
Always Already Translated - lermontov
http://www.publicbooks.org/fiction/always-already-translated
======
kazinator
> _Translation is not secondary or incidental to these works. It is a
> condition of their production.”_

If something is written in language A and then translated, then the
translation is secondary. It doesn't matter that it happens very soon or that
it's a condition of the production. Secondary means not primary; derived from.
Cheese is still secondary to milk, even as we milk the cow under a contract to
product cheese; the milk is not "born curdled and ripened".

To be "born translated" would mean that a polyglot author writes each sentence
or paragraph in several languages at once, directly from the meaning to each
language, without translating among them. Or that multiple collaborating
authors come up with the semantics for each element of the book, discussing
and coming to an agreement about each idea and then rendering it into their
respective languages. In these cases, each book is then secondary only to the
raw ideas; it is not secondary to another version of the book in a different
language.

We can regard it as a book being a body of ideas which are "born translated"
to language. So all books are "born translated", but usually to just one
language. Additional translations are secondary book-to-book translations. But
we could have an intriguing situation in which a book is "born translated"
directly from ideas to two or more languages.

~~~
klodolph
I think you have a different standard for what is "primary" or "secondary",
and that if you draw such a sharp line when it comes to interpreting the
language of the article, you are of course going to find a reason to disagree
with it. If you argue about what it means for a work to be "born"\--whether
that happens at publication or when the author sets pen to paper--of course
you are going to disagree.

Find a more interesting way to disagree, rather than discussing such
superficial trimmings.

~~~
kazinator
You don't think the idea of a book being actually produced in multiple
languages at once is interesting? I was hoping that's what the article would
be about; instead it's about Harry Potter coming out in a bunch of languages.

My standard for "primary" versus "secondary" is simply that the primary thing
exists first, before the secondary thing exists and is derived from it. I'm
definitely not moving the goalposts here or setting the bar high; no game of
"true Scotsman's primary and secondary". By "born", I also take it to mean
"come into observable existence in the world" or something like that; nothing
special. A book is born when we have a manuscript.

~~~
schoen
Also, there are still the different roles of author and translator in these
"born translated" projects, right? The author is still writing the manuscript
in one language and the translator (a different person) is still producing
translations. (Though presumably the translator can make suggestions or ask
questions like an editor would, which is a pretty meaningful difference in the
production process.)

------
cpeterso
I'm pretty sure the article meant China Miéville's _Embassytown_ , a novel
about aliens who speak with two mouths in unison using a language of similes
(referencing events they orchestrate to expand their vocabulary), not _The
City & The City_:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassytown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassytown)

------
mombul
So what, a book is being translated faster. What's the big deal? What's the
real impact? Do you think JK Rowling wrote the last Harry Potter books
thinking about the translations and that it impacted her writing? Do you think
it made her rewrite some sentences because they would be hard to translate?

I have a hard time believing that. I have a hard time finding the point of the
article anyway, so... They're trying too hard.

