Hello Luke!

Just a quick reminder to read the Q&A Board Guideline (https://gcib.ca/bbs/board.php?bo_table=qa&wr_id=7903) and see if you can leave the questions in English as much as possible!

I looked at some of your questions and rearranged some of them that can be answered together. Let’s have a look at your questions and see if I can help.
————————————————————————

그 소녀는 북서부 델히에 있는 학교의의 여선생에 의해 옷을 벗도록 강요당했다. 돈과 스마트폰을 친구들거로 부터 훔쳣다고 의심 받아서.
The girl was forced to remove her clothes by a female teacher at a school in north-west Delhi after being accused of stealing money and a mobile phone from a classmate.
"여기사 도둑으로 몰리게 되서"를, 훔쳣다고 의심받아서 라고 해도 되나요?

-> Yes, since they carry the same meaning.

—————————


India, including the capital, has few public toilets and many of its walls are used as urinals.
its가 인도라는데 그걸 어캐 알아요? 공공 화장실일수도 잇자나요


-> I think thoroughly understanding the context of the sentence will make it clear that “its” here is indeed India. The sentence is saying “has few public toilets” (공중화장실이 거의 없는) thus saying many walls in the country are being used as a toilet.

—————————


Apparent는 분명한인데 Apparently 는 왜 보아하니인가요?

-> This is not something I can answer. I am sure there might be an explanation for it but no need for us to dive in too deep into the etymology.

—————————


On being objected to/ he abused the girl and created a ruckus, /which attracted the attention of her mother.
그것을 제지하던 중에 소녀를 때리고 어머니를 끌어들여 소란이 일어났다
라고 해석햇는데 괜찮나요?

-> Sounds good to me.

—————————


Also, fewer goods and services are produced.
또, 거의 없는 물품과 질낮은 서비스들이 제공될것이다.
전 이렇게 해석햇어요. 괜찮은가요?

-> No, I believe that would be a mistranslation. Saying “fewer goods and services are produced” is the same thing as “there will be less goods and services that are produced.”

—————————



New equipment costs money, in the long run, though the equipment earns back its cost through increased efficiency.
“장기적인 차원에서 새로운 장비들은 돈이 들긴 하지만, 장비들은 늘어난 효율성을 통해 이 비용들을 환수할것이다” 라고저는 해석햇어요. 체크 해주세요

-> Sounds good to me!

—————————


Companies find it harder to compete
Productivity does have its costs
이거가 경쟁하기 힘든어을 찾는다 아녀요?
생산력은 곧 돈이다
두문장에 대한 설명이 모자라요. does가 강조인건 알겟는데 좀

-> Here "find" is not "찾다". Try changing “find it” to “think it is”.

Here is an example:

The movie was a bit long but I find it interesting.
= The movie was a bit long but I think it is interesting.

Productivity does have its costs
-> When you say “A has its costs”, it is essentially saying “There are some downsides[단점]/costs[얻기위해 지불해야하는 댓가] to A.”

—————————

nd there’s a prize inside for going for it: People tend to become more interesting as you learn more about them.
여기서  inside for going for it 이 무슨 뜻이에요 ?

-> I think you are breaking the sentence down wrong here. It is saying:

there’s a prize -> 상품이 있다
inside -> 안에
for -> ~함으로써
going for it -> 도전하는 것, 시도해보는 것

도전/시도를 해보는 것 안에/그 자체에 상품/얻을 수 있는 것이 있다.
—————————

This is different from caring so much that you’re disinterested in all the other thoughts someone else might be having.

여기서 caring so much 를 왜 쓴거에요? 이건 필요도 없을거같은데. 애초에 영상에서는 너가 너무 많이 신경쓰는거 같아 이러는데 그럼 뭔가 seem to so care so much but라고 써야지요. 아니면
이것은 너가 너무 신경쓰는 거랑 너가 다른사람들이 무언가를 생각해볼까에 무관심한거랑 다르다. <-이럴거면 중간에 that보다 and를 써야하는거 아녀요?

-> I think the proper translation should be more like: “이것은 [다른 사람이 나를 어떻게 생각할까에 대해] 너무 신경을 씀으로써 남들은 어떤 다른 생각을을 갖고 있을까에 무관심한 것이랑은 분명히 다른 것이다.”

—————————


base in 기반이 된다(지역의 기반 같은것것)
base on something을 기반으로
이거 맞나요?

-> Yes, correct.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Q1.
including those ideas that have nothing to do with you
이것도  "심지어 당신과 전혀 상관없는 생각이어도" 여기서 심지어라는 단어가 어딨는데요?

Q2.
The human experience is fraught with moments that require immediate, unwavering attention to self — also known as “crises.”
인간의 경험에는 "위기"들이라고 하는, 자신에게 즉각적이고 부동심이 필요한 순간들이 요구한다.
- 가득차있다는 단어도 없는데 왜 저렇게 해석해요?

-> For Q1 and Q2, I believe we are fundamentally understanding something wrong here about translating. Let me explain with an example.

Let’s say you want to translate: “Going on a walk everyday is easy enough for most people.”

This can be done in many ways, such as:

T1. 매일 걷는 것은 대부분의 사람들에게는 충분히 쉬운 일이다.
T2. 거의 모든 사람들에게 매일매일 산책을 하는 것은 그리 어렵지 않은 일이다.

Now, which one do you think is the correct translation? or more accurate one?

To me, #1 might be following the original sentence more strictly, but both translations T1 and T2 are delivering the same meaning. Therefore, we regard both T1 and T2 as good translation. Understanding this concept in translation and interpretation is critical. If you constantly try to have a direct one-to-one finding for every single word in one language to the other, your translation will not sound right.

Here is my one pointer: instead of translating every single word from one language to another, try to think about delivering the correct meaning and how it sounds in one language!

I hope this helps!

Best regards,

Mason U, CMI-Korean
Business Interpretation and Translation in Korean (BIT-K) Instructor