Translation question

[Harold Johanssen]

This may not be the right froum, but perhaps somebody here might
be able to point me in the right direction.

Today's New York Times editorial is about the current nominee for
the US's Supreme Court. Quote from this editorial:

"days of tedious, predigested speeches by senators followed by
carefully scripted questions, either softballs the nominee can hit out of
the park or changeups he won’t bother to swing at."

My question is about the last portion of this sentence. What is
the apprpriate way to translate it? It can surely be translated to any
language faithfully, in that the baseball references are preserved.
However, such references make no sense for many speakers of different
languages, or even for speakers of the same language, but different
nationalities. For example, for a Spanish speaker from, say, Argentina,
such references are unlikely to be compelling, whereas for one from, say,
the Dominican Republic, they would be.

If one were to translate this for Argentina, would it be
appropriate to change the baseball references into soccer ones, that
Argentine readers are far more likely to be acquainted with? Or would
this end up being a poor translation?

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Harold Johanssen
This may not be the right froum, but perhaps somebody here might
be able to point me in the right direction.
Today's New York Times editorial is about the current nominee for
"days of tedious, predigested speeches by senators followed by
carefully scripted questions, either softballs the nominee can hit out of
the park or changeups he won’t bother to swing at."
My question is about the last portion of this sentence. What is
the apprpriate way to translate it? It can surely be translated to any
language faithfully, in that the baseball references are preserved.
However, such references make no sense for many speakers of different
languages, or even for speakers of the same language, but different
nationalities. For example, for a Spanish speaker from, say, Argentina,
such references are unlikely to be compelling, whereas for one from, say,
the Dominican Republic, they would be.
If one were to translate this for Argentina, would it be
appropriate to change the baseball references into soccer ones, that
Argentine readers are far more likely to be acquainted with? Or would
this end up being a poor translation?

It depends on the intention or object of the translation.

Those are the reporters words. The object of news reports is to transmit
the events to the readers in a way that they will understand. If that is
the objective for the translation, then it would make sense to change
the references for the intended audience.

If, however, the intention is to make an accurate translation of the
article as the NYT printed it, then one is obliged to preserve the
reporter's own words. In that case, it would be a good idea to offer a
parenthetical annotation to clarify for the readers.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Harold Johanssen
This may not be the right froum, but perhaps somebody here might
be able to point me in the right direction.
Today's New York Times editorial is about the current nominee for
"days of tedious, predigested speeches by senators followed by
carefully scripted questions, either softballs the nominee can hit out of
the park or changeups he won’t bother to swing at."
My question is about the last portion of this sentence. What is
the apprpriate way to translate it? It can surely be translated to any
language faithfully, in that the baseball references are preserved.
However, such references make no sense for many speakers of different
languages, or even for speakers of the same language, but different
nationalities. For example, for a Spanish speaker from, say, Argentina,
such references are unlikely to be compelling, whereas for one from, say,
the Dominican Republic, they would be.
If one were to translate this for Argentina, would it be
appropriate to change the baseball references into soccer ones, that
Argentine readers are far more likely to be acquainted with? Or would
this end up being a poor translation?

It depends on the intention or object of the translation.
Those are the reporters words. The object of news reports is to transmit
the events to the readers in a way that they will understand. If that is
the objective for the translation, then it would make sense to change
the references for the intended audience.
If, however, the intention is to make an accurate translation of the
article as the NYT printed it, then one is obliged to preserve the
reporter's own words. In that case, it would be a good idea to offer a
parenthetical annotation to clarify for the readers.

One could include Peter's explanation of the baseball game, if its a slow news day.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Harold Johanssen
This may not be the right froum, but perhaps somebody here might
be able to point me in the right direction.
Today's New York Times editorial is about the current nominee for
"days of tedious, predigested speeches by senators followed by
carefully scripted questions, either softballs the nominee can hit out of
the park or changeups he won’t bother to swing at."
My question is about the last portion of this sentence. What is
the apprpriate way to translate it? It can surely be translated to any
language faithfully, in that the baseball references are preserved.
However, such references make no sense for many speakers of different
languages, or even for speakers of the same language, but different
nationalities. For example, for a Spanish speaker from, say, Argentina,
such references are unlikely to be compelling, whereas for one from, say,
the Dominican Republic, they would be.
If one were to translate this for Argentina, would it be
appropriate to change the baseball references into soccer ones, that
Argentine readers are far more likely to be acquainted with? Or would
this end up being a poor translation?

It depends on the intention or object of the translation.
Those are the reporters words. The object of news reports is to transmit
the events to the readers in a way that they will understand. If that is
the objective for the translation, then it would make sense to change
the references for the intended audience.
If, however, the intention is to make an accurate translation of the
article as the NYT printed it, then one is obliged to preserve the
reporter's own words. In that case, it would be a good idea to offer a
parenthetical annotation to clarify for the readers.

This is NOT a news report -- note that it's identified at the top as an
"editorial." Are those still called "leaders" in BrE?

Baseball metaphors would not appear in a news story, nor sentiments like
"won't bother."

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Harold Johanssen
This may not be the right froum, but perhaps somebody here might
be able to point me in the right direction.
Today's New York Times editorial is about the current nominee for
"days of tedious, predigested speeches by senators followed by
carefully scripted questions, either softballs the nominee can hit out of
the park or changeups he won’t bother to swing at."
My question is about the last portion of this sentence. What is
the apprpriate way to translate it? It can surely be translated to any
language faithfully, in that the baseball references are preserved.
However, such references make no sense for many speakers of different
languages, or even for speakers of the same language, but different
nationalities. For example, for a Spanish speaker from, say, Argentina,
such references are unlikely to be compelling, whereas for one from, say,
the Dominican Republic, they would be.
If one were to translate this for Argentina, would it be
appropriate to change the baseball references into soccer ones, that
Argentine readers are far more likely to be acquainted with? Or would
this end up being a poor translation?

It depends on the intention or object of the translation.
Those are the reporters words. The object of news reports is to transmit
the events to the readers in a way that they will understand. If that is
the objective for the translation, then it would make sense to change
the references for the intended audience.
If, however, the intention is to make an accurate translation of the
article as the NYT printed it, then one is obliged to preserve the
reporter's own words. In that case, it would be a good idea to offer a
parenthetical annotation to clarify for the readers.

This is NOT a news report -- note that it's identified at the top as an
"editorial." Are those still called "leaders" in BrE?
Baseball metaphors would not appear in a news story, nor sentiments like
"won't bother."

True, but the translator's choice still remains the same. Is it to
provide a true record of the original, or to convey the substance in a
way that the expected readership can understand? Only the translator can
decide which would apply.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Harold Johanssen
This may not be the right froum, but perhaps somebody here might
be able to point me in the right direction.
Today's New York Times editorial is about the current nominee for
"days of tedious, predigested speeches by senators followed by
carefully scripted questions, either softballs the nominee can hit out of
the park or changeups he won’t bother to swing at."
My question is about the last portion of this sentence. What is
the apprpriate way to translate it? It can surely be translated to any
language faithfully, in that the baseball references are preserved.
However, such references make no sense for many speakers of different
languages, or even for speakers of the same language, but different
nationalities. For example, for a Spanish speaker from, say, Argentina,
such references are unlikely to be compelling, whereas for one from, say,
the Dominican Republic, they would be.
If one were to translate this for Argentina, would it be
appropriate to change the baseball references into soccer ones, that
Argentine readers are far more likely to be acquainted with? Or would
this end up being a poor translation?

It depends on the intention or object of the translation.
Those are the reporters words. The object of news reports is to transmit
the events to the readers in a way that they will understand. If that is
the objective for the translation, then it would make sense to change
the references for the intended audience.
If, however, the intention is to make an accurate translation of the
article as the NYT printed it, then one is obliged to preserve the
reporter's own words. In that case, it would be a good idea to offer a
parenthetical annotation to clarify for the readers.

This is NOT a news report -- note that it's identified at the top as an
"editorial." Are those still called "leaders" in BrE?
Baseball metaphors would not appear in a news story, nor sentiments like
"won't bother."

True, but the translator's choice still remains the same. Is it to
provide a true record of the original, or to convey the substance in a
way that the expected readership can understand? Only the translator can
decide which would apply.

This has been discussed in Bible translation circles for decades. Eugene
Nida talks about how to render mentions of "sheep and goats" for (a)
societies that have nothing similar and (b) for societies where goats are
looked on more favorably than sheep. There's a huge literature!

Why would one be translating an editorial? Not to inform the reader of the
facts, but to communicate to the reader the opinion of a prominent editorial
board. So the translator might tend more to paraphrase and explain.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Harold Johanssen
This may not be the right froum, but perhaps somebody here might
be able to point me in the right direction.
Today's New York Times editorial is about the current nominee for
"days of tedious, predigested speeches by senators followed by
carefully scripted questions, either softballs the nominee can hit out of
the park or changeups he won’t bother to swing at."
My question is about the last portion of this sentence. What is
the apprpriate way to translate it? It can surely be translated to any
language faithfully, in that the baseball references are preserved.
However, such references make no sense for many speakers of different
languages, or even for speakers of the same language, but different
nationalities. For example, for a Spanish speaker from, say, Argentina,
such references are unlikely to be compelling, whereas for one from, say,
the Dominican Republic, they would be.
If one were to translate this for Argentina, would it be
appropriate to change the baseball references into soccer ones, that
Argentine readers are far more likely to be acquainted with? Or would
this end up being a poor translation?

I find the editorial nice as it is, the rules of a baseball game being
as impermeable to me as the political ways. And someone who reads about
American politics should also have a minimal understanding of American
culture. By the way, only cricket is worse than baseball, for a layman
as I am.