# Slovenian: translating foreign names



## reka

Živjo,

koliko je treba ostati zvest izvirniku pri prevajanju imen raznih ustanov ipd.?

Na primer, imam tole: Poseban doprinos razvoju psihodinamičke psihijatrije i psihoanalitičke psihoterapije kod nas načinjen je osnivanjem škole za psihoanalitičku psihoterapiju u Institutu za mentalno zdravlje daleke 1977. godine, u sklopu Medicinskog fakulteta u Beogradu.
 
Institut za mentalno zdravlje je ime ustanove. Jasno se to v slovenščino prevede Inštitut za mentalno (duševno?) zdravje...samo kaj storiti z izvirnimi imeni v takih primerih? Je treba to pustiti, zapisati v oklepaju...?
"Medicinska fakulteta v Beogradu" - tu menda ja ne bom pisala izvirnega naziva poleg.
 
Ali pa podobno: Psihoanalitičko društvo Beograda. Po naše: Psihoanalitično društvo Beograda. Ali: bečko psihoanalitičko društvo, po naše: dunajsko psihoanalitično društvo - naj za vse to iščem izvirna imena in jih dajem poleg v oklepaj?
 
Ne vem, kako in kaj glede tega...kaj menite? Oz. ali kdo ve, kakšna je pravilna in ustaljena praksa v slovenskem prostoru? Rada bi bila dosledna, samo pretiravat pa tudi nočem
 
Hvala za mnenja!


----------



## Orlin

Zdravo, Reka! Izvinite što sam se opet pojavio u slovenačkoj diskusiji, samo bih hteo da izrazim mnjenje.
Ja savetujem da ostavite sve nazive srpskohrvatskog porekla u izvornom vidu, jer je razlika između srpskohrvatskog i slovenačkog relativno mala i većinom "srpskohrvatska" i "slovenačka" verzije naziva ću se razlikovati malo (nije lako da se primeti, kao u 2 od vaših 3 primera) ili nikako. Mislim da čak i u slučajima kad je razlika bitna (npr. "bečki" vs. "dunajski"), izvorna verzija neće da zvuči "inostrano". Ja gotovo nikad ne osećam da je slovenački jezik zaista daleko od srpskohrvatskog.
Ja sam uvek mislio da je srpskohrvatski jezik još veoma razumljiv i popularan u Sloveniji, zato ga i osećam tako bliskim. Ispravite me ako grešim.


----------



## reka

Orlin, 
hvala za vaše mnenje! Bom kar po slovensko odgovorila, saj razumete zelo dobro, kot vidim

Res je, da sta srbščina in hrvaščina pri nas še vedno dokaj "domači" in da so si jeziki podobni, jaz osebno teh dveh jezikov sploh ne jemljem zares kot "tujih" Samo je treba nekako biti dosleden in "politično korekten" ter upoštevati, da so to vseeno tuji nazivi...smo pač različne države, čeprav določene generacije še vedno veže nek skupen duh...samo to je bolj stvar "individualne nostalgije" kot pa sodobne politične realnosti

Vendar če bom recimo rekla "Ameriško društvo" pa v oklepaju dodala "American society", potem moram biti enako korektna do srbščine ali hrvaščine

Pa saj ne vem, do kakšne mere naj "picajzljam"...


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Se strinjam z reko. Slovenščina in nekdanja srbohrvaščina (hrvaščina/srbščina/bosanščina) sta res sorodna slovanska jezika, a je to v tem primeru povsem nepomembno. Srbohrvaščina je še vedno tuj jezik; prevajamo jo na televiziji, na radiu, v tiskanih medijih itn. Mnogo ljudi, še posebej tistih, ki so odraščali po letu 1991, pa srbohrvaščine tudi ne razume dovolj dobro. (Mnogim je angleščina celo bližja.) Srbohrvaška imena podjetij torej obravnavamo enako kot na primer angleška imena -- ne (samo) zaradi politične korektnosti in konsistentnosti, ampak tudi zaradi lažjega razumevanja. Mislim, da v Srbiji, Bosni, Črni gori in na Hrvaškem tudi prevajajo imena slovenskih ustanov.

Splošna praksa v Sloveniji je, da imena tujih ustanov (univerz, bolnic, inštitutov itn.) prevajamo, nekateri prevajalci oz. mediji -- vsekakor manjšina -- pa jih pustijo kar v izvirniku. Pogost "kompromis" je izvirnik v oklepajih. (Če pa je izvirnik zelo podoben slovenskemu, kot v srbskih primerih zgoraj, to verjetno ni potrebno.)


----------



## Orlin

Zdravo, TriglavNationalPark!
Slažem se s vama o neophodnosti prevoda srpskohrvatskih naziva institucija - kako ja bih rekao, tako je 90% radi političke korektnosti i 10% zbog opasnosti lažnog razumevanja (mislim da je izbegivanje lažnog sporazuma bitno u bilo kom tipu formalne komunikacije, a i ima nemalo "lažnih prijatelja" u slovenačkom i BCS).
Samo ne razumem zašto kažete "Mnogim je angleščina celo bližja" - s čisto lingvističkog aspekta srpskohrvatski je izuzetno mnogo bliži do slovenačkog nego slovenački je do engleskog i pretpostavljam da je tako (najveć) zbog političkih razloga. Tako li je?
Izvinjavam se što opet upotrebljavam srpskohrvatski. Mislite li da je "normalno" prisustvo "slovenačko-hrvatskih" diskusija ovde u forumu?


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Orlin said:


> Smo ne razumem zašto kažete "Mnogim je angleščina celo bližja" - s čisto lingvističkog aspekta srpskohrvatski je izuzetno mnogo bliži do slovenačkog nego slovenački je do engleskog i pretpostavljam da je tako (najveć) zbog političkih razloga. Tako li je?


 
I was thinking primarily of the generation that grew up after 1991.

Some young people have difficulties understanding spoken BCS. Yes, Slovenian and BCS are closely related Slavic languages, but they are not mutually intelligible. A young tourist from Ljubljana speaking Slovenian in downtown Belgrade could probably make himself understood on a basic level, but he almost certianly wouldn't be able to participate in a fluent conversation. There are just too many differences, in terms of lexis, phonology and grammar. In Yugoslav times, young Slovenes were taught Serbo-Croatian in schools, Slovenian men were exposed to Serbo-Croatian during mandatory military service, and Serbo-Croatian media were widespread. The situation was therefore highly asymmetrical: Slovenes were familiar with BCS, while BCS had almost no exposure to Slovenian.

Since independence, however, BCS has no longer been taught in Slovenian schools, and Slovenian television no longer shows any BCS programming without subtitles. Young people may still be exposed to BCS in popular music, for instance, or when they vacation in Croatia, but they don't encounter BCS on a daily basis like they did in Yugoslav times. And of those who understand BCS without difficulties, many don't speak it well.

English, on the other hand, is extremely widespread among young people in Slovenia. They use the language to communicate with foreigners, they are taught it from an early age in school, they use it to surf the net, and they are exposed to it on TV and the movies. (Except for cartoons, foreign TV is never dubbed in Slovenia; it's always subtitled.)

For example, my nephew, who is in his early twenties, goes to Belgrade, he can communicate fairly well with the locals using an improvised combination of Slovenian and acquired BCS, but when that turns out to be insufficient, he switches to English, which comes naturally to him and is also commonly spoken by young Serbs. His situation is typical.


----------



## Orlin

Hi! I was sure that you actually meant that: you didn't comment the relation between languages but their use for practical purposes, and the use of a common language (no matter that is very remotedly related to the native languages of the speakers) is for practical purposes highly better than a basic-level conversation in relatively low-level mutually understandable languages. I probably can participate in Slovenian discussions mainly because not very difficult Slovenian is used in them and the possible meaning is relatively easy to predict (the discussion is usually restricted to general or not very specialist linguistic topics).
And look what we have done in this thread - 3 Slovenian, 2 BCS and 2 English posts and still all understand one another! And sorry for possible off-topicness!


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Orlin said:


> Hi! I was sure that you actually meant that: you didn't comment the relation between languages but their use for practical purposes, and the use of a common language


 
Indeed. I meant "closer" in a figurative case; the young generation tends to be more familiar with English than with BCS.



Orlin said:


> I probably can participate in Slovenian discussions mainly because not very difficult Slovenian is used in them and the possible meaning is relatively easy to predict (the discussion is usually restricted to general or not very specialist lisguistic topics).


 
I think this has a lot do do with the fact that we're dealing with written rather than spoken language here. Slovenian phonology tends to be very different from that of other Slavic languages. Even words that are spelled identically in Slovenian and BCS are often pronounced very differently.

I think this factor makes a significant difference in the level of comprehension between any two Slavic languages. For instance, I can read Czech and Slovak news articles without any major problems, but I have difficulties understanding everyday spoken Czech and Slovak.



Orlin said:


> And loook what we have done in this thread - 3 Slovenian, 2 BCS and 2 English posts and still all understand one another! And sorry for possible off-topicness!


 
I can't speak for the moderators, but I enjoy discussions like this one!


----------



## sokol

Putting my mod hat on - please let's stay more focussed  we have now established that BCS no longer is widely spoken and understood in Slovenia but to discuss this change (which already began before 1991 and is now more or less an established fact as the younger generation already was educated without Serbian/Croatian as obligatory subject) would require a new thread. 

 Now to the _proper _topic of this thread: 


reka said:


> Institut za mentalno zdravlje je ime ustanove. Jasno se to v slovenščino prevede Inštitut za mentalno (duševno?) zdravje...samo kaj storiti z izvirnimi imeni v takih primerih? Je treba to pustiti, zapisati v oklepaju...?
> ...
> Ali pa podobno: Psihoanalitičko društvo Beograda. Po naše: Psihoanalitično društvo Beograda. Ali: bečko psihoanalitičko društvo, po naše: dunajsko psihoanalitično društvo - naj za vse to iščem izvirna imena in jih dajem poleg v oklepaj?


There are in my opinion actually very good reasons for translating BCS names: both languages are still quite similar, and thus some sounds and morphemes just look the more foreign if they are left untranslated; also it would look awkward to declense a Serbian institution according to the Slovenian paradigm while it would be even worse to declense this institution according to the Serbian paradigm, in a Slovenian context.

So declension and morphology actually are an argument in favour of translating such BCS names, even in cases like the ones mentioned by you where surely Slovenians have no problem understanding them.
Also I don't see why you should write, in Slovenian, "Bečko psihoanalitičko društvo": this isn't a BCS name at all - you either should use the original name_ (Wiener Psychoanalytische Vereinigung),_ or you should use the _Slovenian _translation.


----------

