# διαφωτιστής, καθοδηγητής, ινστρούχτορας = (political) instructor



## sarant (May 7, 2009)

με την κομματική έννοια της λέξης, ιδίως στα παλιά κομμουνιστικά κόμματα, πώς είναι στα αγγλικά; 

Στον φίλο που με ρώτησε, σκέφτηκα το ινστρούκτορας, και απάντησα instructor, Party instructor, αλλά δεν είμαι βέβαιος.


----------



## nickel (May 7, 2009)

Και για τον ινστρούχτορα και για τον διαφωτιστή και για τον καθοδηγητή, οι σημειώσεις μου δίνουν το ίδιο. Περιέργως, πιο συνηθισμένο κι από το _party instructor_ είναι το _political instructor_.

Επίσης:
Politruk "political instructor"
Guidelines for the Translation of Social Science Texts


----------



## Zazula (May 7, 2009)

To _cadreman_ είναι εντελώς off;


----------



## nickel (May 7, 2009)

Η Wikipedia μού λέει ότι Politruk είναι οι κομισάριοι, και τα (ανύπαρκτα) ρωσικά μου δεν βοηθούν. Πρέπει να πιάσουμε αυτό το νήμα και να αρχίσουμε να προβληματιζόμαστε για τις μεταφράσεις.

Ζαζ, για το cadre, «τα βασικά ή τα κορυφαία στελέχη του κόμματος». 

Δες «Πολιτικά κόμματα» στον Πάπυρο: _Κόμματα στελεχών (cadre parties)_. Λέγεται και _στελεχιακό κόμμα_.


----------



## nickel (May 7, 2009)

Από το PDF που έδωσα πιο πάνω (όλο καλό):

Since the prevalence of technical terms is one of the prime distinguishing features of social science discourse, translators must take special care not only in rendering them but also in making their audience aware of them. Although no blanket solution will cover all instances, the two time-honored approaches to devising equivalents for technical terms are 1) accepting the term as a loanword, that is, borrowing it outright (for example, using Russian words for such Soviet terminology as Eng _politburo_ (for Rus _politbiuro < politicheskoe biuro_ ‘political bureau’) and Eng _gulag_ (for Rus _gulag < gosudarstvennoe upravlenie lagerei_ ‘state camp administration’) and 2) providing the term with a loan translation as in Eng _political instructor_ for Rus _politruk_. Both approaches produce words or expressions that initially sound strange, the former because they are in a foreign language, the latter because they force the target language into the mold of the source language. But languages have accepted and naturalized borrowed words and loan translations from time immemorial. English was enhanced by untold borrowings from the French after the Norman Conquest, and it has continued to absorb foreign words to this day. As for loan translations, how many English speakers realize that the expression to _kill time_ is a loan translation from the French _tuer le temps_?
In either case, translators will want to use a footnote when they are introducing a term they have invented or when they wish to replace an accepted term with one of their own. They do not need to footnote terms that appear in a medium-sized monolingual dictionary of the target language (say, _The Concise Oxford Dictionary_ or _Webster’s College Dictionary_). Thus, neither _politburo_ nor _gulag_ would require a footnote, but _political instructor_ would. It might read as follows: “We are using the term _political instructor_ to translate _politruk_, a portmanteau word derived from _politicheskii rukovoditel_’ ‘political instructor.’ It refers specifically to a Party official assigned to provide soldiers in the Soviet armed forces with ideological guidance.” ​


----------



## sarant (May 7, 2009)

Νίκελ, αυτό είναι! Σευχαριστώ.


----------



## Costas (May 8, 2009)

Το πολύ ενδιαφέρον αυτό PDF έχει κι ένα παράρτημα που δυστυχώς δεν καταφέρνω να το πιάσω και να το κοτσάρω εδώ, και που τιτλοφορείται A Plea for Social Scientists to Write in their own Languages.


----------



## nickel (May 8, 2009)

*A Plea for Social Scientists to Write in Their Own Languages*

English is increasingly becoming the language of international social science discourse. Far more texts are translated _from_ English than _into_ English. What is more, social scientists in non-English-speaking linguistic communities the world over have taken to writing in English. We believe this practice poses problems for the field of social science as such, and we appeal to social scientists not to abandon writing in their own languages.

Social science concepts and the terms used to convey them are shaped by the characteristics of the language in which they are originally produced and, consequently, by the cultural and historical experience of the users of that language. As Humboldt put it in his _Fragments of a Monograph on the Basques_: “The diversity of languages cannot be reduced to the diversity of designations for an object; they are different perspectives on that object. . . . The bounty of the world and of what we perceive therein increases in direct proportion with the diversity of languages, which likewise expands the bounds of human existence, presenting us with new ways of thinking and feeling” (_Gesammelte Schriften, _VII: 602). The tendency for English to become the lingua franca of the social sciences (a _fait accompli_ in the natural sciences) constrains their ability to generate Humboldt’s “different perspectives.”

The growing hegemony of a single language has had several deleterious effects. First, authors writing in a second language, no matter how well they have learned it, are less likely to express their ideas with precision and sophisticated nuance than authors writing in their own language. Secondly, the lack of a thriving social science literature in a given natural language undercuts the basis for communication about disciplinary issues in that linguistic community. Thirdly, the forms of thought and argumentation in the Anglo-American social science community have become a Procrustean bed to whose dimensions all conceptualizations must fit. The result is an increasing homogenization and impoverishment of social science discourse.

It follows from these observations, and from our guidelines as a whole, that sensitive translations of studies written from the diverse perspectives offered by diverse languages and cultures can help to promote a deeper, cross-cultural dialogue and to reinvigorate social science as such. Scholars therefore need to pay greater attention to the role translations play in their specific disciplines. They must take concrete steps to encourage their colleagues, both senior and junior, to undertake the translations of significant works written in other languages and to make fellowship- granting bodies and tenure and promotion committees aware of the scholarly character and import of such translations.


----------

