Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 4.042 June 29, 1994 1) Introduction (Baruch Leib Gale) 2) In favor of adaptation (Bob Werman) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon Jun 27 22:09:44 1994 From: galebl@delphi.com> Subject: Introduction My yiddish/hebrew name should anyone care to address me by is Baruch Leib. By profession, I am a software developer for a printing company in Livonia, MI. More specifically, I'm a member of our database development team. For anyone who might be interested, we develop in-house software on a DEC VAX/VMS platform using COBOL, Cognos PowerHouse 4GL, Rdb database and native RMS files. My love for Yiddish began about 4 years ago, and was/is very wrapped up in my self-discovery of my Eastern-European Jewish roots. As a second-generation American born Jew, I began to think about how little I actually new about my families roots in the "alter heym". With children of my own, I felt at a loss to share our family history beyond that of their great grand-parents. I wanted to know more about the world my grand-parents and great-grand-parents left behind. Particularly the Jewish world that no longer exists. This is a world I find myself approaching on both a nostolgic, idealized level (i.e.The Fiddler on the Roof approach) band historically through works by Howe,"World of Our thers", Dawidowicz, "The War Against the Jews" and "From That Place and Time", and translated Yiddish literature by Grade and I.J. Singer. I also love the translated stories of I.B. Singer, Shalom Aleichem (Tevye the Dairyman) and Y.L. Peretz. My knowledge of Yiddish is pretty elementary. Unfortuntely, Yiddish was not spoken in my home. Actually my grandfather forbid the speaking of Yiddish because of my grandparents ambition to become Americanized as quickly and completely as possibl (howeverin hindsight I think mucch has bbeen lost). I took a brief class in beginning Yiddish offered at the versioity of Miichigan Hillel from Aliza Shevrin. Aliza is a translator of many of Shalom Aleichem's works. She has also done translation for I.B. Singer. I am fortunate to call her personal friend. She and I are both zamlers for the National Yiddish Book Cnete. I have also done some home study of Yiddish using the Language 30 tapes, College Yiddish, and Der Yiddish Lerer by H.E. Goldin. I was also given copy of a Yiddish primer use in Lubavitch circles called Der Midos Velt (very interesting for insights into Chassidic education). I also have a very nice library of Yiddish books that I gleaned from my zamler activities. Since opportunities to develop conversational skills are limited, I have set a more modest goal of developing my reading knowledge of Yiddish to have access to its literature. In the future, I hope to have the opportunity to attend one of the courses offered by NYBC, YIVO, or Columbia University. Also, in the context of exporing Jewish roots, I hope to take one the Jewish Heritage trips that visit several Eastern European countries. I am interested in meeting Mendle participants via E-mail and hearing if you share my interests or have similar experiences. I hope to make contributions that might be of interest. I know I will learn much from all of you! Zeit Gezundt und Shtark! Baruch Leib Gale 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Jun 28 01:44:53 1994 From: RWERMAN%HUJIVMS.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu Subject: In favor of adaptation Seth Wolitz, an old friend, has brought up the difference between translation and adaptation. He comes down solidly on the side of translation and is dissatisfied with the efforts of the successful adaptor, even if the adaptation is partially the work of the original author whose work is being translated. He complains that: "but the translator left out in almost every sentence one or two adjectives;" "Singer does not write in that swift Hemingwayesque style but rather he shapes and carves and caresses his beautifully arched sentences . . .;" "a lot was lost and it wasn't just nuance, it was rhythm, vocabulary and atmosphere and tone;" "how many paragraphs and chapters were left out of Singer novels in translation and therefore falsifying their meaning." As an author in a foreign language who has had the questionable experience of being translated into English, allow me to take a position on this subject and make some comments. Lest there be confusion, I wish to state that -- despite the trenchant quality of Seth's arguments -- I come down solidly on the side of adaptation: some reasons for my vote are given below. A piquant note is that English is my native language and I could not but fail to try to translate some of my own work into English, but never with a degree of success that satisfied me. My English paraphrases of my poems are quite good; I am quick to find the mot juste, still in possession of some sensitivity to my mother tongue. Paraphrase, yes, but poem? No. And that is the first reason for my being on the side of adaptation. Seth speaks of the convoluted and sensitive cadences of the original Yiddish that are lost in the popular translation of _Satan in Goray_. He says that the translation, which he calls an adaptation, reads smoothly to American ears and even is Hemingwayesque in style. Would the author, had he written in English, reject the style of Hemingway and try for cadences natural only to a European ambience? An unanswerable question but perhaps less silly than it sounds. Not quite a reason for my vote, but at least an open question challenging Seth's criticism. It is common practice to accentuate Bashevis's well known and well developed commercial sense. But would he have sacrificed his artistic integrity -- he did have it -- just to get published in English? I, for one, doubt it. Despite Cynthia Ozick's wonderful story, despite Chaim Grade's pleas to Seth. I can imagine a translation of a complex and rich text according to the criteria put down by Seth, faithfulness to rhythm, exact numbers of sentences and even adverbs. The translation would be done by someone sensitive to the cadences of a Yiddish author. What would the result be like? Let me guess that it would be heavy and clumsy in English, despite the ability of the translator to write good expository English. [A surprising aside: I have found that it is more important for a translator to be strong in English than in the language of the original, although strength in the original is not a detriment.] The work would not read smoothly or even conceivably experimental to a tuned American ear, usually sensitive to good English. Not unaware of what is happening, not unaware that the translation loses something at the same time as it gains authenticity of a sort, the translator provides a scholarly and distracting apparatus that is meant to be read with the translation. The product would be an academic exercise, perhaps of great value in trying to illustrate cadence and convolution in the original, but not a translation at all. What is needed is an adaptation, a compromise that places readability at the head of the list of criteria of success. Complexity of style in one language may not be the same in another. Grade pleaded with Seth to translate him; I am not sure that a Wolitz translation faithful to Seth's criteria would have furthered Grade's career. More support for adaptation comes from authority, in this case from Walter Benjamin, writing on "The Task of the Translator" in *Illuminations*: "The task of the translator consists in finding . . . the effect (Intention) upon the language into which he is translating which produces in it the echo of the original." And: " Fidelity in the translation of the individual words can almost never fully reproduce the meaning they have in the original." Last: "All translation is only a somewhat provisional way of coming to terms with the foreignness of languages . . . The transfer can never be total, but what reaches this region is that element in translation which goes beyond transmitted subject matter . . . the relation between the content and language is quite different in the original and in the translation." My final reason for going with adaptation is my experience working with two translators of my poems. I was frustrated at first, even infuriated at what seemed an obtuseness on their part. They failed to "understand" _this_ subtlety, _that_ double entendre, to see the cleverness of some just phrase or another but I soon realized that what came out of their work was a poem, and not the paraphrase that I did so very much better. Their music was not my music but it was music, nonetheless, and appropriate to the text. These were adaptations and adaptations that worked, just as translations failed to work, that carried much [yes, not all!] of the spirit of the original, some of the sensitivity to language and rather different music, a necessity in moving from one language to another, in most cases. Successful translation, or adaptation, if Seth is to have his way, of my poems required a gain of words and a loss of conciseness as well as leaving out words that are untranslatable. How much more _distortion_ would a good translation of a really complex text require? For these reasons allow me to offer several cheers for successful adaptation. __Bob Werman ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 4.042 A Table of Contents is now available via anonymous ftp, along with weekly updates. Anonymous ftp archives available on: ftp.mendele.trincoll.edu in the directory pub/mendele/files Archives available via gopher on: gopher.cic.net Mendele has 2 rules: 1. Provide a meaningful Subject: line. 2. Sign your article. Send articles to: mendele@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu Other business: nmiller@mail.trincoll.edu