syntax and translatability, particularly in respect of literary texts. By translatability is meant the degree of ease with which one language lends itself to translation into another language. Through practice in the translation between Chinese and some of the major European languages, such as English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Latin, and Greek, as well as between the European languages themselves, it can be found that translating between the European languages is much easier than translating between Chinese and any one of the European languages. Of all the factors that determine whether a language translates more readily or less readily into another language, syntactic differences constitute one of the most decisive. This is because the translator is, during the translation process, constantly dealing with syntax in two directions: the syntax of the source language on the one hand and the syntax of the target language on the other. As a result, problems arising from the syntactic differences between the two languages are bound to figure more prominently than those arising from the differences between individual lexical items and phrases or between cultures. In this paper, syntax will be studied and analysed with reference to Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Greek texts. Finally, it will be shown that, mainly because of syntactic differences, there is a higher degree of translatability between any two of the above European languages (which are members of the Indo-European family) than between Chinese (which is a member of the Sino-Tibetan family) and any one of these European languages, and that the syntax of any one of these European languages can cope comfortably with Chinese syntax, but not the other way round. Résumé Cet article traite de la relation entre la syntaxe et la traduisibilité, en particulier, en ce qui concerne les textes littéraires. On entend par traduisibilité le degré de facilité avec laquelle une langue se prête à la traduction dans une autre. Par la pratique de la traduction entre le chinois et quelques-unes des principales langues européennes, comme l’anglais, le français, l’italien, l’allemand, l’espagnol, le latin et le grec, ainsi qu’entre les langues européennes mêmes, on s’aperçoit qu’il est beaucoup plus facile de traduire entre les langues européennes qu’entre le chinois et n’importe quelle langue européenne. Parmi tous les facteurs qui déterminent si une langue se traduit plus ou moins aisément dans une autre, les différences syntactiques comptent parmi les plus décisifs. Ceci est dû au fait que le traducteur, pendant le processus de traduction, est constamment confronté à une syntaxe dans deux directions : la syntaxe de la langue source, d’une part, et la syntaxe de la langue cible, d’autre part. En conséquence, les problèmes dus à des différences syntactiques entre les deux langues doivent nécessairement apparaître de manière plus évidente que ceux provenant de différences entre les syntagmes et éléments lexicaux individuels ou entre les cultures. Dans cet article, la syntaxe sera étudiée et analysée en référence à des textes en chinois, anglais, français, allemand, italien, espagnol, latin et grec. Enfin, il montrera qu’en raison des différences syntactiques surtout, la traduisibilité est plus grande entre deux langues européennes précitées quelles qu’elles soient (qui appartiennent à la famille indo-européenne) qu’entre le chinois (qui appartient à la famille sino-tibétaine) et une quelconque de ces langues européennes. Il montrera que la syntaxe de toute langue européenne peut sans difficulté venir à bout de n’importe quelle syntaxe chinoise, mais que l’inverse n’est pas vrai.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Hai Hu ◽  
Sandra Kübler

Abstract Translations are generally assumed to share universal features that distinguish them from texts that are originally written in the same language. Thus, we can argue that these translations constitute their own variety of a language, often called translationese. However, translations are also influenced by their source languages and thus show different characteristics depending on the source language. Consequently, we argue that these variants constitute different “dialects” of translations into the same target language. Studies using machine learning techniques on Indo-European languages have investigated the universal characteristics of translationese and how translations from various source languages differ. However, for typologically very different languages such as Chinese, there are only few corpus studies that tap into the intricate relation between translations and the originals, as well as into the relations among translations themselves. In this contribution, we investigate the following questions: (1) What are the characteristics of Chinese translationese, both in general and with respect to different source languages? (2) Can we find differences not only at the lexical but also on the syntactic level? and (3) Based on the characteristics found in the previous questions, which of the proposed laws and universals can we corroborate based on our evidence from Chinese? We use machine learning to operationalize determining the importance of different characteristics and comparing their importance for our Chinese dataset with characteristics previously reported in studies on English. In addition, our methodology allows us to add syntactic features, which have rarely been used to study translations into Chinese. Our results show that Chinese translations as a whole can be reliably distinguished from non-translations, even based on only five features. More interestingly, typological traces from the source languages can often be found in their translations, therefore creating what we call dialects of translationese. For instance, translations from two Altaic languages exhibit more noun repetition and less frequent use of pronouns. Additionally, some characteristics that are not discriminative for English work well for Chinese, possibly because the distance between Chinese and the source languages is greater than that in English studies.


Target ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic Stewart

Abstract The opposition of translation into the mother tongue (L1 translation) vs. translation into the foreign language (L2 translation), with its clear relationship of superiority/inferiority in translation circles, is just one of a series of binary oppositions prevalent in the literature with an apparently similar relationship. These include principally (i) target language vs. source language, and (ii) original texts vs. translated texts. This paper examines what implications such oppositions might have for the L1 translation vs. L2 translation issue, particularly within the developing field of corpus linguistics, subsequently taking a look at some L1 and L2 translations and reflecting upon their degree of acceptability or unacceptability in the light of the discussions proposed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 118
Author(s):  
Viktor Slepovitch

Grammatical equivalence in translation is both a subject of research and an important issue of teaching. Grammatical choices are especially hard in the process of translating from one’s mother tongue into a foreign language. This paper discusses some of the specifics of achieving grammatical equivalence in translating adjectives and adverbs from Russian (native source language) into English (foreign target language) based on the author’s translating and teaching experience reflected in his publications in this field of studies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-138
Author(s):  
Eric Robertson

This essay considers the case of some modern and contemporary bilingual and multilingual poets who have used translation creatively in the context of French literature. Far from attempting to erase the traces of the source language to make it more acceptable to a readership in the target language, these poets – from Hugo Ball, Jean Arp and Henri Michaux to Ryoko Sekiguchi, Caroline Bergvall and Anne Tardos – accept and even welcome the ‘radical artifice’ of their poetry and embrace the inherent foreignness of the word, even in the mother tongue. In myriad ways, their work explores language as a place of difference rather than equivalence, and as a site of slippage in which words are forever susceptible to bordering on other words and other languages, real or invented.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Etika Ariyani

This research is aimed: (1) to reveal that interference of Indonesian language interrupt when the students at the sixth semester of FKIP in Muhammadiyah University of Mataram translate the English narrative past tense text; (2) to know the kinds of factors interrupted the students’ in translating English narrative the text. The population of study were students in FKIP Muhammadiyah University of Mataram. They consist of three classes from class A to C. The number of the population was 64 students so, the writer took only the 17 students as the samples, by using purposive sampling technique. The results of the research showed that: (1) among 17 students in class A do some interferences, they have less ability to construct the translation target text into the accuracy, acceptable and understandable/ readable sentences by the reader. Moreover, there are two main Indonesian interference found by the researcher, they were morphological interference by misunderstanding of using past tense sentences and syntactical interference by unstructured sentence in the target text, (2) The students’ only could get the range from 4 scores to 8 scores, where 5 students get very poor, 4 students get poor, 2 students get fair, 3 students get fairly good, 3 students get good. The students’ translation percentage for each standard such as accuracy is 16,5%, acceptable is 10,11%, readability is 5,47% and for total all of the students’ mean score is 51,9%, where it took on poor score of translation (3) There are 4 factors made the students difficult to translate the target text, they were 1. Disloyalty of the speakers and receiver 2 Insufficient of vocabulary in translating the source language into the target language, 3. The prestige of the source language and style, 4. Daily habits in the mother tongue influence target text, (4) The students’ translations result are 6 students got score of 0-3 namely very low level, 6 students got score of 5,5-6,5, who categorized as the low level, 2 students got the range score of 6,6-7,5, who categorized “sufficient level”, there are 3 students got this “high level” with the range score of 7,6-9,5, and no one getting the “highest level” score in the range of 9,6-10.


Author(s):  
Grami Mohammad A. Grami ◽  
Hamza Alshenqeeti

This literature review article looks into the practice of finding literal translations in the target language for each and every technical term and process in the source language, even if the equivalents are not intelligible to the readers. This practice is evident in many translated textbooks in highly technical majors including IT, engineering and medicine. The paper suggests a hybrid model of translation by employing transliteration (Arabicisation) as well as traditional translation. In other words, known terms and processes should be treated as proper nouns rather than lexical items and subsequently referring to the entities as sounds rather than meanings. This process makes a translated text easier to comprehend, keeps the intended meaning as accurate as possible and saves translators time finding awkward and pointless equivalents in the target language.


Diacronia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristian Ungureanu

Vita di Pietro is a work authored by the Greek Antonio Catiforo in Italian and published in Venice in 1736. A Greek version was published a year later, also in Venice, by Alexandros Kankellarios. The work is comprised of six books and synthesizes information from various sources relating to the age and personality of the Russian tsar. It was translated several times into Romanian in the mid and late eighteenth century, in all three of the Romanian provinces. The large number of copies is evidence for the interest it aroused during that period. This paper describes several particulars regarding the transfer of the proper names from the source language to the target language. I have analysed four types of proper name: the choronym Moscovia and its relating ethnonym, Western choronyms, Russian anthroponyms, and anthroponyms of other origins, noting how the translators employ their source and the ensuing differences among the versions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document