Like-Blog
Presenting you the most interesting translation solutions
Why Like-Blog? Now, first of all, this blog is a blog that you should like (and read regularly) – at least, if you are interested in translation. Then, the topic discussed here is one in which the meaningful likeness between a text and its translation in the language pair English-German plays a key role. On this page, I will take a close look at some interesting translation solutions that I have come across in the course of my work as a translator and translation scholar.
A translation solution is only as good as the arguments that support it. This means that any translation criticism, whether positive or negative, needs to be justified. The quality of a translation solution shows only when we compare it to other possible translation solutions in a given translation situation. Therefore, a translation critic should not only say why a translation solution is bad, but also demonstrate what a better solution might look like. I will try to stick to these principles of translation criticism. So if you have any questions regarding my line of argument or if you disagree, please, let me know your opinion by phone at +49 4171 6086525 or by e-mail to bittner@businessenglish-hamburg.de. So much for the introduction. I hope you’ll enjoy reading this blog!
Defining or non-defining? (March 2025)
On 27 October 2007, there appeared on telegraph.co.uk an article with the title “Green Gold”, written by Sally Williams. The text begins with the question: “Can a jewellery trade tainted by the scourge of blood diamonds ever take its part in an eco-aware marketplace?”
The translation ran: “Kann Schmuckhandel, der den schlechten Beigeschmack von Blutdiamanten mit sich trägt, sich jemals in einen öko-bewussten Markt integrieren?”
Strictly speaking, the translation is not objectionable. However, when taking a closer look at the text, the question arises whether what is rendered as a participial phrase in English and as a relative clause in German has a defining quality or rather serves to provide additional information. Both interpretations are possible for the English original and for the German translation: if we assume a defining quality, there would be different types of jewellery trade, with the text focusing on one particular type; an interpretation as a non-defining phrase or clause, which just provides additional information, would imply that the text deals with the jewellery trade in general and that all jewellery trade would be considered ethically questionable.
The non-defining option seems to me the more plausible one. While dealing with the question how the jewellery trade can be improved ethically, the text is not about a contrast between traditional jewellery trade on the one hand and ethically responsible jewellery trade on the other. To avoid alternative interpretations, both the original and the translation could be clearer.
Replacing the indefinite article before “jewellery trade” by a definite article and using a non-defining relative clause or a slightly modified participial phrase in English would contribute to a more unequvocal understanding of the sentence: Can the jewellery trade, which is tainted by the scourge of blood diamonds, ever take its part in an eco-aware marketplace? Or, slightly more elegant: Can the jewellery trade, tainted as it is by the scourge of blood diamonds, ever take its part in an eco-aware marketplace?
In German the solution is quite similar: we just need to insert the definite article. The result is: Kann der Schmuckhandel, der den schlechten Beigeschmack von Blutdiamanten mit sich trägt, sich jemals in einen öko-bewussten Markt integrieren?