Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaPrice
Muckraker, do you then approve of the re-writing of Harry Potter for American v. British audiences? after all, calling a sweater a jumper might confuse the little dears, and we couldn't have that, could we?
|
I support Harry Potter being translated into Hindi. Shouldn't people that speak different languages be allowed to read the books as well?
I'm reasonably sure that Rowling wants to entertain people. I don't think she intends to punish and confuse 95% of potential world readers simply because they don't speak her native language. It's not that "jumpers" and "fags"
could confuse people, they
will confuse people--lots of people--and if we are going to ignore that fact to preserve the sanctity of the text then we shouldn't bother translating anything in the first place.
Writing is mostly about human communication--and most humans are not linguists. The purpose of translation is to make works more accessible. Sometimes accessibility is not important or is actually counterproductive, like in legal documents, technical manuals, and secret codes. But most of the time writers want to successfully communicate with all the readers interested in their work. Most writers would be
ecstatic if someone wanted to translate their work. I wouldn't think much of a writer that demanded their work not be translated.
Remember the political aide who had to resign because he used the word "niggardly?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...district27.htm
Speaking of aides, remember the South Park episode when Jared from Subway said the primary reason he lost all his weight was because he had aides?
I believe words represent ideas and the purpose of communication is to exchange ideas. Confusion forced that resignation. Confusion makes the South Park episode funny. I'll only smoke fags when I'm
trying to be confusing.