Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
I again emphasize that in cases like these we should help the writer to get his/her messages across. Here if the text does not communicate well, keeping close to the text will lead in a clumsy rendering.
Surely what I've mentioned so far is not true about authoritative statements or literature, in this case it is different.
For more information please refer to:
A textbook of translation, Peter Newmark.
I do agree with the equivalent (add), it seems more sensible. but regarding the statements made so far concerning whether a translator is qualified to improve a text or not, I agree with Mr. Haerian. Because translation is a task that in doing different factors should be taken into account. Elements like matter, manner, sound-effect, style and other elements,if put into a hierarchical order, these different elements that exist in most of the texts occupy different positions. As a result and base on this in informative texts or texts which posses a greater proportion of this type the priority should be given to the matter and not the manner, because what is of the highest importance is the truth (the information to communicate).
So any mistake or incompetence on part of the writer can be corrected and if necessary comments added in footnote.
As far as I am concerned translation is the product of interpretation, and this is why different people offer different translations of the same text.
I would like to add that the first loyalty of a translator is to the truth and the facts because here any deviation from the norms of language does not show the personality of the writer.
Yes I agree it's possible to use the word in Persian "Mi-Andazim" but even this word's equivalent in English would be "drop" NOT "throw". Moreover, we should not interpret the original source language writer's intention one way or another. We must stay as true and close to the source as possible without losing the actual meaning in the target language. We shouldn't care if the ingredient in this example is available in the market or not. Also if writer in the source language shows poor choice of word/s, we cannot beautify or make it more precise in the target language. We are supposed to translate it as is, not as we think he/she might have intended to say. I'm sorry but "Throw" is completely wrong in this context. It's equal to "Partab" in Persian.
Have you ever seen a liquid cardamom in the market or home made one in the kitchen?. Besides, sometimes, translators has to edit the non- precision statements, or bad written sources. You can not expect, all the texts you receive are perfectly correct and accurate. Here you can surely assume throwing a/some peace(s) of cardamom in the mixture.
Above is assuming cardamom coming in the form of liquid or very small non countable seeds. This is the exact literal trans. However, as a recipe "added" is more suitable. From the original in Persian it's evident no measurement was intended by the writer as he/she simply intends to say this ingredient is something which also added to certain variety of the said sweet. Thus "added" is a better choice than literal translation of the word.
Automatic update in 00:
5 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +4
Explanation: ...to which .... is added.
Mahmoud akbari Russian Federation Local time: 18:24 Works in field Native speaker of: Farsi (Persian), Persian (Farsi) PRO pts in category: 4