# sposób wzrokowy jest jedynie namiastką sposobu słuchowego



## gockab

Mam problem z przetłumaczeniem nast. zdania (szczególnie jeśli chodzi o pogrubioną frazę)

Ale pismo (czy też druk) jest jedynie konwencjonalnym sposobem przedstawienia mowy ; innymi słowy, *sposób wzrokowy jest jedynie namiastką sposobu słuchowego.*

to, jak sobie z tym poradziłam:

Yet the writing (or the print) is just a conventional way of depicting speech. In other words, *visual way is only a substitute of an aural way. *

Nie wydaje mi się to poprawne... 

Z góry dziękuję za wskazówki!


----------



## dreamlike

To źle Ci się wydaje  Namiastka z definicji jest, pod różnymi względami, gorsza od tego, czego jest namiastką, ale mógłbyś jeszcze poprzedzić _substitute_, słowem_ "poor"_, dla wzmocnienia ekspresji. Is only a poor substitute *for*...


----------



## gockab

Dziękuję za odpowiedź!

A czy mogę użyć "means" zamiasta "way". Może będzie nieco ładniej?


----------



## dreamlike

Ja bym obstawał przy "way". Z "means" może i rzeczywiście byłoby ładniej, ale czy naturalniej? Samo "visual means" albo "aural means" jak na moje oko trochę łyso by wyglądało, najczęściej słowo to występuje w wyrażeniach - By means of..., by all means, by no means, a means of transport etc. Ale nie bierze moich słów za pewnik


----------



## Szkot

Medium is a possibility for sposób. In any case you need the definite article, and you need to lose the articles before writing and print.   I would probably have written something like 'the written word is just a substitute for the spoken word'.


----------



## LilianaB

To tell you honestly, Gockab, both your versions sound awkward: both in Polish and English. You have to use different words so that they make sense in either language. What do you need this for? School? It is said only for your benefit so that your work does not get rejected. Writing is a visual representation of speech. If you want to use related to hearing, it is phonetic not aural.


----------



## gockab

LilianaB said:


> To tell you honestly, Gockab, both your versions sound awkward: both in Polish and English. You have to use different words so that they make sense in either language. What do you need this for? School? It is said only for your benefit so that your work does not get rejected. Writing is a visual representation of speech. If you want to use related to hearing, it is phonetic not aural.


Yes, this is for school. The problem is that we were given a Polish text and we were to translate it. I think that the Polish text sounds akward on purpose so that it is more difficult to translate (there is a question whether we should transate it in the same "akward" way or rather change a bit).

Thank you for help!


----------



## LilianaB

No. Nothing incorrect and almost ridiculously sounding can be given to students to purposely confuse them. This is unethical. Somebody probably wrote this text this way unaware how awkward it sounded and your teachers gave it to you to translate. Text which is incorrect in the original cannot be translated correctly into any language. Is it a high school or university level text? If you wanted to translate the second part of your sentence, which does not make much sense in Polish it would be: the visual way is just a poor substitute for the phonetic way. It does not make much sense in English because it did not make any sense in Polish.


----------



## gockab

University. But still I think that as future translators we are going to deal with a number of strange and incorrect texts. And we should be able to deal with them and decide how to translate them.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, definitely. This would be be more or less the translation I gave you. You cannot correct wrong texts: you have to translate whatever they say. It is very hard to translate incorrect texts and there is no sense in it: spreading of illiteracy, perhaps. If the original is incorrect the translation should reflect it and be as ridiculous as the original. Serious translators usually reject texts which have too many mistakes or are incoherent. You don't have to translate anything: it is all your choice. Translation is a free profession.


----------



## LilianaB

As for your translation for school purpose, I cam sorry to tell you this, but the correct translation will be most likely what the teacher has in mind: his or her idea of correct translation of this sentence.


----------



## dreamlike

I agree with Liliana that there's something off about these sentences. As for the content, speech and writing are two different means of communication. Why would one be used to _depict _the other? Why calling writing a poor substitute for speech? What's the rationale behind it? I, for one, find writing a better way to impart my thoughts accurately. As for the form, I don't like the concepts _"a visual way"_ and _"a phonetic way". _I can tell at a glance that the author struggled to came up with some alternatives for _speech_ and _writing, _but he/she would be better off without it - the text sounds stilted because of that. Bad piece of writing.


----------



## Ben Jamin

dreamlike said:


> I agree with Liliana that there's something off about these sentences. As for the content, speech and writing are two different means of communication. Why would one be used to _depict _the other? Why calling writing a poor substitute for speech? What's the rationale behind it? I, for one, find writing a better way to impart my thoughts accurately. As for the form, I don't like the concepts _"a visual way"_ and _"a phonetic way". _I can tell at a glance that the author struggled to came up with some alternatives for _speech_ and _writing, _but he/she would be better off without it - the text sounds stilted because of that. Bad piece of writing.



I think that this forum is for *language* questions. Discussing the sense of the sentences themselves is off topic.


----------



## dreamlike

Please let moderators do their job. Gockab's assignment was to translate the sentence that leaves a lot to be desired, in terms of both the form and content. I think it merits a mention. Also, it has a bearing on the translation, which is bound to sound bad if there's something wrong with the sentence in the source language.


----------

