French term
Iran
English to Persian freelance translator
Native in: Persian (Farsi) 
Works in: English to Persian (Farsi), Persian (Farsi) to English, Persian (Farsi), and 1 more.
a bien
This is from an essay by Berman on retranslation. He is explaining how a retranslation is not solely any translation of a text already translated, and he gives the example of Amyot's translations of Plutarch.
Appreciate any response in advance.
| 4 | well |
Trevino Translations (X)
|
| 3 | retranslated (with a high degree of) accuracy |
Barbara Cochran, MFA
|
Jan 15, 2019 15:15: Rachel Fell changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
PRO (1): Daryo
Non-PRO (3): Barbara Carrara, Lara Barnett, Rachel Fell
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
well
| neutral |
Victoria Britten
: Probable, but it's impossible to be entirely sure without more context.
23 mins
|
| neutral |
writeaway
: really really doubtful it means well in the supposed context
30 mins
|
|
How so? The only other meaning would be to affirm that the work was indeed done by a specific translator. The text given gives no hint of doubt.
|
|
| neutral |
Tony M
: Agree with Victoria and W/A: the syntax used here more strongly suggests the alternative sense of 'bien', as outlined by Victoria in the discussion.
55 mins
|
United States
Laudable Lady Linguist
Native in: English
Works in: Spanish to English, French to English, English to Spanish, and 3 more.
Discussion
All the points made about the context, the syntax, or the subsequent "mais..." add up with what Berman is actually implying. Berman is argueing that all "great" translations are retranslations and then, in trying to validate his arguement, he posits the counter arguement that there are great translations that are not retranslations. Then he dismisses this counter argument by widening the meaning of retranslation to include even those works that has never been translated into the same language before. His argument is that a retranslation is not solely any new translation of a work already translated. Amyot's Plutarch is one such example where it had not actually been translated before (arguably not a retranslation then, yet a great translation) yet Berman considers a retranslation, according to his widened definition of retranslation.
If it really meant literally 'well', as W/A rightly points out, there are other much more likely constructions the writer might have used instead that would generally be more idiomatic in FR — though cf. expressions like 'il a bien fait de venir'
While I don't agree with W/A that the syntax as given precludes it meaning "well", Charles's explanations seem to me to leave no doubt as to the meaning intended.
From the syntax used, I'd say Victoria's suggestion of "did indeed re-translate" or even something along the lines "may (well) have re-translated..." — in which case, we would reasonably expect it to be followed by a "mais..." (explicit or implied)
I think if the writer had wanted to say that he had produced a good translation, there are better / more idiomatic ways they might have expressed this in FR.
https://journals.openedition.org/palimpsestes/596
I looked it up mainly because I couldn't understand why the author says that Amyot retranslated Plutarch. He worked directly from the Greek, not from a Latin version. So why does he say that Amyot "a retraduit" Plutarch? The answer turns out to be that for this author "retranslation" includes translation of an original text that has already been translated before, albeit independently, and apparently into any language, since before Amyot, as far as I know, Plutarch had only been translated into Latin. I can't see the point of widening the meaning of "retranslate" like this.