When one speaks of something being "lost in translation", is it just a throw away old adage, or does the English translation miss important aspects of the native language?
I have watched over the years stoic members of the United Nations, with headphones planted against their ears, as they listened to a presentation in a language not their own. And, also the person behind a visiting dignitary translating into the their ear what the other is saying. And I have been struck with the thought that perhaps the translation, the English translation particularly, is not really the gist of what is being said. Speech is much more than just words spoken. The tone of the word used, the inflection of the voice on a specific word, or one's use of words are all vital parts of a word's meaning.
For instance, the word ""attack"" could be used to denote action, or to explain an action. And yet, it may only have one meaning in the translation. To attack the border area is certainly not the same as the attack of locust on the cotton crop. What words should the speaker emphasize? Is ""we seek a peaceful resolution"", the same as ""Monet depicted a peaceful scene is his last painting"", or does the meaning become lost in translation? The demand of a peaceful resolution is certainly stronger and more forceful than the peaceful scene. When Premier Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the desk at the UN, was the English translation just as compelling? Words are very important, and the meaning of those words must be conveyed in a manner that best represent the speaker's intentions.
It is difficult for some to put into words exactly what they may be trying to say. I argue that the English translation of any word and its meaning may be the most important task in communicating with those of another tongue.
04. August