I would like to know if you would be able to read the above text "as it was written." That's the Magna Carta, BTW. It's written in what can technically be considered a dead language.
I liked it when Montague said 'give me my longsword' and the 'longsword' was a shotgun
You're ignoring the rather extensive collection of modern texts in foreign languages.
No it's not a different discussion it is exactly the same discussion. The very fact that many modern sources are localised is a clear indicator that things are not that homogeneous across cultures. The differences still exist and the translation issues are very much the same.
Again, what if there is disagreement amongst scholars as to what the "spirit" of a given text, line, or phrase is? This is not at all uncommon, especially with old epics or translations of phrases being used in a completely different context than they would be today.
Our English lit teacher insisted on reading the Pardoner's Tale to us without translating it, so we were supposed to understand the words without translation. Everyone complained though so they called in the Head of School to hear our complaints. But yes, reading things like Middle English is impossible without a commentary next to it
I am relatively sure that what @galahad is trying to say is that the translator should pick the option they feel is best from the available options and not create something to suit themselves. Which is a reasonable stance. There is plenty of room for multiple translations without people creating new options and meanings.
In 99% of cases side by side translations would be useless to me I don't have any capacity to understand the other language that I am reading the translation for. If I could read the language then I'd be reading the original and not what was filtered through the translator. I'm not sure how common it would be that people read a translation and can understand the source language.
I can read reasonably read and understand older French, Italian, German, Spanish, and English from up to three hundred years ago. But I still need the side-by-side translation to understand subtleties and obscure contextual phrasing.
That is nice but some of us don't want to be restricted to only reading texts where we can understand both languages involved. For me that defeats the purpose of the translations since I read translations to have access to more than what is just available in the languages that I speak.
Which is why I'm advocating for more side-by-side translations. Original text on one page, and translation on the other.
Footnotes and appendices where the translator points out possible double meanings and the contextual use of specific phrases and also mentions alternative translations are pretty much exactly what you seem to want, though!
Because they're of next to 0 value to me because I am incapable of understanding anything within the side that it was translated from in the vast majority of cases. In the few case where I do understand both languages I preffer to just read a bit slower in the original text. I speak multiple languages but I do quite a bit of reading outside of those languages and I don't have the mental capacity to learn two new languages at the same time.I'm confused as to why you think side-by-side translations are apparently so awful.
To look at nuances in phrasing, comparing vocabulary from past and present, and to learn things?
It is genuinely amazing to see people who demand a translation as objective as possible but reject having the original text side by side. Like, how will you measure objectivity otherwise?
