I hope this is the right place for this question. It pertains to speaking about translations in English.
It is often necessary to provide a translation that conveys the meaning and intent of the original while sacrificing certain details in order to sound natural in the target language.
I don't mean the case of choosing a fixed expression like "two peas in a pod" in the target language that roughly corresponds to one in the source, but rather the more common case of a term that is present and literally meaningful in the original but which usually doesn't make it into the target because it would feel unnecessary or awkward.
Is there an English verb that captures this? I find myself wanting to say that such-and-such a term is "glossed out" of the translation, but it seems that the term "gloss" has a different meaning in linguistics (I understand that it means an explanatory note, not a translation). On the other hand, I have also seen translations within Japanese-English dictionaries referred to as glosses.
The background to this question is that I write about the Japanese language for English-speaking learners and frequently have to refer to this sort of thing. It feels natural to me to say terms are "glossed out" of translations, but I want to make sure I'm not misusing terms. Thank you in advance for any thoughts.
Edit: My original question asked about the overall process of providing natural translations. I apologize -- I meant to focus on the act of deliberately eliminating source terms as one part of that effort.
Edit: Someone asked for an example of this. Take this sentence:
机の上に、本が置いてある。 There is a book on top of the desk.
For learners, the last part, 置いてある, takes a little explaining. It is the verb "put" in the active voice but as part of a pattern that does not name the actor and focuses on the resulting state. You can understand it meaning literally "(someone) put it and it is (still in that state)."
It's challenging to translate this sentence in a natural way that preserves the verb "put." Some candidates are:
- A book has been put on top of the desk.
- A book is put on top of the desk.
- There is a book put on top of the desk.
Most commonly, however, "put" just never makes in into the English. I think in English, if a book is on a desk, we assume someone must have put it there, so it feels bizarrely precise to specify that this did indeed happen. Most naturally, it's just "There is a book on top of the desk." In my parlance, "put" gets glossed out.