|
The first draft of translation
A flower blooms at the Descartes's burying ground
_a viewpoint about photography_
SUJAKU, Seidoh
-------------------------------------------------------
TOKYO! Is anyone watching these shiny landscapes?
Straight lines are crossing, planes are reflecting each other,
various materials compete against others.
In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
I try to see them, freshly, by my own eyes
(but through the camera's eye)
for "a watching role" to this world.
Though no one asked me it.
Taking picture is a perversion act basically. But,
the world as a subject already has been a great perversion
for a long time of 150 years.
LORD WAS GOTTEN OUT OF HIS POSITION IN THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
WE, LIVE THERE IN A SMALL WAY, AS A PERSON WHO IS NOT LORD.
The evening city glassed itself at the building glass wall.
I saw it, and
I think it "beautiful".
Actually "beauty" is excrescent for me, but
I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
Though I know well it is perversion .......
===================================
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2001 19:50:40 -0600
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
Marek,
When I met Mr. Sujaku, he showed me his photographs.
They are very unique and evocative. He will have a personal
exhibition in Tokyo in May(for one month). It is his first
exhibition. He said he started to take a picuture 4 years ago.
It was a little after the traffic accident(at the accidnet
they just walked on the street. They didn't drive a car).
During their recuperating, When he thought he would sooner
die than live, one of his friends recommended him to take
a picture. So he started.
I like his photographs, and I would like to put it with
his writing on Fragments. He wrote it yesterday, and
he read it on the phone. I like it, too. So he sent it by fax, and
I typed it and tried to translate it into English.
I would be very glad if you read it, and help us for the
improvement of the translation. I put the photographs and
translation on the web temporarily. The URL is:
http://happano.org/pages/fragments/....
and another photograph is here:
http://happano.org/pages/fragments/....
I copied the translation below and added some comments.
So please read it, too.
kazue
A flower blooms at the Descartes's burying ground
_a viewpoint about photography_
SUJAKU, Seidoh
---------------------------------------------
TOKYO! Is anyone watching these shiny landscapes?
#the author thinks anyone isn't watching them, but he#
Straight lines are crossing, planes are reflecting each other,
various materials compete against others.
In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
I try to see them, freshly, by my own eyes
(but through the camera's eye)
for "a watching role" to this world.
Though no one asked me it.
Taking picture is a perversion act basically. But,
the world as a subject already has been a great perversion
for a long time of 150 years.
*author refers to the modern ages*
LORD WAS GOTTEN OUT OF HIS POSITION IN THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
WE, LIVE THERE IN A SMALL WAY, AS A PERSON WHO IS NOT LORD.
*this paragraph is written in imitating of the Bible style.#
The evening city glassed itself at the building glass wall.
I saw it, and
I think it "beautiful".
Actually "beauty" is excrescent for me, but
I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
Though I know well it is perversion .......
(title)
A flower blooms at the Descartes's burying ground
_a viewpoint about photography_
The original Japanese title is(word-for-word translation):
A flower(or Flowers) at the Descartes's burying ground
But it seems to me this expression emphasizes "flower".
Generally, when we express something by a noun clause in Japanese
it seems more natural to use a verb in English. What do you think?
In the same way,
Straight lines are crossing, planes are reflecting each other,
various materials compete against others.
The original Japanese is:
Straight lines which are crossing. A plane and a plane which are reflecting
each other. Various materials which compete against others.
(which identify(insist) themselves)
===================================
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:50:40 -0600
From: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
To: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
A flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
_about photography_
by Seidoh Sujaku
Tokyo! Is no one watching these shiny landscapes?
Straight lines cross, planes reflect in one other,
various materials compete against each other.
In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
I try to see things afresh, with my own eyes,
through the camera's eye. I am hoping for
"a watching role" for me for this world.
Though no one asked me for it.
Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
LORD HATH ABANDONED THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS SERFS.
The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
I saw it, and I think it beautiful. Actually, beauty is excrescent
[I don't know this word, Kazue -- what's the meaning?] for me, but
I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
Though I know well that it is perverse.
===================================
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2001
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
At 7:50 PM 01.3.4, Marek Lugowski wrote:
> A flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
> _about photography_
>
> by Seidoh Sujaku
>
> (a)Tokyo! Is no one watching these shiny landscapes?
Beautiful. It seems to me very English.
But, or can I say;
(b)I wonder if no one is watching these shiny landscapes.
Is (a) stronger question than (b)? I reread the original Japanese
and I felt the first line is his important question but it's not so
obtrusive. It is like his monologue. He seems to communicate with
other persons.
Do you think which is more suitable for the context in English?
And more evocative?
> Straight lines cross, planes reflect in one other,
> various materials compete against each other.
> In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
> I try to see things afresh, with my own eyes,
> through the camera's eye. I am hoping for
> "a watching role" for me for this world.
I am hoping for
"a watching role" for me for this world.
How does _for me_ work in this sentence?
Does it mean he is hoping to be "a watching role" of this world?
> Though no one asked me for it.
> Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
> the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
> in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
>
> LORD HATH ABANDONED THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
Does _LORD HATH ABANDONED_ mean that he was abandoned from
the world? Not he abandoned the world. Which?
> WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS SERFS.
In my understanding, LORD means God and also means human beings
at the same time. Because he writes:
> In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
anonymous brains means people's brains(thoughts and ideas), they
built the present world in a good way and also a bad way.
So _Lord was abandoned from the world_ means (not only God)
human begins were abandoned from the world because of the modern age.
Perhaps God was already abandoned from the world by saying of Nietzsche.
(God died). For the modern age human begins were abandoned like
Chaplin's movie showed. What do you think?
So _AS A PERSON WHO IS NOT LORD._ is not _AS SERFS_, I guess.
> The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
> I saw it, and I think it beautiful. Actually, beauty is excrescent
> [I don't know this word, Kazue -- what's the meaning?] for me, but
excrescent is, unnecessary, expendable, unwanted, fat...
This is a paradox for him. Because he thinks beauty is unnecessary
for him, but he can't give it up(he tends to take a picture beautifully
though he don't want. So he said _it is perverse_ at the last line).
> I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
>
> Though I know well that it is perverse.
Is the writing more clear for you? Do you think it makes sense in
English, and English language people?
kazue
====================================
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:02:03 -0600
From: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
To: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 12:41:46PM +0900, kazue DAIKOKU wrote:
> Marek, thank you very much for your great advice.
> I'm very glad to read it. They are very nice. I write
> here some comments and answer.
>
>
> At 7:50 PM 01.3.4, Marek Lugowski wrote:
> > A flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
> > _about photography_
> >
> > by Seidoh Sujaku
> >
> > (a)Tokyo! Is no one watching these shiny landscapes?
>
> Beautiful. It seems to me very English.
> But, or can I say;
> (b)I wonder if no one is watching these shiny landscapes.
>
> Is (a) stronger question than (b)? I reread the original Japanese
> and I felt the first line is his important question but it's not so
> obtrusive. It is like his monologue. He seems to communicate with
> other persons.
> Do you think which is more suitable for the context in English?
> And more evocative?
(a) is better English. I don't think you want to obfuscate the sense of
the question.
> > Straight lines cross, planes reflect in one other,
> > various materials compete against each other.
> > In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
> > I try to see things afresh, with my own eyes,
> > through the camera's eye. I am hoping for
> > "a watching role" for me for this world.
>
> I am hoping for
> "a watching role" for me for this world.
>
> How does _for me_ work in this sentence?
> Does it mean he is hoping to be "a watching role" of this world?
A role has to be for somebody. So in this case, it is for him. It's
not grammatical to be a watching role of this world.
You might want to rephrase away from "role" if you are worried about the
sense.
> > Though no one asked me for it.
> > Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
> > the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
> > in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
> >
> > LORD HATH ABANDONED THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
>
> Does _LORD HATH ABANDONED_ mean that he was abandoned from
> the world? Not he abandoned the world. Which?
HATH ABANDONED = has abandoned
> > WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS SERFS.
>
> In my understanding, LORD means God and also means human beings
> at the same time. Because he writes:
> > In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
> anonymous brains means people's brains(thoughts and ideas), they
> built the present world in a good way and also a bad way.
> So _Lord was abandoned from the world_ means (not only God)
> human begins were abandoned from the world because of the modern age.
> Perhaps God was already abandoned from the world by saying of Nietzsche.
> (God died). For the modern age human begins were abandoned like
> Chaplin's movie showed. What do you think?
> So _AS A PERSON WHO IS NOT LORD._ is not _AS SERFS_, I guess.
Kazue, this makes no sense in English. There is a strong division between
God and people in English. I understood that God abandons the world,
and that people are part of the world.
I really don't understand this passage.
> > The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
> > I saw it, and I think it beautiful. Actually, beauty is excrescent
> > [I don't know this word, Kazue -- what's the meaning?] for me, but
>
> excrescent is, unnecessary, expendable, unwanted, fat...
> This is a paradox for him. Because he thinks beauty is unnecessary
> for him, but he can't give it up(he tends to take a picture beautifully
> though he don't want. So he said _it is perverse_ at the last line).
>
>
> > I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
> >
> > Though I know well that it is perverse.
>
> Is the writing more clear for you? Do you think it makes sense in
> English, and English language people?
No, if anything it is less clear. With your objections, I really don't
know what he means. The writing is not compelling or strong or clear,
as -- for example -- the poetry which we were translating was. I don't
see this as a strong fragment, not yet anyway.
> kazue
-- Marek
===================================
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2001
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
> (a) is better English. I don't think you want to obfuscate the sense of
> the question.
I see. I take (a).
> > I am hoping for
> > "a watching role" for me for this world.
> >
> > How does _for me_ work in this sentence?
> > Does it mean he is hoping to be "a watching role" of this world?
>
> A role has to be for somebody. So in this case, it is for him. It's
> not grammatical to be a watching role of this world.
>
> You might want to rephrase away from "role" if you are worried about the
> sense.
I think this sense fits for Japanese original text. A role means for somebody
but it is for him in this case.
> > > Though no one asked me for it.
> > > Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
> > > the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
> > > in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
> > >
> > > LORD HATH ABANDONED THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
> >
> > Does _LORD HATH ABANDONED_ mean that he was abandoned from
> > the world? Not he abandoned the world. Which?
>
> HATH ABANDONED = has abandoned
Opposite meaning. He writes that Lord has been abandoned from the world.
But this makes no sense in English. Right?
> > > WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS SERFS.
> >
> > In my understanding, LORD means God and also means human beings
> > at the same time. Because he writes:
> > > In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
> > anonymous brains means people's brains(thoughts and ideas), they
> > built the present world in a good way and also a bad way.
> > So _Lord was abandoned from the world_ means (not only God)
> > human begins were abandoned from the world because of the modern age.
> > Perhaps God was already abandoned from the world by saying of Nietzsche.
> > (God died). For the modern age human begins were abandoned like
> > Chaplin's movie showed. What do you think?
> > So _AS A PERSON WHO IS NOT LORD._ is not _AS SERFS_, I guess.
>
> Kazue, this makes no sense in English. There is a strong division between
> God and people in English. I understood that God abandons the world,
> and that people are part of the world.
Yes, I understand. But if people become to think God is unnecessary for them
and they don't believe God anymore, can we say "God was abandoned from
people(the world)"?
Or the subject "Lord" should be changed?
Master or Owener or something.
> I really don't understand this passage.
>
> > > The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
> > > I saw it, and I think it beautiful. Actually, beauty is excrescent
> > > [I don't know this word, Kazue -- what's the meaning?] for me, but
> >
> > excrescent is, unnecessary, expendable, unwanted, fat...
> > This is a paradox for him. Because he thinks beauty is unnecessary
> > for him, but he can't give it up(he tends to take a picture beautifully
> > though he don't want. So he said _it is perverse_ at the last line).
> >
> >
> > > I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
> > >
> > > Though I know well that it is perverse.
> >
> > Is the writing more clear for you? Do you think it makes sense in
> > English, and English language people?
>
> No, if anything it is less clear. With your objections, I really don't
> know what he means. The writing is not compelling or strong or clear,
> as -- for example -- the poetry which we were translating was. I don't
> see this as a strong fragment, not yet anyway.
I'm very sorry. I think his writing is not so obfuscate at least in
Japanese, but it might have very personal sight. He became conscious
of his own eyesight, and he began to take a photograph. He talked to me
he felt he was "a watching role" for this world.
I also might not understand his thought completely, but I felt
he had something interesting sense surely, so I would like to put
his picture with his writing. I think the writing will let people approach
his picture a little.
I would like to translate the writing into English as understandable as possible.
---
I saw it, and I think it beautiful.
Actually, beauty is excrescent for me, but
I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
Surely this seems something strange. He woul like to say:
I saw it, and I think it beautiful.
Though I don't want to put beauty in my picture
I can't give it up anyhow. [he takes picture beautifully though he doesn't want]
I know well that it is perverse.
-----
How about?
I hope I could improve something.
kazue
====================================
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:52:38 -0600
From: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
To: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
> > > I am hoping for
> > > "a watching role" for me for this world.
> > >
> > > How does _for me_ work in this sentence?
> > > Does it mean he is hoping to be "a watching role" of this world?
> >
> > A role has to be for somebody. So in this case, it is for him. It's
> > not grammatical to be a watching role of this world.
> >
> > You might want to rephrase away from "role" if you are worried about the
> > sense.
>
> I think this sense fits for Japanese original text. A role means for somebody
> but it is for him in this case.
Try to translate away from "a watching role" because that phrase is just
not good English. Role is what an actor plays. You don't have to use "role".
Rephrase as plain English using other words.
> > > > Though no one asked me for it.
> > > > Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
> > > > the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
> > > > in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
> > > >
> > > > LORD HATH ABANDONED THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
> > >
> > > Does _LORD HATH ABANDONED_ mean that he was abandoned from
> > > the world? Not he abandoned the world. Which?
> >
> > HATH ABANDONED = has abandoned
>
> Opposite meaning. He writes that Lord has been abandoned from the world.
> But this makes no sense in English. Right?
The Lord has been excluded from the world, maybe? People have abandoned
believing in God, another possibility.
"Was abandoned from the world" is not English.
> > > > WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS SERFS.
> > >
> > > In my understanding, LORD means God and also means human beings
> > > at the same time. Because he writes:
> > > > In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
> > > anonymous brains means people's brains(thoughts and ideas), they
> > > built the present world in a good way and also a bad way.
> > > So _Lord was abandoned from the world_ means (not only God)
> > > human begins were abandoned from the world because of the modern age.
> > > Perhaps God was already abandoned from the world by saying of Nietzsche.
> > > (God died). For the modern age human begins were abandoned like
> > > Chaplin's movie showed. What do you think?
> > > So _AS A PERSON WHO IS NOT LORD._ is not _AS SERFS_, I guess.
> >
> > Kazue, this makes no sense in English. There is a strong division between
> > God and people in English. I understood that God abandons the world,
> > and that people are part of the world.
>
> Yes, I understand. But if people become to think God is unnecessary for them
> and they don't believe God anymore, can we say "God was abandoned from
> people(the world)"?
We can't. Just write "People came to think God is unnecessary for
them and they don't believe God anymore."
> Or the subject "Lord" should be changed?
> Master or Owener or something.
see above. The trouble is your phrasing "was abandoned". You can say
the umbrella was abandoned by its owner. But you can't say that God was
abandoned from the world. That's not English.
> > I really don't understand this passage.
> >
> > > > The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
> > > > I saw it, and I think it beautiful. Actually, beauty is excrescent
> > > > [I don't know this word, Kazue -- what's the meaning?] for me, but
> > >
> > > excrescent is, unnecessary, expendable, unwanted, fat...
> > > This is a paradox for him. Because he thinks beauty is unnecessary
> > > for him, but he can't give it up(he tends to take a picture beautifully
> > > though he don't want. So he said _it is perverse_ at the last line).
> > >
> > >
> > > > I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
> > > >
> > > > Though I know well that it is perverse.
> > >
> > > Is the writing more clear for you? Do you think it makes sense in
> > > English, and English language people?
> >
> > No, if anything it is less clear. With your objections, I really don't
> > know what he means. The writing is not compelling or strong or clear,
> > as -- for example -- the poetry which we were translating was. I don't
> > see this as a strong fragment, not yet anyway.
>
> I'm very sorry. I think his writing is not so obfuscate at least in
> Japanese, but it might have very personal sight. He became conscious
> of his own eyesight, and he began to take a photograph. He talked to me
> he felt he was "a watching role" for this world.
>
> I also might not understand his thought completely, but I felt
> he had something interesting sense surely, so I would like to put
> his picture with his writing. I think the writing will let people approach
> his picture a little.
>
> I would like to translate the writing into English as understandable as poss
> ible.
I have an idea. Don't translate directly. Translate his Japanese into
very simple English. Don't keep his words like "role" or "was abandoned from"
and rephrase whole sentences as necessary.
> ---
> I saw it, and I think it beautiful.
> Actually, beauty is excrescent for me, but
Don't use the word "excrescent" -- it sticks out and as you see in my case,
it is not readily known.
> I guess I can't give it up anyhow.
>
> Surely this seems something strange. He would like to say:
>
> I saw it, and I think it beautiful.
> Though I don't want to put beauty in my picture
> I can't give it up anyhow. [he takes picture beautifully though he doesn't
> want]
>
> I know well that it is perverse.
> -----
>
> How about?
> I hope I could improve something.
Ok, the last part was more understandable: "I saw it and I thought it
beautiful. And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures, I
cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in. I know that this
is perverse."
> kazue
>
-- Marek
===================================
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2001
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
> Try to translate away from "a watching role" because that phrase is just
> not good English. Role is what an actor plays. You don't have to use "role".
> Rephrase as plain English using other words.
OK. How about "the function of watching"? like the functions of a teacher.
But it is not his profession in this case.
If I say more concretely, "a person who has the function of watching".
The Japanese "milu kakali" is "milu" is for watch and "kakali" is for
some post or part or function in a group or team(in the world in this case)
like he is a part(function) for serving meals in the party.
If it will make sense, the sentence will be:
I am hoping for
"the function of watching" for me for this world.
Is it better than "a watching role"?
> The Lord has been excluded from the world, maybe? People have abandoned
> believing in God, another possibility.
Yes, "The Lord has been excluded from the world" is just what he would like
to say. Thank you.
>
> "Was abandoned from the world" is not English.
> We can't. Just write "People came to think God is unnecessary for
> them and they don't believe God anymore."
> see above. The trouble is your phrasing "was abandoned". You can say
> the umbrella was abandoned by its owner. But you can't say that God was
> abandoned from the world. That's not English.
I see. I understood how to use the word "abandoned" now.
I missed my aim when I chose the word.
> I have an idea. Don't translate directly. Translate his Japanese into
> very simple English. Don't keep his words like "role" or "was abandoned from"
> and rephrase whole sentences as necessary.
OK, I will try.
> Ok, the last part was more understandable: "I saw it and I thought it
> beautiful. And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures, I
> cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in. I know that this
> is perverse."
I saw it, and I thought it beautiful.
And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures,
I cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in.
I know that this is perverse.
The last sentece, I know that this is perverse, can I use the word
perversion for perverse? The original Japanese text uses the word
"perversion" here. Same as:
But, the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
So if it make sense, it should be:
"I know that this is perversion."
But no?
And as for the title:
Generally, Japanese language doesn't refer to plural or singular
in a word. We usually speak or write a singular word in a sentence.
(we don't have a plural form)
I translated the title "A flower blooming at Descartes's tomb",
but the best thing to do is translating "flower" abstractly or symbolic.
Can you translate it into English in this way?
kazue
===================================
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:50:39 -0600
From: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
To: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
X-Loop-Detect: 1
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:28:28AM +0900, kazue DAIKOKU wrote:
> > Try to translate away from "a watching role" because that phrase is just
> > not good English. Role is what an actor plays. You don't have to use "role".
> > Rephrase as plain English using other words.
>
> OK. How about "the function of watching"? like the functions of a teacher.
> But it is not his profession in this case.
> If I say more concretely, "a person who has the function of watching".
> The Japanese "milu kakali" is "milu" is for watch and "kakali" is for
> some post or part or function in a group or team(in the world in this case)
> like he is a part(function) for serving meals in the party.
>
> If it will make sense, the sentence will be:
> I am hoping for
> "the function of watching" for me for this world.
>
> Is it better than "a watching role"?
Why not something simple and straightforward: I am hoping to be an observer.
> > The Lord has been excluded from the world, maybe? People have abandoned
> > believing in God, another possibility.
>
> Yes, "The Lord has been excluded from the world" is just what he would like
> to say. Thank you.
you're welcome
> > Ok, the last part was more understandable: "I saw it and I thought it
> > beautiful. And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures, I
> > cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in. I know that this
> > is perverse."
>
> I saw it, and I thought it beautiful.
> And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures,
> I cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in.
> I know that this is perverse.
>
> The last sentece, I know that this is perverse, can I use the word
> perversion for perverse? The original Japanese text uses the word
> "perversion" here. Same as:
> But, the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
> in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
No, and I'll tell you why. When you use the word "perversion" like this
it strongly hints at sexual perversion. So don't use it.
> So if it make sense, it should be:
> "I know that this is perversion."
> But no?
No.
> And as for the title:
> Generally, Japanese language doesn't refer to plural or singular
> in a word. We usually speak or write a singular word in a sentence.
> (we don't have a plural form)
> I translated the title "A flower blooming at Descartes's tomb",
> but the best thing to do is translating "flower" abstractly or symbolic.
> Can you translate it into English in this way?
I am not sure what you need here. "Flower blooming at Descartes' tomb",
maybe? It makes it more abstract.
> kazue
-- Marek
===================================
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2001
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
> Why not something simple and straightforward: I am hoping to be an observer.
Surely. "an observer" is a good choice for "milu kakali". So,
I am hoping to be an observer for this world. (or, an observer of this world?
or another?)
And only one thing I'm thinking about it, "milu kakali" is not usual expression
in Japanese. A rare(or a little strange) but so evocative expression. I think
the word "observer" is very natural in English context. So it's better if you know
an another word which more fits to "milu kakali". It seems to me that he thinks
the word "milu kakali" includes his identity, and the reason why he started to
take a picture.
But is it difficult? Or it may not make sense.
> No, and I'll tell you why. When you use the word "perversion" like this
> it strongly hints at sexual perversion. So don't use it.
I see. And I know the hidden meaning of "perversion". He also knows.
Perhaps, we always use the word light-heartedly in Japanese.(other words,too).
Japanese language is not a strict language, it's hangloose, unfussy,
and sometimes very loose to context and grammar. People uses the word very
loosely, and speak Japanese language by one's mood. But we belive it is a good
way to communicate each other(though it only works in the Japanese society).
Strange?
I think the Japanese should change if we would like to communicate to
the other language people. But now we stand on the way and struggle.
> > So if it make sense, it should be:
> > "I know that this is perversion."
> > But no?
>
> No.
I understood that to use the word "perversion" was strange in this context
in English.
> > And as for the title:
> > Generally, Japanese language doesn't refer to plural or singular
> > in a word. We usually speak or write a singular word in a sentence.
> > (we don't have a plural form)
> > I translated the title "A flower blooming at Descartes's tomb",
> > but the best thing to do is translating "flower" abstractly or symbolic.
> > Can you translate it into English in this way?
>
> I am not sure what you need here. "Flower blooming at Descartes' tomb",
> maybe? It makes it more abstract.
"Flower blooming at Descartes' tomb", it is better than "A flower....".
I don't know well about how to use it in English.
You can say just "flower", not "a flower" or "flowers" in English, can't you?
I thought I always have to say in singular form or plural form.
Because when I wrote "taking picture...." you rewrote "taking a picture".
Anyway, "Flower blooming at Descartes' tomb" is better in this case, I think.
Thank you.
kazue
===================================
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:38:28 -0600
From: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
To: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 03:53:09PM +0900, kazue DAIKOKU wrote:
> > Why not something simple and straightforward: I am hoping to be an observer.
>
> Surely. "an observer" is a good choice for "milu kakali". So,
>
> I am hoping to be an observer for this world. (or, an observer of this world?
> or another?)
>
> And only one thing I'm thinking about it, "milu kakali" is not usual expression
> in Japanese. A rare(or a little strange) but so evocative expression. I think
> the word "observer" is very natural in English context. So it's better if yo
> u know
> an another word which more fits to "milu kakali". It seems to me that he thinks
> the word "milu kakali" includes his identity, and the reason why he started to
> take a picture.
> But is it difficult? Or it may not make sense.
Just say observer, without any modification. I think the essence of the
meaning is captured here. You have to pay attention to English way of
saying it and concentrate on getting the basic meaning across. When you
try to get Japanese grammar transalted directly, one-for-one, you get
weird sentences in English that don't sound English. I don't see any benefit
from translating "milu kakali" in any other way than that he wants to be
an observer. And not "for this world" but observer, period.
> > No, and I'll tell you why. When you use the word "perversion" like this
> > it strongly hints at sexual perversion. So don't use it.
>
> I see. And I know the hidden meaning of "perversion". He also knows.
> Perhaps, we always use the word light-heartedly in Japanese.(other words,too).
> Japanese language is not a strict language, it's hangloose, unfussy,
> and sometimes very loose to context and grammar. People uses the word very
> loosely, and speak Japanese language by one's mood. But we belive it is a good
> way to communicate each other(though it only works in the Japanese society).
> Strange?
>
> I think the Japanese should change if we would like to communicate to
> the other language people. But now we stand on the way and struggle.
I don't know what to tell you except that the English people reading your
"perversion" will think you made a mistake and did not mean to hint at
sexuality. The English lends itself more naturally to to "perverse".
That already has enough of a hint.
>
> > > So if it make sense, it should be:
> > > "I know that this is perversion."
> > > But no?
> >
> > No.
>
> I understood that to use the word "perversion" was strange in this context
> in English.
>
>
> > > And as for the title:
> > > Generally, Japanese language doesn't refer to plural or singular
> > > in a word. We usually speak or write a singular word in a sentence.
> > > (we don't have a plural form)
> > > I translated the title "A flower blooming at Descartes's tomb",
> > > but the best thing to do is translating "flower" abstractly or symbolic.
> > > Can you translate it into English in this way?
> >
> > I am not sure what you need here. "Flower blooming at Descartes' tomb",
> > maybe? It makes it more abstract.
>
> "Flower blooming at Descartes' tomb", it is better than "A flower....".
> I don't know well about how to use it in English.
> You can say just "flower", not "a flower" or "flowers" in English, can't you?
> I thought I always have to say in singular form or plural form.
> Because when I wrote "taking picture...." you rewrote "taking a picture".
>
> Anyway, "Flower blooming at Descartes' tomb" is better in this case, I think.
> Thank you.
Again, think of the English form. The present way is natural.
> kazue
-- Marek
===================================
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2001
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
> Just say observer, without any modification. I think the essence of the
> meaning is captured here. You have to pay attention to English way of
> saying it and concentrate on getting the basic meaning across. When you
Yes, I came to know it well. At first getting a basic meaning is important
for translation.
> I don't know what to tell you except that the English people reading your
> "perversion" will think you made a mistake and did not mean to hint at
> sexuality. The English lends itself more naturally to to "perverse".
> That already has enough of a hint.
Has it? OK, "perverse" is a best word, I think.
> Again, think of the English form. The present way is natural.
Thank you very much for your advices. I copied the present result below.
Please read it. I hope we have much improved in the translation on the whole.
====================================
Flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
_about my photography_
by Seidoh Sujaku
Tokyo! Is no one watching these shiny landscapes?
Straight lines cross, planes reflect in one other,
various materials compete against each other.
In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
I try to see things afresh, with my own eyes,
through the camera's eye. I am hoping to be
"an observer".
Though no one asked me for it.
Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
The LORD HATH BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS THE POPULACE.
(the vulgus, common people, plebs)
The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
I saw it, and I thought it beautiful.
And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures,
I cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in.
I know that this is perverse.
9 March, 2001
translated from the Japanese by This is My Home Literary Trajections
======================
What do you think?
And I changed "AS SERFS" to "AS THE POPULACE"(or the vulgus,
common people, plebs).
I also changed the title _about photography_ to _about my photography_.
I think this makes his intention clearer, and he included "my" in his
first draft.
kazue
======================
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:51:03 -0600
From: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
To: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
Subject: Re: Writing for Fragments
> ====================================
> Flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
> _about my photography_
>
> by Seidoh Sujaku
>
> Tokyo! Is no one watching these shiny landscapes?
> Straight lines cross, planes reflect in one other,
> various materials compete against each other.
> In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
> I try to see things afresh, with my own eyes,
> through the camera's eye. I am hoping to be
> "an observer".
> Though no one asked me for it.
> Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
> the world already has encountered a great deal of perversion
perversity
> in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
>
> The LORD HATH BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
> WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS THE POPULACE.
> (the vulgus, common people, plebs)
as the plebs. Skip the parenthetical note.
> The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
> I saw it, and I thought it beautiful.
> And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures,
> I cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in.
>
> I know that this is perverse.
I question the need to restate the perversity theme. You already say
it amply above. I would skip this sentence altogether.
>
> 9 March, 2001
> translated from the Japanese by This is My Home Literary Trajections
>
> ======================
> What do you think?
> And I changed "AS SERFS" to "AS THE POPULACE"(or the vulgus,
> common people, plebs).
It reads better!
Quite well, in fact.
I would still make the changes I suggested above.
> I also changed the title _about photography_ to _about my photography_.
> I think this makes his intention clearer, and he included "my" in his
> first draft.
It's fine now.
> kazue
:)
-- Marek
===================================
Date: Sun,10 Mar 2001
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
Marek, I copied the writing after I restated the places
which you advised me. Please read it as a whole, again.
I think our discussion for this translation is touching important
things of a culture gap between Japan and English language area.
These are very subtle and delicate, and difficult to understand
for both parties. So this kind of discussion is very rare, I think.
At least, if it's the particular(detail or a concrete sample),
not the general.
If you will agree with me.... now I'm thinking about putting our
e-mails with the writing(maybe in another page, because they
are very long) for readers' reference. What do you think?
kazue
=================================
Flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
_about my photography_
by Seidoh Sujaku
Tokyo! Is no one watching these shiny landscapes?
Straight lines cross, planes reflect in one other,
various materials compete against each other.
In this world which is all spawned by anonymous brains
I try to see things afresh, with my own eyes,
through the camera's eye. I am hoping to be
"an observer".
Though no one asked me for it.
Taking a picture is a perverse act, basically. But,
the world already has encountered a great deal of perversity
in the last 150 years or so, the modern age.
The LORD HATH BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE WORLD WHICH HE BUILT.
WE HAVE COME TO LIVE HERE IN THE SMALL, AS THE PLEBS.
The evening city has glassed itself with the building's glass wall.
I saw it, and I thought it beautiful.
And though I do not want to put beauty in my pictures,
I cannot give up beauty anyhow -- it forces itself in.
10 March, 2001
translated from the Japanese by This is My Home Literary Trajections
===================================
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:10:23 -0600
From: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
To: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
Subject: Re: Flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
It reads quite well now -- much better than the original phrasing, but
still recognizable.
Your idea is interesting -- you would have to carefully put all the
mail in sequence for it to make sense.
-- Marek
===================================
Date: Sun,11 Mar 2001
From: kazue DAIKOKU <editor@happano.org>
To: Marek Lugowski <marek@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Flower blooming at Descartes's tomb
> It reads quite well now -- much better than the original phrasing, but
> still recognizable.
I'm really glad to hear it. I hope I have improved in translation.
It was very useful experience for me.
> Your idea is interesting -- you would have to carefully put all the
> mail in sequence for it to make sense.
Yes, I will do so. There are a great deal of writings.
I'm glad you think it's interesting.
kazue
|
|
|
