. . ✦ ˚ . ✦ . . ﾟ . • . , . . ✦ . • ✦ • ˚ . ☄ . . . • ✦ . . . . . . . ﾟ . ✦ , . . ✦ . . ☀️ • . . . . • . . . .
✦ . ✦ . ✦ . • .
• . . 🌏 . . ✦ . • ✦ • ˚ . ☄ . . . . • . . ✦ . . . . . . . . . ﾟ .
. . . . . . . . . ✦ . • ✦ • ˚ . . ☄ . • . . . . . • . . • ✦ . . 🪐 . . . . . ﾟ . ✦ , . . . ✦ . • ✦ . 🌘 . . . . . . ﾟ . ✦ , . . ✦ ✦ . • ✦ • ˚ . . ☄ . • . . . . . . ✦ ✦ . •
🔭
Saying "voting doesn't matter" might reach your younger peers online but it certainly hasn't reached Clangus Hargbarg who was part of the kkk in 1951 and still sends in his ballot. He hasn't missed a one.
You don't have to feel shame in order to improve.
It's okay to identify flaws and weaknesses.
However, I've felt that I thrive best in the "Goldilocks Zone" where I'm aware of my shortcomings yet confident enough to keep exploring.
Self-awareness is good, but try not to be too hard on yourself! That can sometimes impede your growth.
WHAT IN THE WOOLLY MOTHERFUCK OF RABBIT IS THAT BIG GREAT CHRIST
danny devito lookalike for scale
if we keep going you think we could breed them big enough to ride like the worlds most jostling horse? owners of the bigger bunny breeds say they behave better then the little ones, they dont do zoomies or try to escape they kinda just flop around like a curious basset hound without a fear in the world, very chill
I’ve seen Watership Down. They can’t fool me.
you know too much
Well that is one hell of a specific reaction image
not by a long shot! lets see here theres the bunny siege
regicide bunny
mob enforcer bunnies
joust bunnies
posh falconry bunny
music critic bunny
dangerously sassy bunny
the other bunny siege, this time on the defensive
parade of the bunny clergy
two separate pipe organ bunnies were made by completely different people
be sure to watch the hot new anime ‘i suspect my squire is a hare’
bun on bun crime
there was also one where a bunny shot a dog with a crossbow, then took the dog to a rigged court, where the dog was sentenced to death by a bunny jury, then hung; but i cant seem to find it again so heres a bunny hunting man for sport, thats just as good right
you may notice hardly any of these are the same illustrator, its almost as pervasive as the damned snail meme and we have no idea how many other illustrations of murder rabbits were lost to time in conclusion- monty python was right all along and all D&D campaigns should include a race of dangerous 3 foot tall harefolk that have access to weaponry
Follow! But follow only if ye be men of valour, for the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so foul, so cruel, that no man yet has fought with it and lived! Bones of full fifty men lie strewn about its lair! So brave knights, if ye do doubt your courage or your strength, come nae further, for death awaits you all, with nasty, big, pointy teeth!
(via the Monty Python fan group over on Facebook)
There’s most likely a reason why they have to do this so in sync, and I am desperate to know
because all cats have a heightened sense of justice and would leave their post if someone else got their food first.
I’ve been having trouble putting this idea into words so you’ll have to bear with me, but I was struck when I saw a Japanese news program interviewing foreign tourists in Japan, and some australian women were dubbed over with a stereotypically feminine speech register (lots of のs and わs), and my first thought was “they weren’t speaking that femininely in english”.
A friend of mine from the UK recently mentioned that he noticed that australia has a generally more masculine culture than england - he felt that everyone is a bit more masculine here, including women. This kind of confirmed to me that my impressions of the dubbing were right - the tourists were speaking in a relatively (internationally) more masculine way. Yet their dub made them sound so much more feminine.
It made me wonder. When translating something, do you translate the manner of speaking “directly”, or “relatively” in terms of cultural norms? Maybe this graph will help me explain the question.
A direct appoach in this case might appear to a Japanese person to result in an unexpectedly masculine register, but preserves how the speaker's cultural upbringing has influenced their speech.
The news program translators chose the relative approach - I think I would prefer the direct approach. I think I prefer it because I believe translation should be a rewriting of the original utterance as if the speaker was originally speaking the target language, and the direct approach compliments that way of thinking the best.
Actually now that I type that, I’m second guessing myself. Does it? It does, if for the purposes of the “rewrite it as if they spoke japanese” thought experiment, we suppose the speaker magically learned japanese seconds before making the utterance, but what if we suppose the speaker magically grew up learning japanese - then maybe they would conform to the relative cultural values. But also, maybe they would never have said such a thing in the first place - their original utterance was informed by their upbringing and cultural values, so how could you possibly know what they would have said if they had known japanese from birth? Maybe my initial instinct was right after all?
If you work in translation, I’m very interested to hear if you have come across this problem and how you deal with it 🙏
Further reading: I think this question also ties into this problem I’ve been struggling to answer for a while.
I don't exactly "work" in translation, but I have a bachelor's and master's degree in it, so here's my take:
Literally THE golden rule you get drilled into your head when you study translation is that a good, professional translation should preserve all information of the original that is necessary and relevant to the purpose of the translation, while sounding like it was written by a native speaker.
Where the line gets blurred is when you get to the question of "what counts as "relevant" information.
For example, if I have to translate an interview with a doctor about a new, revolutionary cancer treatment, then the way this doctor speaks is almost certainly not relevant to the target audience. What is relevant is that I accurately convey they scientific data and causalities the doctor talks about. People won't care if she spoke with a valley girl accent or if he had a lisp--they care that there's a new revolutionary cancer cure and they want to know how it works, what the risks are, etc.
But let's say I have that same interview in a medical novel and part of the plot twist of that novel is that this doctor seems like a complete valley girl ditz on the surface, or that he has terrible stutters and lisps, and is thus not taken seriously at first, but is actually SO, SO VERY SMART that they found a new, revolutionary treatment for cancer! Then, suddenly, their manner of speech IS relevant, because the reader cares not just for the doctor as the presenter of data (which, this being a novel, has a good chance of being fabrication anyway), but for the doctor as a CHARACTER, and their manner of speech is part of that character. To translate that interview in a flat, typical medical speech way would lose relevant information.
Now, it's important to note that it is not as simple as "has a lisp or valley girl accent in English" = "has a lisp or valley girl accent in language X". First of all, language X probably does not even have a direct equivalent of the valley girl accent, so you first have to understand what kind of associations this accent is supposed to invoke and THEN find an accent in your language that accurately conveys this same information. Same for speech impediments. If a lisp in language A is considered a major flaw, but language B sees it more as a minor annoyance... then you probably want to pick something else to accurately convey the severity of the impact this has on the character's credibility.
So the real question here is, what was the purpose of that interview? Was the fact that Australians are generally more of a masculine culture (if that is true) and that Australian women have a more masculine register of speech, actually relevant to what the interview was about? Was it relevant to what the interview was supposed to convey in Japanese?
If yes, then this Japanification of the translation was a mistake.
If not, then it was in line with the golden rule of translation, because translating the register accurately would have added nothing to the relevant information--in fact, it would likely have distracted the Japanese audience from it, because they would have spent the time they should invest in processing the interview's actual subject matter instead wondering why the subtitles/dub were so alien to what a Japanese person would expect.
Hope that helps. :)
This addition is perfect and really highlights the struggle of translation and how you preserve the source or use more localized versions.
HOWEVER
I think there is a perfect solution to the conundrum that OP is having:
Make all Australians dubbed in Kansai-ben
You are both SO right
Oh my god I have it in my 1946 Lily Wallace New American Cookbook too I’m screaming
This is it! This is the white culture we’ve been looking for!
I’m sorry are we just not gonna mention “Beef Tea” “Raw Beef Tea” and “Cooked Raw Beef Tea” one after the other
Because the majority of human existence has not been to the knowledge and supply level we are at now. You can’t just give someone electrolytes in the 19th century, you have no idea what the fuck they are. Someone is sick, and can only keep weak liquids down, but you know enough at this point to realise that man cannot live on water alone. So you work out really weird ways to infuse foodstuffs into liquids they can handle to try and keep food into them. A lot of these also come from a way to stretch nutrient sources in times of poverty and scarcity.
Thank you for this addition. People are curiously comfortable assuming everyone in the past was stupid and illogical, and it’s always struck me as showing a sad lack of empathy for fellow human beings. It’s like people in the past aren’t seen as, you know, people
Your local 19th century PhD researcher popping in here to add to this. Toast water is 100% a drink for treating illness. It turns up listed in several household medicine guides in the 19th century, and is listed as for treating people with fever, diarrhoea and vomiting, who can’t keep anything down. It’s essentially oral rehydration therapy.
It interestingly starts turning up in literature in the period covering five major cholera outbreaks in the UK and US (this was obviously an English language Ngram search).
And peaks several times at epidemic peak points (1830s, 1850, 1880s), including its first peak in 1831/2, which corresponds with the first cholera epidemic in the UK.
It also corresponds with the year William Brooke O’Shaughnessy discovered that a lot of people who were dying of cholera were severely lacking water and salts in their blood and urine. Dehydration was found to be a major cause of death in cholera patients. “Toast water” was suggested in the Lancet medical journal in 1832 as an initial treatment for cholera patients.
Most of the recipes in household medicine guides I found suggest sweetening or flavouring the toast water with something if the patient could keep it down in order to cover the terrible taste.
People in the past were just people. And in this particular case, they were trying to keep their loved ones from dying of cholera.
And here is a link to possibly my fave ever book, with some modern recipes to do the same job , including the water you cooked rice in with the water you cooked rice in plus half a teaspoon of salt - so really toast water was pretty smart - https://en.hesperian.org/hhg/New_Where_There_Is_No_Doctor:Dehydration#Rehydration_drinks
Pin for survivors
Our Lady of the Damp and Rain
Look upon this mighty work! Our Lady resplendent in gold!
There’s a damn good story here.
It's the flip flop that's turned into an anklet that really makes it for me
Image description:
A man is walking down a dirt path, carrying a dog on his shoulder. Both are covered in mud, the man's left flip flop is around his ankle, and the dog is triumphantly holding a fish in its mouth.
End description.
En Anglais, on ne dit pas “quatre vingt dix neuf”, on dit “ninety nine” qu'on pourrait traduire comme “Hurr durr, regardez mois, j'ai un système de numérotation fonctionnel” et je crois que c'est magnifique.
For anyone asking is this cute, I’m going to say yes.
1. That is a very strong animal. If it wanted her to put it down, there is no way she would be holding it.
2. The position of the ears shows relaxation.
3. Nibbling at hair is how horses show affection. In a herd, they nibble at the base of each other’s manes (the very best way to pet a horse is to scratch the base of the mane about halfway down the neck). With a human they like they go for the hair as the closest equivalent.
So, yes, horse is enjoying cuddles.
Human is also very strong!
Me, on the welcome desk in the library: Good morning, how are you today?
Customer: I have welcomed Jesus into my heart and so I am well today and every day.
Me, a little unnerved: Okay then! Is there something I can help you with?
Customer, digging around in his bag and pulling out an iPhone in a box: Unfortunately, Jesus can't help me with this fucking phone, so I came to the library.
For When Not Even God Can Help You!
I appreciate the sound effects they added in.
holy shit is this gorgeous.
