Words.

Uru Localization Project
Post Reply
Silent Warrior
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:59 am

Words.

Post by Silent Warrior »

New translator on the block, yay!

Regarding those Words-journals... I was wondering just how archaic we should make the translations. For now, I've settled for some kind of archaism-lite - only the words - but I could go even farther and use some of the way old conjugations and expressions (gingo, begråten, på det att man må ...). The problem with that is that these are supposed to be retranslations made by a guy from present time, so it should be fairly de-archaic-ised already... If no-one commands anything else, I'll keep the archaism-lite approach.

(ametist: Jo, våra ansträngningar överlappar, men jag är inte överens med din översättning i en del viktiga fall - den direkta betydelsen skiljer sig ganska markant mellan våra försök. Om du vill veta vad som inte föll mig i smaken är jag öppen för diskussion.)

Now... All swede-speaking/understanding go vote, fer Pete's sake! :twisted:
User avatar
OHB
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:50 am

Re: Words.

Post by OHB »

I don't think I'd go TOO archaic...after all they were written and D'ni and /recently/ translated.

Try to keep the tone of the text in tact as much as possible.
Silent Warrior
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:59 am

Re: Words.

Post by Silent Warrior »

The tone of the text, that's sort of the issue... The base text looks like it needs a centuries old bible to get the words from, but then, I'm not familiar with how archaisms developed in English. Very well, I'll be careful. Somewhat old words, and modernised grammar it is.
User avatar
OHB
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:50 am

Re: Words.

Post by OHB »

There aren't really old words there. To me, the reason it sounds so distinctive is the style of writing. It's kinda poetic and prophetic. There are religious overtones.

Keep in mind that English has a very different writing style than does spoken English. All of those grammar rules are applied to formal writing and are often ignored when speaking. Things like ending a sentence with a preposition.

Guess what I'm thinking of? -> Guess of what I'm thinking?

That change makes the text sound archaic even though it's really not. It's just not spoken English. I think some of the same things are going on with the text in the Words journals - and with Yeesha's speeches.

Use your best judgement. Remember that this is a collaborative process. Someone else might come along and improve on your translation.
User avatar
kaelisebonrai
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:27 am
MOULa KI#: 0
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Words.

Post by kaelisebonrai »

In my opinion, however, words /is/ a very dramatic/semi-archaic. It has more formal overtones than standard written english. =)

Try looking at a modern bible for hints on how you'd style it - because words is written in much the same was as a modern english bible. =)
Silent Warrior
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:59 am

Re: Words.

Post by Silent Warrior »

Eh, I'm not on touching terms with most holy scriptures - I'm an atheist (and, well, a supporter of the Flying Spaghetti Monster :D ). Anyway, I think I have this down.
Any improvements or alternate translations to my own are welcome, certainly.
User avatar
OHB
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:50 am

Re: Words.

Post by OHB »

Silent Warrior wrote:Eh, I'm not on touching terms with most holy scriptures - I'm an atheist (and, well, a supporter of the Flying Spaghetti Monster :D ). Anyway, I think I have this down.
Any improvements or alternate translations to my own are welcome, certainly.


As I am, but it's a good point. That's what I meant by religious overtones.
Post Reply

Return to “GULP”