Pointless Repetition II: Editor's Revenge (Revenge)

So, I wouldn’t necessarily call this the “larger article” threatened last month, more a sort rambling continuation in the same general direction. Yes, we’re talking about repetition again, and over the last four weeks I’ve been collecting some more examples. The problem is that often, something that looks bad today looks innocent tomorrow, so these ones today have been distilling down to the essence of pure badness! All of them are (as always) actual Pl>En translations.

Now at this point, you might be thinking one of several things. One is that you don’t have time for all this editing and tidying and removal of repetitious segments. To that I say, fair enough. As always, you must take from this blog what you will. My aim is always to provide you with insight into what, ultimately, makes for good, smooth, flowing English – within the context of translations, and therefore within the context of the time and practical constraints that translators face. Sometimes you’ll have the luxury of extra time and you can stop and edit, or go back over and edit. Ideally of course, one must go over one’s work at least once before returning it, and at that point you might consider implementing some of the fixes I’m suggesting to you here.

The other big thing you might be thinking is that your job is only to translate what’s given in the ST, not to improve or polish it once it’s in TT clothes. I don’t only mean ‘It’s the editor’s job, not mine’ (to which the answer is, what if your translation isn’t going to be edited or checked?), but also perhaps that you’re a very literal translator, who given a really badly written source text, will produce a target text that also appears to be really badly written. And I know there are some of you out there who do that, you can’t hide. ;)

The third major thought when discussing something like repetition that requires fairly radical surgery (i.e. removing or re-writing whole words and phrases) is that It Is Not Allowed. Editing ist verboten! Well, again this is a philosophy that comes in varying degrees. We can all agree that some degree of editing is always necessary, even if just to correct our own obvious mistakes or because we later come up with a better translation for something that has a knock-on effect, or la la la. You know what I mean. 

We don’t really have the time or space to have this debate here, although it’s certainly an interesting topic and something we can look at in the future. Anyway, let’s get on with our look at repetitions before I get confused and start repeating myself anyway. Anyway, let’s get on with our look at repetitions before I get confused and start repeating myself anyway.

 Example 1
BadArticle Ltd. is one of the most innovative companies on the Polish market and new products launched on the market motivate companies to develop and invest in modernization and innovation.

Apart from the desperate need for a comma, what we have here is a slightly kaleidoscopic effect caused by repetition of the same words within one breathless sentence innovate, company and market (and their different forms). We could employ some synonyms here, or even just cut the slightly offensive middle part. Perhaps:

BadArticle Ltd. is one of the most innovative companies on the Polish market. Our new products motivate companies to develop and invest in modernization and innovation.

The cut phrasing was at best slightly ambiguous anyway, and specifying that their products are launched somewhat pointless. If you don’t feel comfortable making that kind of change, then grab the dictionary and beat some life into that Bad Sentence! 

Now look at this:

BadPiwo S.A.’s Definitearticle flavoured beer – beer that deserves an award mainly for its sales growth. Although it is a flavoured beer, it is capable of competing with the standard beers that previously significantly outdistanced flavoured beers.

Good, bad, indifferent? Are we justified in using the phrase ‘flavoured beer’ there three times in one small paragraph?

Example 2 

Okay, pictures! (click to enlarge)

Two things about this one. First of all, the repetition of meeting is itself fairly innocuous and could be left as it is. But, this repetition is magnified and amplified to the point of needing a change because of the other thing – the fragmentary nature of the second sentence (although I blurred it out, that’s one whole sentence. Unless you’ve just sneezed on your screen, you might even be able to make out the final kropka there ;)

 

Because we’ve just gone ‘Lots of words lots of words lots of words lots of words’, it sounds funny if we then go ‘Full stop. Not so many words’. Fortunately, we can fix the repetition and the fragment with one fix – the now-legendary Comma And fix, which I urge everyone to learn and use as a matter of life and death. Zob:

Change the full-stop to a comma and change/add the following word with some variety of pronoun, or something that will bridge the two ideas (and, which, that etc).

Example 3

Okay, take a look at this ugly bugger:

That is one mean and desperate desperado there. In terms of repetition, it’s an Olympic gold medallist, a symmetrical mentalist and a mirror-image specialist. Clearly, the most appropriate course of action is to shout ‘Look out behind you!’ and give it a fist full of fives. Right?

But before we come with the heavy mob, let’s just make sure about one thing. If you get a text full of news items for a website, it often happens that the first paragraph you'll translate is a kind of summary paragraph that they’ll stick on the front page of the site, which you’ll then click on to go to the full article. This is a fairly common, if now outdated, print journalism practise. You summarise in paragraph one, then start methodically breaking it down thereafter.

So before you go thinking that whoever wrote the thing must be mad or in need of a trip to Specsavers, make sure that it’s not all Working As Intended. Look through the rest of the text and see if this mindless formula is recurrent throughout, or if you can, check the client's website and see if they have an existing news section that you can confirm your suspicions with.

That's about it for repetition I think. If you have any questions or ideas on the subject, post below or Facebook us. I'd like us to talk more about the issue we tripped over of how closely you stick to the ST, since it's quite a big field with more than a few stones in it. Again, you can Facebook us, or email me directly (and in confidence) with your own opinions. (links and addresses at top of page). Let's see what we can cook up together!