18:35 Nov 4 

yes, I'm sure we all do that, to a greater or lesser degree (not frowning, that is!)

17:09 Nov 4 

I don't have any clients that frown on improvement. I work closely with them, many are quite well-versed in English, some are even English. Some don't know any English at all. I'm generally talking about texts that resemble this one - though many are much more poetic and sometimes much better written. But it's not Sammy Beckett. Though sometimes it's trying to be. A few of my authors are under the illusion that their original text was perfect. Most are not, and all realize that translation is not a mechanical action.
In the case of texts like this one, my clients usually expect me to take things into my own hands, that's why they've called on my hands.
If it is an essential key text, we'll go over things closely, but if it is a general-need text, they trust me, based on their experience, to give them something of usable quality that is generally equivalent to the original.
Maybe it's not a translator's job to know what they want to say, and be able to distinguish that from what they've actually said, but my clients seem to be happy about everything except that I sometimes keep them waiting more than the wish - but not more than I promised.

16:46 Nov 4 

whilst it can be highly gratifying to slip in the occasional subtle "improvement", generally speaking it is not the translator's job to do this. Indeed, this is often very much frowned upon, unless the meaning of the ST simply cannot be rendered accurately into the TT - perhaps for cultural reasons, or whatever. If you start to doubt that the ST actually means what it says, then where do you end up? Perhaps doubting whether the author actually intended to say "arts premiers" or "sous les auspices de" for example, but really had something rather different - rather better - in mind?
In any case, when this sort of doubt arises, it's always a good idea to consult with the author/agency on the exact interpretation, rather than simply taking matters into your own hands, and possibly (accidentally, albeit with the best of intentions) riding roughshod over the Intentions of the ST.

16:23 Nov 4 

Basically I agree with your comments about translating, with the addition that my clients are often quite pleased if I improve their writing or find a better way of saying something. It is not even rare that after seeing my translation, they return to the original to incorporate my "corrections", ie., a somewhat different approach, construction or vocabulary. What an author has written is often not exactly what they want - writing is always a compromise. It is perhaps easier for me because I work almost completely with direct clients. But it is much more frequent that they are pleased with my "changes" than that they are disappointed - though I appreciate the clients who take the time to express any doubts they may have. Like you, when I ask a question here, it is usually to confirm my dubious interpretation, or sometimes when I am at a loss to express an idea eloquently, given the information expressed in the original. It's always juggling. Though I ask a couple questions a month, it is fairly rare that someone comes up with "the" answer. I have two questions up now. In one case, at least my guess at meaning was shared by SOME readers - but still no silver bullet for sayin

15:00 Nov 4 

In the same way that you can't ignore the author's wishes re register - or, as in this case, PC, etc - you also can't just not translate something as it is simply because you don't happen to like it!! I don't terribly like "under the auspices of" either, but if that is what the ST says... However, this was only a suggestion re the interpretation, and certainly not intended to be the be-all and end-all of the translation. Usually, when I post a literary-type question, it's because I'm unsure of the interpretation. Once someone makes that clear, I consider they have done a good job, and usually prefer to find my own way of expressing it.

14:25 Nov 4 

For me the point of this is getting to the best possible translation and maybe learning something of general usage at the same time. Personally, I don't care about points and often will give a useful answer that might have earned points (not the case here) in a discussion or in responding to another person's response. I think there is all-too-much "political correctness" about not disagreeing. But basically, it's all a question of finding the most effective manner to communicate - in the translation, as well as here. While often using shortcuts because we all lack time. When I see something like "primitive", I may respond exaggeratedly, perhaps unfairly, but hopefully in proportion with the relative importance - even if it isn't the asker's "question". But in this case, neither do I at all like "under the auspices" - which was already bad enough in French and IMO much worse in English. Sorry. My intention isn't to touch someone personally - everyone knows that answers here, while they may be thought-out, are also likely to be thrown away, even by their authors - the collective mind sharing knowledge and experience. Sorry if you felt attacked - I seem to be abrasive.

14:04 Nov 4 

I agree entirely about the last point you make (re inappropriately avoiding being PC or otherwise). However, I reiterate that this did not appear to be Sandra's main concern, nor was it mine when offering my posting. A point I did mention at the time. By far the most important part of the question was the "sous les auspices...", which is perhaps where most of our efforts should be concentrated.
I for one would never expect to produce the definitive answer (word for word), but would rather assume that an Asker would look more at the interpretation of the difficult part of the term, and take it from there. The point of KudoZ is to provide "the most helpful answer" - which isn't necessarily the exact term eventually used by the Asker.

Don't know if that makes sense to you... :)

13:51 Nov 4 

The definitions of primitive art are so variable and changing that the term is virtually useless. Until recently, Chinese art, with its tradition vastly exceeding European traditions, was often included in "primitive" collections or museums. Today Wikipedia in English doesn't even have an article on "primitive art". Definitions of similar terms, "tribal art" for example, include European "folk art".
But the important factor for a translator is knowing that a similar term exists in French, and recognizing that the author has chosen a different term which has completely different connotations. Avoiding being "politically correct" is not good translation if your author has chosen to be PC.

13:48 Nov 4 

It's an interesting debate. As David says, "arts premiers" was coined as an alternative to "primitifs" when Quai Branly was opened and has become accepted usage in French. I don't know if an equivalent term has been agreed on in English. I will be using "indigenous" in my translation. As Carole notes, it's the "sous les auspices" that is bugging me!

13:25 Nov 4 

Carol was probably referring to my negative response to her posting that included "primitive".

I'm not sure about "indigenous" - at Branly, "indigène" and "autochtone" were also considered. My feeling is that indigenous works better in English - the French words were much used during the Guerre d'Algérie, and so leave a bad taste. Hard to weigh.

13:12 Nov 4 

Hi again all and sorry Carol I don't mean to criticize your entry at all. For me the point in question is the use of 'primitive' that's all.
David, I think you're right - the original choice of the author is not neutral and therefore needs to be taken into account. Maybe more context on the piece and author would help?

12:52 Nov 4 

I have to admit that I really didn't think that this was Sandra's main concern in posting this question - especially as she appeared to have a perfectly good suggestion of her own. I was merely offering an alternative, which appeared in thousands of g-hits/translations when I googled "arts premiers". I imagined it was the "???" part of the question that was causing her the problem... and that the translation of arts premiers was pretty secondary

12:34 Nov 4 

When the enormous and gorgeous French National Museum (Branly) was opened a few years ago, "arts premiers" was used (and basically invented, at least as far as popular usage) specifically to avoid the ridiculously misleading term "primitive" as well as other silly possibilities. Even "premier" itself was also accused of being off-mark. The use of "arts premiers" is not neutral on the part of the author. "Primitive" would be a bad translation.

12:15 Nov 4 

This link might be helpful.I know the term is still in current use, but I just wanted to highlight the dangers of using it.I'm almost sure I had to use it in inverted commas for my art history studies, and you'll find quite a few examples of this.I'll try and have a look in Critcal terms for Art History this afternoon and let you know.
http://books.google.fr/books?id=JZabZ5hOfqgC&pg=PA319&lpg=PA...

11:54 Nov 4 

Wikipedia does in fact mention that naive art and primitive art are seen by some as pejorative/Non-PC terms. However, we have to remember that Wiki articles can be written by anyone, and, as such, should not NECESSARILY be taken as gospel. Which isn't to say that I don't ever rely on it!

Anyway, there are thousands of quite reputable-looking books and articles that use "primitive art" to mean sub-Saharan art (etc), without there being any negative connotations implied. This is a term that has been in official use for quite some time.

11:33 Nov 4 

Hi Lisa - I wholeheartedly agree, although surprisingly (to me) there is a book about the Quai Branly museum that refers to primitive art
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paris-Primitive-Jacques-Chiracs-Muse...

11:16 Nov 4 

Hi Sandra
Just one point - I would be very careful of using the terms 'primal' 'primitive' etc as in art history terms this is now seen as rather perjorative. Perhaps stick with indigenous?