This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: This is currently a popular phrase on the internet and elsewhere. 'Can't afford to get hurt' is to me a correct literal translation, but I think a more idiomatic expression like the one I've suggested reflects the general usage of it.
It can refer to physical, emotional, financial injury and is used in everyday situations to describe/complain about something unlucky and unfortunate.
谢谢各位的建议和讨论。很多译法都很好，从中选择一个最合适的确实很难。这句译文是在国内准备用来教在中国的外国朋友学中文，学一些现在的流行语，这些外国朋友很多母语也不是英文。考虑这些因素，我倾向于选择 ...can't take it any more. 有很多建议都很接近这个，best answer 只能给一个，就只能给最高分的Miles了。谢谢大家。
"Our ethnocentric or logocentric position is never as innocent as we think it is." I agree with that 100%. But I disagree with the implication that there is a "pure" or "innocent" ideal which we fail to reach. That's why one of the most common metaphors for translation is negotiation: it's never about striving to reach one perfect goal; it's always about balancing multiple "claims" on the text. And the more the translator knows about all those claims, the better a translator she is. That's why I agree with Rita on this one: I think Z-Kong and jarv are wrong to see sex in the phrase "sucks"/"sucks balls". For the record, I literally do not know if the "balls" there means testicles or something else - this is American slang, not that common in the UK. What I mean is, English speakers react to these phrases without even seeing the sexual connotation that they may once have had. You have to know that to be able to do this translation well.
It is interesting if we consider how we translate "make love." There seems no problem for Chinese people to use "做爱” for the translation, though we do have quite a lot slang or formal terms (taboo-oriented) for it in our culture. Now translate "苟合”。(Will you think "make love" will be good enough to express the source language.) I have to make this clear. I really think this discussion is interesting and I don't think anyone of us mean any offense to each other. The reason why I carry on this discussion is that I really think it is an interesting phenomeon if we think about the cultural positioning of a translator, where a source-language translator's linguistic or cultural orientation and that of a target-language translator do pose the double-edge nature of translation. As translators, we can understand the differences and exchange our discussions because we are bilingual or multi-lingual. Many readers are not. Our ethnocentric or logocentric position is never as innocent as we think it is.
I don't know which region "long time no see" came from but it's indeed creole. The lit. Translation of people mountain people sea only works with an audience who speaks Chinese. I believe it was a term coined by a Music/New Artist agency in Hong Kong who used it as their agency name (correct me if I'm wrong). If I am not citing incorrectly, "gung ho" as in "he's all gung ho about doing this" is indeed one of those direct translations which worked (source came from China). In the mean time, with certain terms I guess we will just have to contend ourselves with 卡皮策。That being said though I am still a firm believer that 傷 does not necessarily have to be incorporated into the final target phrase.
I thought ‘long time no see’ originated from Caribbean/Patois. That’s what all the Jamaicans who lived where I grew up in London used to say when they saw you. 'People mountain people sea' – say that to an average Brit and they won’t have a clue what you are talking about, sadly. We translators might want ot be the generals of this language exchange between two great langs and cultures, but it will be the rank and file masses that will carry it across the frontlines into general usage. Imo it would be jumping the gun to do a literal translation of shangbuqi. Bang. As for capiche, maybe (edit:deted wo)知道吗?.. or just wait until Chinese people get into The Godfather/Sopranos/Quentin Tarantino.. then presumably 卡皮策?
But there is absolutely zero, Nada, nilch sexuality about the whole suggestion I've mentioned. The only thing I can say in response is lol. Despite the apparent sexual connotation to it , it is not a swear word nor will it be presumed as such by the target audience. As I've said before I can only speak so for a North American audience- Phil you can let me know if the Brits would find being stuck in traffic in the tube backed up against the wall to "suck balls". ;) if you simply think of the term as "it sucks a heck lot, it absolutely sucks" to *still* be sexual, then I'll suggest you go watch some Fox and HBO and familiarize yourself with colloquial English in the US. Miles: 說的很是，get my drift 就是“明白我的意思沒？” 但我相信肯定有更好的譯法。 I'll propose another one: what could "capische" be in Chinese? While bearing in mind origin/popular culture behind the word.
Totally agree to Wang's view that 在“伤不起”中，伤、不起都可以在英文中找到对应的措辞. If the source text can be rendered in the semantic level of the target language, why elevating it to a cultural level and demanding that it is "absolutely" wrong to overlook the sexual implication of the target language while the fact is that there IS NO such cultural implication in the source text?! I also agree that it is a true and correct statement that "a translator can (and in many cases should) create a text which conveys the source using only the resources of the target culture," but I think it would be better still if we change "target culture" into "target language."
I agree with lots of the arguments on here from both sides. My two cents are: 1. The translator wants the translation to flow 2. the translator wants to be loyal to the cultural value in the text. 3. the translator has to consider the reader. Shangbuqi shouldn’t jar in the target language. Imo ‘I can’t afford to get hurt!’ would jar given its general use, and an average American reader would be completely confused. It doesn’t make sense. ‘Can’t take it anymore/it sucks and I can’t take it’ others like ‘can’t bear it!/it hurts too much!’ whatever, would be understood by the reader and, if translated more artfully into the target language, should also be able to convey the inherent Chinese characteristics of it. Given the richness of English vocab and global lang/cultural influences over it, this should be possible. Literal translations might work if the context helps with understanding(ed:/reader knows). The translator may deem the cultural/political/social significance of the phrase important enough to warrant its (edit: literal trans) introduction into the semantics of English vocabulary. Semantics might not be right but hoepfully u get my drift. Now translate get my drift intoCH
"If the result of the translation is demanded to be the cultural contents of the "target language," then, nothing new or alien can technically be introduced into the world of the target language." This is not true. When an American poet writes a new poem, thinking only in English about American themes, she creates something new. When a Chinese poet writes in Chinese, she creates something new. It is simply untrue that you have to introduce elements from another culture in order to create something different. Cultures create all on their own; they can alienate all on their own. What that means for translation is that a translator can (and in many cases should) create a text which conveys the source using only the resources of the target culture. Attempts to use the resources of the source culture will in general be uncommunicative. J.H.：说得有道理。抽烟时，人家说：those things will kill you。我想，可不可以改过来？French grammar: that stuff will kill you... 有待改进 :/
I think it is questionable when we say that I'm translating a source language into a target language so what matters is the "target" language. The target is the contents you are translating. The sencond language is the tool for you to explicate the target. If the result of the translation is demanded to be the cultural contents of the "target language," then, nothing new or alien can technically be introduced into the world of the target language. This is the mindset of imperialist logo-centrism.
翻译不就是一个协调文化差异的过程吗？Z-Kong，你所说的”造成源文化感的缺失"才是关键。当然，乱用热词，不顾愿意是不负责任的翻译方式。但是呢，如果汉语流行语中有恰如其分的俚语，用它无愧。举个例子，美国的Daily Show主持人Jon Stewart的名字被音译为囧，我觉得很形象，微妙地隐含他的脱口风格。 jarv: 你说“imposing something which is not in the source text" - 问题是，翻译的工作恰恰就是把文本本来没有的东西（即异语）放进去！翻译就是用外语的词汇、语法和概念把愿意表示出来。这三个是不可分割的。在这里，最关键的是“伤不起”有幽默感，很轻松。必须用幽默、轻松的语调翻译它，要不然根本没有抓住重点。而幽默是任何语种内在的东西。跨文化的幽默移植往往都要以落败告终。 ”BUT it is an apparent ethnocentic fallacy to demand the Chinese seller to use nothing but an American fruit name to describe the Chinese fruit.“ fallacy我不太懂，但可以确定的是，你跟顾客讲听不懂的话，生意肯定不好。
If I understand it correctly, the statement "绝对不能拿中国对”性器官"的反感来对待英文的俚语" is elevating the issue onto a cultural context and such a statement involves ethnocentric fallacy. The case here is not about using Chinese ideology to treat/mistreat English slang. Instead, it is a matter of avoiding imposing something which is not in the source text onto it in order to meet the taste of the target language. I know this is quite equivocal but let me put it this way in order to make it clearer. If a Chinese seller is selling a local fruit to an American, s/he doesn't have the "absolute" duty to use an American name in order to sell his fruit. It is not wrong when s/he fails to do so. AND it is not wrong either for an American to use his native name to describe the new fruit. BUT it is an apparent ethnocentic fallacy to demand the Chinese seller to use nothing but an American fruit name to describe the Chinese fruit. In the first place, there isn't "phallic" implication in the Chinese expression. It is an imperialist mindset to say that our English language is used to this kind of implication, so when your cultural context is to be translated into our society, you have to use our way or high way
Man, you're really taking it too seriously. I mean the expression itself is an internet expression, an open and neutral (in contrast to vulgar) one. It's not so personalized a style of usage as the slang you're suggesting. http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic51916.html
This will depend on your audience and the context. In North America, despite the fact that "sexual organs" have been mentioned, it is often not seen as vulgar at all. I think you guys overreacted a bit here. I find this expression perfectly normal if it's on an online forum, and would not take offense at all. I can't speak for other English-speaking regions.
By the way, this is simply adding to the conversation, IMHO translation of a "non-slang common saying" does not always mean that the actual target term has to be the same. There is NO fixed term here, IMO- depending on the context, both Z-Kong and Miles' suggestion could work. That's why if you've looked at my comments below, I've mentioned that combination of both their suggestions would be perfect, in my personal opinion. :)
You still don't get it: "The idea is not there." The original expression doesn't involve that level of slang usage. I'm leaning more to Kong's suggestion, perhaps without the subject (Can't afford...).
I myself say it to stress how frustrated I am, so do my female friends. Just because it involves terms which pivot more towards guys does not mean it's so vulgar that female usage thereof is excluded. In all fairness, of course, this could limit to a certain age group, and of course certain crowds could take offense to the word. It's not a swear word, but some might find it simply impossible to utter the word. Simply my opinion.
Explanation: This is currently a popular phrase on the internet and elsewhere. 'Can't afford to get hurt' is to me a correct literal translation, but I think a more idiomatic expression like the one I've suggested reflects the general usage of it.
It can refer to physical, emotional, financial injury and is used in everyday situations to describe/complain about something unlucky and unfortunate.
Louis Stroud Germany Local time: 13:02 Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 4
peer agreement (net): +1
