Content deleted Content added
Harald Forkbeard (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::::: (needs polishing, but basically the idea is clear) |
::::: (needs polishing, but basically the idea is clear) |
||
:::::By the way, [[Poruchik Rzhevsky]] was much more elegant and less pompous: ''Gusary deneg ne berut!'' -M.Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>'''t''']] 06:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
:::::By the way, [[Poruchik Rzhevsky]] was much more elegant and less pompous: ''Gusary deneg ne berut!'' -M.Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>'''t''']] 06:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Can't comment on Rzhevsky. I still like my rendition better as it captures the original Russian in spirit, not in verbatim word. The judgment call on my poetic license is just that, a matter of personal opinion. By the way, the original Rusian verse is well sourced. --[[User:Harald Forkbeard|Harald Forkbeard]] ([[User talk:Harald Forkbeard|talk]]) 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:53, 28 July 2015
Linguistics Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Russia: Language & literature / Demographics & ethnography C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
"citation needed"
As I stated in my edit comments, I translated the original Russian verse. Therefore, I believe the "who translated" tag needs to be removed.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please click on the link which constitutes the tag and learn the rule. -M.Altenmann >t 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow you. Can you please be more specific what you are looking for.
- Again, the situation is: someone has inserted the question 'who provided the translation'. I responded: I did. This is the truth, please see the editing history. What else is missing?--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you are looking for a third party source to confirm that I actually provided the translation. In this case, you will be waiting a long time, as I crafted the text out of my head. No witnesses. Again, I am a bilingual person who does this for a living. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- NO. I need a third party source which published the translation. (Did you bother to read the wikipedia policies after all? But at least you started thinking in the right direction.) Now let me make one step further and explain what is the problem in your case, which is also an advice how to resolve the problem. Normally there is no problems with adding a literal translation, because, after all, we add information from various sources in various languages and the translation is always involved. This is not so in the case of a poetic translation, because it involves a liberal poetic interpretation and modification by a wikipedian, which is a strict no-no in wikipedia; don't even try. Therefore if you want to help the readers to understand a poem, please provide word-by-word translation, accompanied with the text in which the words are placed in the proper syntactic order. This is how it is done in works in linguistics. It is a completely different story if you provide a published translation. Such text usually has its own encyclopedic value and will not be questioned. -M.Altenmann >t 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you are looking for a third party source to confirm that I actually provided the translation. In this case, you will be waiting a long time, as I crafted the text out of my head. No witnesses. Again, I am a bilingual person who does this for a living. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the policy. However, I can't see a way to provide a third party source for my own translation. Do you have a suggestion?
- If there is no published source, then it is inadmissible for wikipedia. -M.Altenmann >t 06:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- You must be a single-language person, with zero experience of translating from foreign languages. There is no way you can relay a verse in Russian into English verbatim and hope to make sense to an English reader. The two languages are simply too different. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's not true. As I said, linguists do this all the time. (Unless the poem makes no clear sense, pretending to be something elevated.) Puns and cultural allusions can be explained in footnotes. -M.Altenmann >t 06:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, even Google Translate is smart enough to make sense of the poems in question:
- So, I will not pay you:
- But if you're just a whore,
- Know this: it's an honor to be considered
- Acquaintance with Junker's dick!
- (needs polishing, but basically the idea is clear)
- By the way, Poruchik Rzhevsky was much more elegant and less pompous: Gusary deneg ne berut! -M.Altenmann >t 06:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can't comment on Rzhevsky. I still like my rendition better as it captures the original Russian in spirit, not in verbatim word. The judgment call on my poetic license is just that, a matter of personal opinion. By the way, the original Rusian verse is well sourced. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the policy. However, I can't see a way to provide a third party source for my own translation. Do you have a suggestion?