Books on Sturmgruppen

[Ruy Horta]

Although I have an advantage through my native tongue dutch, I actually prefer to read in German when it concerns the German armed forces. Comparing the original with the translations always illustrates that something is lost in the translation.

Sometimes it is just a matter of style or small errors, but more important, almost always the feel is lost, especially when it concerns biographies or (early) unit or campaign histories. These are rich with jargon and military slang, all lost when translated.

Although I have a fair share of English translations, I prefer to collect the original, even if it means that I have to read Fraktur. Again, something that takes a little to get used to, but once you have adjusted it reads (almost) as easily as normal latin script. However reading late 19th century (Moltke, Schlieffen etc) and (post) WW1 literature in Fraktur just adds to the experience.

Some people tend to regard reading the original German to be superfluous, I regard it to be essential.

Now if only I could read Russian and Japanese... now that would leave me with no time to eat, drink, (not to mention "explicit",) sleep and er... work.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Comparing the original with the translations always illustrates that something is lost in the translation.

...you'll forgive me if I say that I completely disagree with you - 'always..' ?? what a crass generalisation ! in many cases the translator will have 'enhanced' the original...see the comments from Peter Spoden on my website with regard to my translation of his foreword for Theo Boiten's forthcoming Nachtjagd War diaries....'superb & cultured English, much better than we pilots talk..'
There are plenty of other examples of good translations, Galland's memoirs (French edition), Steinhoff Straits of Messina (English), Norbert Hannig's memoir (John Weal)...anything by Dave Johnston... perhaps your problem is that you are not a native English speaker..

http://members.aol.com/falkeeins

[Ruy Horta]

Of course a generalization, but you illustrate my point more than you may realize. Perhaps the rough original, incl. rough pilot slang and jargon are what I regard as more important than a translation that has removed the rough edges (for the english reader).

My german reading skills are equal to my english language skills, so no preference in terms of ability.

It is clear we will not agree on this issue.

Tastes differ, as do opinions...

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

It is clear we will not agree on this issue.

..no I agree with your point about being able or even preferring to read the original German...but 'slang and jargon' ?..well unless we're dealing with dialogue - fairly rare in memoirs or histories - then they don't really have any place in a formal written account....actually I think we did pretty well with 'Infantryman in Stalingrad' in that respect ....

http://www.amazon.com/Infantryman-St...e=UTF8&s=books

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

...but 'slang and jargon' ?..well unless we're dealing with dialogue - fairly rare in memoirs or histories - then they don't really have any place in a formal written account...

Do you mean you wouldn't use direct quotation from your sources?

[FalkeEins]

getting away from the point of this thread a little ..but anyway..

..a translation is a translation ..not a resume or precis..but when considering the 'feel' of a piece there has to be some consideration of tone and style...I would still say that most accounts are fairly formal, being written down after the event and after time for reflexion...Obviousy a good translation will be technically accurate but it won't follow the original slavishly - thats what machines (& altavista ) do. The language being translated ordinarily has no importance for the target readership. It matters not one jot how brilliantly a particular expression has been rendered - accurately of course - since a non linguist can have no conception of the thought processes involved. The non-German speaker is interested only in a good read in their language. A good translator is not somebody who has three languages and can read in any of them - he simply has to be a good manipulator of his own language. As I indicated to Ruy thats the nature of 'bilingualism' - you will never be as completely at home in either or all of your languages as a native speaker is in his - you may be able to read a German or English text comfortably enough but judging what might have been 'lost' and what impact this may have had on the 'feel' of a piece....not really..
I will concede that when looking at, say, ' JG 300 ' there were a number of instances of vulgar language 'toned' down and one crude incident slightly 're-written' but these don't detract from the overall feel at all..concrete examples of something being 'lost' in translation perhaps ..but not something that could be detected by the reader.
By the way if you go to http://www.crellin.de (copywriting and translation) you 'll see a current job ad for translators of German into English ...sums up nicely what translation is about ..." demonstrate the ability to create English texts that are not word-for-word renderings of the German....no applications from non-native speakers even if you've spent 30 years in New York.."

[leonventer]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

... I will concede that when looking at, say, ' JG 300 ' there were a number of instances of vulgar language 'toned' down and one crude incident slightly 're-written' ...

Notwithstanding your other points about non-literal translation, I found this statement rather puzzling and disappointing.

Puzzling, because I don't believe there will be any readers of this book who are unable to deal with the original profanity and crudeness. In our specialized field, I have yet to come across any people or books whose excessive vulgarity would warrant bowdlerization.

Disappointing, because direct quotes are one of the few means by which we can relate to the circumstances and emotions of those times. I hope that the contents of JG300, Volume 2 won't be similarly diluted.

BTW, I appreciate the work of good translators, such as David Johnston and yourself, because the material becomes more accessible, but whenever possible, I buy both the original and English versions of all Luftwaffe biographies and unit histories. ("JG300" is an exception because I'm French-impaired.)

My .02,
Leon Venter

p.s. I'm assuming the "one crude incident" mentioned above occurs in JG300, Volume 1. Could you please provide a reference, so that I won't always have to wonder which part was abridged?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

getting away from the point of this thread a little ..but anyway..

... when looking at, say, ' JG 300 ' there were a number of instances of vulgar language 'toned' down and one crude incident slightly 're-written' but these don't detract from the overall feel at all...

Well, when I've used personal accounts (often derived from conversations with veterans or personal letters) I have tried to find English equivalents to the German expressions and for that wartime RAF slang often came in very useful. I didn't want to make formal what was not formal in the first place.

I see the main function of quotation as telling how things felt at the time (with the main text providing the historian's perspective) so I wouldn't want to mess with what the people who were there said.