Translation

[dezelina.livejournal.com]

Hey everyone,

This will be my last question for a while, but I am having a hard time translating this:

"Ярко сверкающая медная и оловянная посуда, бывшая неизбежным украшением тогдашней кухни , теперь встречается сравнительно редко, зато в современной кухни все боле и боле попадаются разнообразнейшие орудия и машины, которые в то время была совершено неизвестны"

So far I have:

Brightly sparkling copper and tin utensils which were inevitable ornaments of the kitchen of those days, we now meet rather seldom; but, now in the modern kitchen, more and more, are caught up with the diverse instruments and machines which at that time were unknown. 

I doubt that is the best translation of the original.  Any suggestions for improvements...especially in the punctuation..??

Comments

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

Is that something from the 19th century? The language is rather archaic.

>все боле и боле попадаются (in modern Russian, that would be всё чаще и чаще встречаются or, at the very least, всё более и более попадаются)

means that we encounter them more and more often.

[dezelina.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this one is from 1907. I really need to make friends with some more native Russian speakers so I don't have to keep bothering you guys :)

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

But this IS the community where native Russians can consult you guys. If somebody feels bothered -- there's always that great invention of mankind, the OFF button :)

1907? Why боле then -- or you're reading the original print, with yat (ѣ)? it should be болѣе -- which sounds exacly like in modern Russian, более.

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

hmmm do you see yat in my comment? should be болѣе

[dezelina.livejournal.com]

I have the original in a print version and just typed it up in modern russian..since I have no idea how to produce the soft sign with a cross on it..lol

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

It is not the soft sign with a cross on it, it's yat -- the remnant of the times when there was two different sounds in ancient Russian where now there's one (symbolized by Е letter.) Basically, if you're reading any text published between 1500s and 1918, ѣ and Е mean the same sounds; the use of ѣ was governed by a set of very elaborate rules. The use was discontinued after the 1918 orthography reform (except in a few emigree publications where it survived up to 1940s.) To type it in Livejournal, use HTML tag (exclude blank spaces) & # 1123 ;

P.S.

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

>Why боле then
I meant that the short form, боле, is more specific for 1820s and earlier rather than for the 1900s.

[khathi.livejournal.com]

It's pretty much okay for me. Language is slightly archaic, but you got it just aboutr right. Only "встречаться" also means "to encounter", not just "to meet".

[philena.livejournal.com]

I can't help on the Russian side of things too much, but if, as others have mentioned there's nothing wrong with the translation, you could certainly clean up the English a bit without losing any faithfulness. For example:

Now we relatively seldom come across the brightly sparkling tin and copper utensils that were the inevitable ornaments of the kitchen in those days; while in the modern kitchen we more and more often encounter the the diverse instruments and machines that back then were completely unknown.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

Well, I prefer to keep the order of pieces of information gradually revealed along the body of a sentence more or less the same as in the original text.
But I, too, find the english translation lacking refinement.

There aren't really "we meet" or "we come across" things in the russian text in question. So "utensils" from that sentence lack the predicate (original text reads that those dishes do not occur that often in modern kitchens and not that "we" or "someone else" doesn't see them in kitchens).

Although isn't it strange to lecture people on English here? >_< I can provide little to none advise on punctuation, for instance.

"Utensils" is quite not the best equivalent for kitchen "посуда". "Посуда" is about dishes, plates, pans, glasses, cups, pots, etc., while "utensils" does seem to include all those instruments, mechanisms and machines. The past and present items, referred to in the original sentence aren't quite uniform or of the same "class".

"Сравнительно" has a more precise equivalent of "comparatively".

"Все боле и боле" is closer to "more and more often"

"Разнообразнейшие" is translated into "diverse". What if it would be "разнообразные"? "Diverse"? And if it delved into further extremes like "наиразнообразнейшие"?
"Совершенно неизвестны" is translated into "unknown". One might need to translate "практически неизвестны", "в значительной степени неизвестны", "в чём-то неизвестны", too? Will anything become plain straight "unknown"?
It doesn't give language a credit, to dismiss its fine points like this. Approximate meaning retransition isn't what the real translation is about.

"(предметы) попадаются (http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&l2=1&s=%EF%EE%EF%E0%E4%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF)" got translated into "caught up by (items)". It's a definite blunder. What are the other people thinking… It's to "occur", or in this context, if attempted to translated more literally, ~"(items) are prone to be noticed/caught/seen (by anyone, and it doesn't need to be mentioned by who)".

Also, there are easy-to-notice mistypes in the original russian text provided.

[philena.livejournal.com]

To be sure, this is part of a much larger question of how to balance complete faithfulness with fluency of the rendering. Especially when there are subtle differences of meaning, such as the various types of неизвестны that you mention, it might be impossible to capture the distinction if the target language does not have it. For example, there is no way to gracefully distinguish in Russian "I used to do something," "I would do something," and "I was doing something" (is there?).) A slavish subservience to faithfulness will result in a clunky translation, while a fluent-sounding translation will lose some of the distinction of the original, and need to add some distinction that might not have been present.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

"Slavish subservience to faithfulness", huh?.. 0.o

Well, I think I can see where your point originates from, at least. My alternative approach means that one does not trample the original style unnecessarily. Also, the community has something to do with learning Russian. The swift cuts mentioned do not hint of poster having made them purposefully in pursuit of [questionably] better fluency.
Such is my stance on this aspect of translation. It's provided as an advice, and I won't die or something the next second it's ignored (if it's ignored).

[slovami.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, I'm really curious about this translation project you've been doing. Why are you translating this book? Is it for a class or something, or for fun?

[dezelina.livejournal.com]

I am in a history seminar and my paper focuses on how the Russian home (it's design and decoration) changed due to industrialization and urbanization. I am also interested in the lives of Russian women within the home, and what we can learn about their lives based on the home's design.

I am not translating complete books, but I have several books and articles that I skimmed. When I find good quotes, I try to translate them for use in my paper. But I always like to check with a Russian speaker to make sure the translations are accurate and that I have not misread the original material.

I hope this paper will become part of my dissertation (still a ways off) But I still struggle with reading Russian since I have only studied it in the classroom and used Russian only in very limited topics of discussion.

[slovami.livejournal.com]

Ah, cool, that's really interesting. :) I just remember seeing several posts from you of kitchen and home things from the early 1900's, and assumed they were all from one book. That sounds like a pretty awesome paper! Good luck with it!