Like pearls to swine?

Wordsmiths value words. It is part of the job description of writers, playwrights, copy editors, transcreaters, translators and editors, to name a few, to care deeply about the quality of writing and content.  Otherwise, there is no point in investing so much time and effort.  Unfortunately, two of these professionals often face a certain dilemma since they have no control of the actual initial writing process and thus often receive material that is poorly written in terms of language, problematic in content and/or poorly structured. Since their mandate is not to rewrite the material but instead to respect the desire of the writer, the question arises whether it is appropriate to improve the material.

Since many writers, especially scientists and foreign students, lack thorough knowledge of language, editors and translators often receive texts whose grammar and syntax are atrocious. It is clear that the language errors are not intentional.  Therefore, it is common practice to polish the language, eliminating errors and rendering the sentences correct in terms of grammar and syntax. Occasionally, for reasons of style or ignorance, a writer uses highfalutin terms or the wrong register.  Since the goal is a proper text, it is acceptable to rain on the parade and rein in the language to a certain degree, while of course trying to maintain the voice of the writer as much as possible. In these two cases, the editor or translator actively intervenes to improve the text as required.

In regards to content, regardless of pain suffered, the rule tends to be “garbage in, garbage out.” Since editors and translators are language, not content, experts and are ultimately paid by the hour, they have no choice but to faithfully transmit the poor content. For example, when a writer applies exaggerated academic style to attain the required number of pages and restates each and every idea a copious number of times, it may be painful to read but that is what the writer wants. Likewise, when the text essentially has no content but is filled with beautiful sentences, as in much modern French writing, laissez les bon temps roulez, as they say in New Orleans. In these cases, it is necessary to hold your nose and work only on the language.

There are cases where it is impossible to accept the material blindly.  If the writer insists on inserting incorrect or misleading information into the text, the editor or translator should not be an accomplice to this act. The best policy is to refer the issues to the writer.  On a language level, if the structure of the work in terms of paragraphing and sectioning is inappropriate or non-existent, the correction process is too time consuming to be part of the assigned task. Once again, the writer should be made aware of the problems.

These guidelines are, of course, my opinion.  I personally know many translators and editors that would disagree with me regarding any of the above statements. Passion and opinion are part and parcel of wordsmiths. You could say that some porcine look good with fancy necklaces and are intelligent enough to appreciate them.

Spot the difference

The Galilee is the home of many cultures, interacting and even living together. These cultures include Jewish of all types, including Ashkenazi, oriental, Yemenite and Ethiopian, as well as Moslem and Christian Arabs, not to mention Circassians and Druze.  The terms “Jewish” and “Arab” almost lose their meanings given the constant mixing of value that occurs here.  For example, Israeli “Arabs” can barely speak pure Arabic, interspacing their mother tongue with Hebrew on a regular basis, while Eastern Jews are proud of their food and music traditions that are very similar to the ones of the Arab countries from where they families came from. Appearances can be very deceiving.

In term of culture clash, a trip to Acco is most educational.  Jews, Muslims and Christians have lived together in Acco for generations, thus providing a great view of this cultural mix.  One of the interesting cultural aspects involves the manner of dining and celebrating. When dining in a Jewish owned restaurant, everything is more restrained. The music may be “Arab” but the volume is kept low. The people enter and greet each other quietly, without great ceremony. Men and women generally sit together and talk quietly.  Also, the ban on smoking in public spaces is enforced. The atmosphere is quiet.

By contrast, going to an Arab restaurant is a public celebration, even if the actual table is private. The music tends to be louder; the greetings noisier, and signs of affections, real or otherwise, more dramatic. When large groups or families gather, you can often see seating by gender and/or status. A meal is intended to be a happy ceremony and is so performed. It is an occasion to express warmness and affection.  Smoking hookahs is often tolerated, making such restaurants a bit challenging for those used to a smoke-free environment. Diners enjoy their food, essential the same food as in the Jewish-owned restaurants, but are much less restrained in their expression of the social pleasure.

Given that all human beings, regardless of their faith and culture, view eating as a central part of their social life, a dinner in Acco is a wonderful opportunity to view the different styles of public dining. Which is better?  Chacun à son gout.

Writing it Right

To most foreigners, English seems a reasonably easy language to speak.  With a few words and a most basic understanding of grammar, non-native speakers quickly start making sentences, even the Chinese whose native syntax is so different. Expressing ideas in writing in English is another story. Given the luxury and curse of being able to review the sentence before sending off to another person, people realize how “foreign” their English is, not to mention how much it shows their lack of vocabulary and knowledge of grammar. As a professional teacher of English and a non-gifted writer, meaning I had to work hard to learn how to be able to write properly, I see three major difficulties in crafting the language of Shakespeare on paper.

The most obvious difficulty is vocabulary.  Except in regards to emotions, there is no excuse not to say exactly what you mean.  Words like good, bad and thing are essentially meaningless due to the extreme range of specific contexts they carry. Not only that, given the number of synonyms, it is considered bad form to repeat the same word in the same sentence or even in the paragraph. Writers impress by their richness of vocabulary, for better or worse. Investors invest in future investments is not going to cut it when words such as place money, speculate and opportunities, to name just a few, could also be used, albeit with a slightly different meaning.  To be a good writer, a rich vocabulary is necessary.

There is also the matter of sounds. Relatively homogeneous languages, such as French, Hebrew and Russian, the languages from which I translate, have a natural rhythm. They easily create a song: Je suis comme je suis. Je suis faite comme ca, as André Prévert said. English, alas, is comprised from three major language families, Gaelic, Germanic and Latin (French), not to mention the countless words derived from other sources, such as ketchup (Chinese), jubilee (Hebrew) and kangaroo (aborigine). The result of this mixed cocktail is a series of words whose rhythms and sounds are rather cacophonous. A diamond of a sentence in English takes serious polishing. That is the reason that I admire writers, such as Orwell, whose writing has the illusion of being so effortless.

Finally, ultimately the most demanding criterion of proper English writing is the requirement that the author actually say something and even efficiently.  Having content may seem obvious but, in fact, many languages strongly de-emphasize it when judging the quality of good writing. In French, especially the modern version, the witty phrase always gets the applause, even no serious thought lies behind it. In Russian, ideas become rather obtuse due to the fluid sentence structure and extreme use of filler words that have no actual meaning. Sentences there tend to be rather convoluted and long, often weakening the impact of the idea. There is no such luxury in English. If you write in an ornate, i.e. overly complicated style, readers tend to think that you are trying to impress or, even worse, hide your lack of knowledge. Neither is desirable.

So, my advice, once again as a teacher, to foreign learners of English is read a lot in English to build up your vocabulary; read your sentences out loud and revise until they sound good; and, finally, don’t get too fancy with the sentence structure. Instead, focus on the ideas and organization.  These goals are easier said than done but still attainable.

Legally Put

As a legal translator, I am not intimidated by legal language, but I recognized that even most native speakers regard the language of Shakespeare and contracts in the same light: sounds impressive but what the hell does it mean?  Who, aside from attorneys, paralegals, and legal translators, actually reads all those words in small print?

However, there is a surprisingly variety of styles in legal writing, depending on the country, purpose of document, age of attorney, and general attitude of the writer.  Two examples of this variety involved the omnipresent legal concepts of need and permission.

All contacts describe the obligations and rights of a party (not including having a good time, of course).  The issue is how to express it.  The following sentences all technically express the same requirement:

a.      The Renter shall pay the rent to the Lessor on the first day of each month.

b.      The Renter will pay the rent to the Lessor on the first day of each month.

c.       The Renter commits to paying the rent to the Lessor on the first day of each month.
- Added note:  On a sugestion from Janet Lerner, a fourth option is "The Renter is to pay the rent..."  Also very nice in my opinion.

Clearly, all three are clear and identical in meaning, with the difference being in the verb.  The use of shall as a determinative, not future, is based on the previously accepted distinction, at least by English teachers, between will and shall.  According to this archaic usage, the conjugation I shall, you will, s/he will, we shall, they will expresses the future while the conjugation I will, you shall, s/he shall, we will, they shall expresses a lack of choice.  In the case in hand, “The Renter shall…” means that the Renter has no choice.  Alas, for better or worse, I strongly doubt that many native speakers in the United States under the 30 know about this quaint rule.  In more modern English, the second sentence “The Renter will…” also expresses obligation.  The third option is less attractive both because it adds words and sounds like a translation.  However, language is a matter of taste sometimes.    As my father used to be a journalist, he ingrained in me a hatred of wasted words.

The second example involves expressions regarding the right to do something:

a.      The Lessor is entitled to cancel the agreement at any time.

b.      The Lessor has the right to cancel the agreement at any time.

c.       The Lessor may cancel the agreement.

Regarding the first, the word entitled is generally used for children and land purchases.  While technically correct, it is less applicable in this sentence.  The second is classic legal language, used in countless contracts.  However, the third is much less intimidating to the average reader and means the exact same thing.  There are disputes whether legal language should “go down” to the people.  The U.S. Congress has passed legislation ordering that.  Therefore, for reasons of simplicity, efficiency, and accessibility, I actually prefer the third option, although many lawyers would probably disagree with me.

So, no matter how you wish to legally put it, variety is the spice of life, or at least disputes, in the legal world.