Hello Dongkyu!

Thank you for the questions and I hope my answers help!

————————————————————————————————————————
1. Ambiguous translation
(1) A five year old boy in the same state was beaten up by a grammar school principal, while a seven year old Dalit girl was thrashed by her mathematics teacher for failing to solve a problem.
>Regarding the use of 'state', Could you explain it can be interpreted as both '주' and '상태? I think the all is possible considering the context.

-> That’s a good point! I still feel like since they specifically mentioned things like “throughout India”, “in Andhra Pradesh”, etc, it would be reasonable to think it would be “State” as in “주”. If indeed the previous sentence’s story mentioned something like “A boy fell into a coma…” then I think seeing “in the same state as “같은 상태에 빠진…” can be acceptable.

———————————————————————————

(2) Mr Hutton points out that in his inaugural speech, the incoming Chinese president said that economic growth was not just about the legitimate aspirations of citizens to live well, it was also about having less corruption and having their voices heard.
>Could you explain that you interpreted it as '적당한 열망', but is  '정당한, justifiable' also a possible interpretation?

-> I just rewatched this part and I actually am not sure why it was said as “적당한”. I think it would make more sense to say “정당한” or “진실된/진심어린” here!

———————————————————————————

(3) "They know that if growth ever falls below 6% for a year or two, and they cannot find jobs for people, they will become non-legitimate and there will be a revolt from below," he says.
>Could you explain that you interpreted it as '신빙성이 없어지고', but  is '타당하지 못한, not valid also a possible interpretation? (Confusing of legitimate word itself)

-> Saying something is legitimate means something is authentic or trustworthy. Here, I think what we need to make it clear is who “they” are, when we say “they will become non-legitimate.” If we think about it, we know “they” here means the Chinese government. So when we say “they [the government] will become non-legitimate,” it is saying that the government is not trustworthy, not something you can rely on. Understanding this, you still could say “the government will become invalid” (정부는 타당하지 못한 것이 된다) but that doesn’t sound any clearer than “정부는 신빙성을 잃게 된다”

———————————————————————————

(4)Thank you for your email of June 6 suggesting that we resume negotiations on a possible distributorship for our products in Argentina, which have been suspended since early 2000.
>Could you explain that why you interpreted it as '유래된', I think 2000년 이래로 '중단된, 보류된' is also seems possible.

-> I think you might have just read my explanation wrong, I believe it’s “유예된” not “유래된”.

———————————————————————————

(4) If you have a hard time buying into such a romantic idea, if you dismiss it along with rainbows and unicorns, then we suggest you try your hand at something else.
>Is it acceptable to add '긍정적인 상징물과 같은' to explain them.? Because just interpret it only word seems word for word translation.

-> Yes, sounds good to me!

———————————————————————————
2. Translation except
Could you explain that it is common not to translate a word, especially if the word is not crucial? For instance, you naturally translated these following sentences by exempting it.

(1) These concession stands give the small guy a chance to make really good money and be his own boss at the same time.
(2) Concession owners usually have to pay license fees to be able to set up in particular places.
>Could you explain that why you interpreted it (1) as 이러한 매점, (2) as 구내매점수요주, even though the sentences are connected.

-> I believe you answered your question yourself! Yes, especially so if the word is not crucial and redundant, there is no reason for us to include every word directly translated. There is a different kind of translation that we do where that is what we need to do. As I mentioned, doing meaning-for-meaning translation, we definitely do not want to be thinking that we have to translate every single word from one language to another.

———————————————————————————

(3) Hook says, “They have their eyes on the side of their heads … and those large eyes work like fish eye lenses, which means that a horse can actually see 360 degrees around it. So it can see everywhere apart from its back.
>The reason you exempt to translate this sentence in lecture is because of same meaning of sentence before, 360 degree?

-> This actually should’ve been included in the video, but it seems like I accidentally skipped it. Simply saying “그래서 말은 자신의 등 뒤쪽을 빼고 나머지는 전부 볼 수 있습니다.” would work!

———————————————————————————


3. Subject omission
Is it necessary to translate it by adding a specific or detailed subject even though the subjects are omitted in a sentence?
e.g. So are~, ~ is

-> I am not sure if I understood the question but if you are wodering why or why not certain subjects in a sentence are or are not translated into a different language, it is mostly due to the linguistic aspect of the language.

For example, try translating this conversation between Anna and Mason.

안나: 내일 어디 갈꺼야?
메이슨: 서울에 있을것 같아.

As a fluent Korean speaker, you will be able to understand the context of the conversation above even when all of the subjects are omitted in the Korean language. So if you were to translate it, you would say:

Anna: Where are you going tomorrow?
Mason: I will most likley be in Seoul.


———————————————————————————

4. Pronoun: Capital word
Order a sandwich with Dijon mustard in France or a dressed hot dog in a U.S. ballpark and smile with some national pride: the mustard was likely made with seeds from our Prairies.
>If I only know the meaning as 초원, 대초원, not 캐나다대초원. Is it inappropriate translation? Because you gave feedback that it is necessary to translate to Korean in case of common words like nation, state. But some pronoun is too specific like this word.


-> This is a tricky one, because the word “Prairies”, although it means 초원, 대초원, it’s actually also a proper noun to call the prairies in Canada. So I guess the proper way to do it would be 1) notice the capital letter, 2) do your research to see if it is indeed a specific place (which you will be able to find somewhat easily on google,  (https://thecanadaguide.com/places/the-prairies/))

That being said, it is indeed very specific and I do not expect everyone to get this correctly, meaning if you were to see anything like this specific on an exam, you will not be penalized.

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

Best regards,

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

DONGKYU KIM님의 댓글

DONGKYU KIM 쪽지보내기 메일보내기 자기소개 아이디로 검색 전체게시물 Date 24-02-21 02:41

I truly appreciate for your detailed and clear reply for this.