When you hire a translator to ‘transcreate’ a text in another language, naturally you expect the order of events, the composition of items and the structuring of processes to remain the same in the target language text. Your success crucially depends on your customers understanding how a machine works, in which order to carry out certain tasks, who did what or what was on the mind of your hero in that spell-binding scene.
Short of using visually self-explanatory bullet lists throughout, however, you want to be as concise and clear as possible without resorting to cumbersome, roundabout ways of saying things. The English language offers a construction which scores high on elegance but provides plenty of pitfalls when it comes to making your meaning clear: the non-finite or verbless clause with an implied subject.
The what? Okay, let’s start at the beginning and look at some examples. In the following sentence you can see that the subject in the two clauses – the non-finite one at the beginning and the superordinate one that follows – are intended, or ‘implied’ to be identical.
When ripe, the oranges are picked and sorted.
It’s the oranges you’re thinking about when reading the sentence, right? Similarly, in the following sentence, the subjects are identical: the ‘he’ mentioned in the superordinate clause.
He took up anthropology, stimulated by our enthusiasm.
(Source: Quirk & Greenbaum, A University Grammar of English)
Right. No problem there. But what about the following examples?
?Since leaving her, life has seemed empty.
*Reading the evening paper, a dog started barking.
A bit weird, aren’t they? In fact, the sentence with the dog would be marked as ‘unacceptable’. Who is doing what? Did ‘life’ leave ‘her’, and did ‘a dog’ read the evening paper? Now consider these:
Dazed, instinct told her to flee.
After unpacking, Susan’s stomach sounded a loud protest…
Designed with xxx, we are proud to offer…
Hardly acceptable. Certainly inelegant.
A unique concept of x, directional changes can be achieved at nearly any point…
Acceptable? Yes, but don’t forget the context. Because it's not actually the changes which are unique here. (Would a computer take this into account? I wonder.)
Is this just nit-picking? Well,…no, actually. There are circumstances where this can become a serious, life-threatening issue even. Think of machine handling instructions, care manuals or handbooks of medicine, for example. Would you want to leave it up to your reader to figure out what you meant? Don’t pull that lever before you open this chute, for Christ’s sake! No, no, no, the needle goes in first! Misunderstandings aren’t something you want to aim for, are they?
I come across the occasional unattached phrase (also called a ‘pendant’ or ‘dangling’ clause) when I translate from English to German for my clients. Normally, these warrant no further thought, and I simply translate the correct or logical meaning by choosing an ‘attachment’ for the non-finite phrase. Occasionally, I will draw my client’s attention to any potential problem, time permitting.
Having said this, don’t let me take the fun out of writing for you. Go on, splurge out on words! (And let your editor or translator take care of the rest.)
Short of using visually self-explanatory bullet lists throughout, however, you want to be as concise and clear as possible without resorting to cumbersome, roundabout ways of saying things. The English language offers a construction which scores high on elegance but provides plenty of pitfalls when it comes to making your meaning clear: the non-finite or verbless clause with an implied subject.
The what? Okay, let’s start at the beginning and look at some examples. In the following sentence you can see that the subject in the two clauses – the non-finite one at the beginning and the superordinate one that follows – are intended, or ‘implied’ to be identical.
When ripe, the oranges are picked and sorted.
It’s the oranges you’re thinking about when reading the sentence, right? Similarly, in the following sentence, the subjects are identical: the ‘he’ mentioned in the superordinate clause.
He took up anthropology, stimulated by our enthusiasm.
(Source: Quirk & Greenbaum, A University Grammar of English)
Right. No problem there. But what about the following examples?
?Since leaving her, life has seemed empty.
*Reading the evening paper, a dog started barking.
A bit weird, aren’t they? In fact, the sentence with the dog would be marked as ‘unacceptable’. Who is doing what? Did ‘life’ leave ‘her’, and did ‘a dog’ read the evening paper? Now consider these:
Dazed, instinct told her to flee.
After unpacking, Susan’s stomach sounded a loud protest…
Designed with xxx, we are proud to offer…
Hardly acceptable. Certainly inelegant.
A unique concept of x, directional changes can be achieved at nearly any point…
Acceptable? Yes, but don’t forget the context. Because it's not actually the changes which are unique here. (Would a computer take this into account? I wonder.)
Is this just nit-picking? Well,…no, actually. There are circumstances where this can become a serious, life-threatening issue even. Think of machine handling instructions, care manuals or handbooks of medicine, for example. Would you want to leave it up to your reader to figure out what you meant? Don’t pull that lever before you open this chute, for Christ’s sake! No, no, no, the needle goes in first! Misunderstandings aren’t something you want to aim for, are they?
I come across the occasional unattached phrase (also called a ‘pendant’ or ‘dangling’ clause) when I translate from English to German for my clients. Normally, these warrant no further thought, and I simply translate the correct or logical meaning by choosing an ‘attachment’ for the non-finite phrase. Occasionally, I will draw my client’s attention to any potential problem, time permitting.
Having said this, don’t let me take the fun out of writing for you. Go on, splurge out on words! (And let your editor or translator take care of the rest.)
RSS Feed