qaz@lemmy.worldM to 196@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agocooperation rulelemmy.worldimagemessage-square165fedilinkarrow-up1606arrow-down127
arrow-up1579arrow-down1imagecooperation rulelemmy.worldqaz@lemmy.worldM to 196@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square165fedilink
minus-squareSpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·4 days agoIt would be simpler to avoid the implication by using a more apt term. “In short” would be another less-incorrect translation, but I think “briefly put” is more elegant in conveying the tone of the message.
minus-squareHawke@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 days agoWell, I think they subtitle it “in a nutshell” which is also more elegant but less literal.
minus-squareSpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 days agoTranslation does not require literalness. That’s arguably the most elegant given the apt idiom.
minus-squareHawke@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 days agoI like literal and I like to identify common word origins. Hence my suggestion, even if it’s not idiomatic.
minus-squareSpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 days agoSuch literalism comes at the cost of nuance, which is important for good translation.
It would be simpler to avoid the implication by using a more apt term.
“In short” would be another less-incorrect translation, but I think “briefly put” is more elegant in conveying the tone of the message.
Well, I think they subtitle it “in a nutshell” which is also more elegant but less literal.
Translation does not require literalness. That’s arguably the most elegant given the apt idiom.
I like literal and I like to identify common word origins. Hence my suggestion, even if it’s not idiomatic.
Such literalism comes at the cost of nuance, which is important for good translation.