διαφωτιστής, καθοδηγητής, ινστρούχτορας = (political) instructor
- Thread starter sarant
- Start date
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
Επίσης:
Politruk "political instructor"
Guidelines for the Translation of Social Science Texts
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.