0

What follows is a few sentences from two existing translation of The Gambler by FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY. At first,I must say ,I don't want by any means to take PEVER and VOLOKHONSKY part. In my view ,however,the first translation is unintelligible in parts.perhaps,of course ,for me.

The first translation: At length I returned from two weeks leave of absence to find that my patrons had arrived three days ago in Roulettenberg.

I can't understand the sentence after 'to find that'. I feel the translator should have written the sentence in this way:

My interpretation: At length I returned from two weeks leave of absence to find that my patrons ( who ) had arrived three days ago in Roulettenberg.

Namely,we must add WHO to the sentence And,according to the story ,patrons is also disproportionate.

Now,please,pay attention to the second translation .

The second translation: I've finally come back from my two-week absence.our people have already been in Roulettenburg for three days.

Is my criticism just?

Improve this question
6
  • 2
    The first one means: Eventually I returned from two weeks leave of absence, and discovered that my patrons had arrived in Roulettenberg three days earlier. This is essentially what the second one means, too.
    – Peter Shor
    May 1, 2016 at 16:01
  • 1
    Thanks.but ,I wonder I think the first isn't correct grammatically. In general ,I understand both.thank you ,again
    – user173086
    May 1, 2016 at 16:04
  • 2
    There is nothing wrong with a sentence like "He found that the meal was served with a freshly baked loaf of bread". Replace meals by patrons, was served by had arrived and with... by three....
    – Graffito
    May 1, 2016 at 16:29
  • 6
    "At length I returned from two weeks leave of absence to find that my patrons had arrived three days ago in Roulettenberg." He's not finding his patrons, he's finding out something about their arrival.
    – Hot Licks
    May 1, 2016 at 16:50
  • 6
    Further to the previous comments, the original sentence is fine, and adding the word who would render it ungrammatical. But you could say “[…] to find my patrons, who had arrived three days ago in Roulettenberg.”
    – Jacinto
    May 1, 2016 at 17:46

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

As regards grammar, there is nothing wrong in the first translation. We may add "WHO" but in that case we need to remove "that" as used in the sentence. I don't know Russian. Translations never do full justice to a literary piece. It seems to me that the first translation is, perhaps, literal or ad verbum while the latter holds the spirit or Intent. Way of speaking the same thing differs from language to language, and a literal translation often runs the danger of giving wrong signal to foreign ears.

Translations, be it literal or free, are not foolproof.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.