Copeland and Roundtable discussion comments

 Both articles discussed how imperfect translation is an obstacle eventually faced by all translators. Over the course of taking this class, I have encountered the problem of untranslatable phrases and words as well. I found Copland's explanation of the topic to be very thought-provoking, as she argues that cutting out entire scenes or translating sentences slightly differently than the author originally intended can be seen as a form of correct translation. She argues that translation shouldn't be focused on creating a word for word copy of the original text, but that translators should focus on translating the experience of reading the text from the original language to a foreign language. Because American readers and Japanese readers are accustomed to very different styles of literature, it is important to translate what is necessary for both readers to be equally enrapt in what they are reading. The round table discussion also addresses this issue. Many of the speakers argue that it is the translator's job to be as faithful to the original text as possible, but that it is expected to run into passages that just don't translate over into English properly. 

Reading these articles made me realize that perfect word for word translations are pointless if they don't keep English speakers engaged in the text to the same degree as a Japanese reader. In my opinion, translating a reading experience, rather than merely translating words, is the true job of a translator. As such, cutting things out or adapting translations to fit nuances created by the author is a crucial part of the job. 

Alexa