|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Long term translation project help -
12-22-2010, 10:38 PM
I am a devoted fan of Naoki Urasawa's manga/anime Monster, and have tried unsuccessfully for about 3 years to spark a discussion of his sequel novel, Another Monster. Unfortunately, the person doing the translation I was reading abandoned the project and no one in the world seems interested in picking it up. I think there was a Spanish language version published (which I could readily translate), but I can't find it anywhere, just a couple of mentions of it on Spanish anime boards. The book's English publishing info says it was first published in Austria, but I'm pretty sure that's part of the fiction of the novel, and that neither a German language edition nor the co-author Werner Weber exist. But I am so desperate to know how the novel ends, that I bought the book and have embarked on the fool's errand of trying to translate the last ten chapters.
 Problem is, I don't know any Japanese beyond a smattering of words.  But after a very slow start, I've gotten fairly good at transcribing the text into Word (despite apparently being dyslexic with the kata), and have managed to translate the first chapter using a combination of Google, Babelfish, Japanese Excite, and the Monash WWWJDIC site, plus a few others (you would not believe how long it took me to figure out how to key in 々, let alone what it meant). But sometimes, all three of them either can't agree on anything and I get three, completely different sets of gibberish, or they seem to just throw up their hands, spit out a string of pronouns followed by a string of verbs, and say, "Here, you figure it out." And sometimes I can, and sometimes I can't. So I'm asking for occasional help when I get completely stuck.  I don't need perfect translations since this is just for me. I had at one time hoped to find someone who was actually a fan of Monster and would have fun doing this instead of just helping me out of the goodness of their hearts. But since I can't find anyone interested, let alone an interested person who reads Japanese, well, here I am, though I'm not sure I belong on a forum for people actively trying to learn Japanese. It's not that I don't want to learn (I love all the stuff I've picked up so far), just that I can only wrap my head around one utterly impossible quest at a time.  
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-22-2010, 10:38 PM
I thought I'd better break this into two posts. And I guess if by chance someone out there is reading Another Monster, there would be spoilers below, so beware. Also, there may be typos. I've noticed myself starting to read い instead of こ lately... :/
So here's the passage that's got me stumped at the moment: 「今思えば奇妙なことはいくつかあったが、当は何も思 わなかった。やつはよく、自分は画期的な教育システム を持っていると、熱心にいうんだ。それは自分の尊敬す る友人の発明で、自分は彼の志を継ぐって。友人は亡くなったのかって聞くと、そう自分は理解している ......とかね。もっと変だったのは、隣のガキが万引きで警察に補導さ れた時だ。隣は母ちゃんしかいなくてね、親父は什事で キールに行ってた。で、わたしは父親の友人、チャペッ クは子供の塾の先生ということで、母親といっしょに警 察まで行ったんだよ。ガキを家に連れて帰る途中、やつ はその子にこういった。何のために万引きなんてしたの か、と。金がないから盗んだと、まあ、当たり前のいと を隣のガキはいったよ。じゃ、金を稼いでごらん、とこ こまではやつも普通のいとをいった。ガキが、いつか大 金持ちになって見返してやるといい出すと、チャペック は、でもお金じゃ買えないよって、しつこくいうんだ」 The speaker is answering a question about whether he was suspicious of Čapek after the suicides of several students in Čapek's neighborhood English classes. What I can decipher of this is that at the time he was not suspicious, but in hindsight sees that there were strange things going on. Then I'm not sure. Either (loosely), "I thought he was a good man, and I was very enthusiastic when I said this is a groundbreaking educational system. It is the invention of a highly respected friend [referring to Čapek], and I am following in his footsteps." Or "...he [Čapek] was very enthusiastic [when talking to people in the neighborhood], saying, 'This is a groundbreaking educational system. It is the invention of a highly respected friend [referring to the actual inventor - I already know that Čapek didn't create it], and I am following in his footsteps.'" Although I don't see anything about "saying" or "said" I can't seem to construct a sensible sentence without that in there. Does Japanese use secondary quotes for such in-sentence dialogue? Are the two references to friend the same person, or different people? I can't make sense of that underlined sentence at all. Is the speaker saying he asked how Čapek's friend died, or is he referring to a different friend, asking how he [his child] died or is the friend asking about how someone died...and then what? What doesn't who understand? And who is dead? The friend seems to be the subject of the sentence, but the rest seems to talk about him as if he were the object. Gah! Then I think he launches into a story about a kid who was caught shoplifting and he and Čapek and the boy's mother went to the police station with him because the father was away on business in Kiel, and on the way back, either Čapek or the speaker ask the boy why he shoplifted, since if would be more normal to steal money since he's poor. The kid says that Čapek had always said that even if you're rich someday, [something] can't be bought with money. That's the best I can do with it. So what does it really say? 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-23-2010, 02:32 AM
Quote:
1. There is no clear line drawn between direct and indirect speech. 2. Absense of pronouns, subjects and objects. Who asked the question? >>>>> The narrator Who is 自分? >>>>> Čapek Who understands >>>>> Čapek It's the same friend, not two different ones. とかね here means "Čapek told things like that" or simply "things like that". Things = What is quoted of Čapek in that sentence and the preceding sentence. With all these clues, I don't need to translate the phrase for you now, do I? I'd rather have you do it and I can check it later on.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-23-2010, 07:39 AM
Quote:
Plus you might have skipped over the part where I said I don't know any Japanese.  First, from what you've said, I'm now thinking that it was Čapek talking about the groundbreaking schooling, rather than the speaker telling other people about how great it was. I kind of thought that from the beginning, but then I thought it might also make sense the other way. So.. the speaker once asked Čapek if his friend was dead, and he said something like "That's my understanding"? Implying that this is suspicious in retrospect because you'd think he would know if his greatly esteemed friend was dead or not? I still feel like I'm missing something here. :/ Is the rest of it essentially right? What is it that you can't buy with money? Thanks very much for your help!
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-23-2010, 08:40 AM
Quote:
I've taught Business Japanese to North Americans working in Tokyo, some of whom had majored in Japanese in college back home. From that experience, I'm confident in saying that the majority of those Japanese majors could not have translated the passage in question even with the help of dictionaries. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-23-2010, 09:40 AM
Quote:
It was a happy day when I finally realized that the regular and small kana were important and not just case variants. Even happier when I learned how to type them instead of inserting them with the character viewer. Now if only I could learn to consistently recognize when the characters are in fact small and not merely eyestrain. But it's good to know that overall I'm getting it "essentially" correct. Thanks for the help! There will be more!
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-25-2010, 12:14 AM
 I'm back. I think I've got this except for the last clause:意外なのは、七〇年からチャペックは文部省の役人をと っくに退いていたことです。彼は亡命までの十九年間、 官職にいなかったのです。職業は教師となっていた。だ からドイツは亡命を受け入れたんだ、とミランはいって いました。 "One surprising thing was that Čapek had already left his position in the Ministry of Education by 1970. For 19 years before he defected, he was not in government service. His occupation was as a teacher. Therefore, Germany accepted his defection, as Milan was saying." ?? I don't understand about Milan. Did Germany accept Čapek because Milan had told them he [Čapek] was a government official, or because he told them he was a teacher? Or was Milan just telling the narrator about this, and was uninvolved in the decision? I feel like the key is と but that's as far as I can get. Also, part of my confusion is that I think Čapek's working as a teacher was information Milan found out much later (hence the surprise), which makes that sentence stuck in the middle confusing, unless だから means something other than "therefore" here. If Milan told them he was an official at that time, it doesn't follow that because he was a teacher, therefore they let Čapek in. If the implication is that the German government already knew he was a teacher, then I don't know what the clause about Milan is for.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-25-2010, 01:56 AM
いっていました ＝ 言っていました
Milan told the narrator all this. You need to insert the と to express "to say that ....." Without prior knowledge of this manga, I have no idea of who Milan is or whether or not he was involved in the defection. All I have is these two lines, which tells me that the narrator received this piece of information from none other than the one named Milan.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-25-2010, 02:43 AM
Yeah, I know I ask too much when I have you working in the dark.
But that helps. I had found a lot of examples with 言 in the phrase, but none without it, so I didn't think they were interchangeable.So am I right in concluding that since that clause just says that the speaker got all this from Milan, the paragraph would impart the same information (except the source) without that clause altogether? I kept seeing そうです ending the sentences in his answers, which I took to be a way of reminding us that he was imparting hearsay, and was kind of ignoring it since it doesn't read very smoothly in English with that tacked on every other sentence (maybe I shouldn't have ). So when an entire clause showed up with Milan's name in it, I thought it must be important to the meaning of the sentence.Again, thank you so much for your help!
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
