yndigo

Wictionary.org defines translatorese as: “(pejorative) Stilted or unidiomatic language produced by translation.” That doesn’t sound good.

However some contend there are certain types of documents and certain audiences where erring on the literal side is a safer bet. Not literature of course (ironically we can’t take literature literally as one of my grad school professors used to say). And not advertising or marketing. So which translations should be anything less than perfectly readable?

Well, none really. Translations need to be read, and struggling through clunky prose in any context can keep us from fully understanding the meaning of the original. But there are limits when it comes to transforming the original for the sake of style.

A translator’s creativity should at times be held to a minimum. Accuracy is paramount. And rendering a translation that is 100% accurate and reads as if it were written in the target language to begin with, while possible perhaps, would take far too long to produce, i.e, longer than most translators are afforded. Especially in certain language pairs.

And there are potential dangers if style is our ultimate goal. Readibility is easy. Just edit the translation until it reads well. If we’re not careful though, we can stray not only from the original structure but from its meaning, too. Thus in the time allotted, translators often have to strike a balance… and the balance often tips toward the literal.

Secondly, a client using translations from multiple translators will have headaches if one or more translators rework the text to such an extent that (1) referring back to the original will be difficult, and (2) piecing it together with other translations, impossible. This is especially true if an interpreter is using the translations or if references are made to other documents, which may already be translated.