Pending moderation
Some people translate songs strait, with exact meaning.
But some make translations, ready to sing it in other language, but it is impossible to make words exact.
It would be good if translations could be sorted by this feature.
I think it would be good to have a mark if song translated literally, or this is a cover layered on music
That's a good idea. I normally add the information into the title by writing "adaptation" (or "Nachdichtung" if it's into German) in brackets behind the title, and I also made a collection of my poetic translations. But it would be nice to mark them in a more official way.
On the not fully poetic but also not quite literal translations of mine I just left a note in the translator's comment field.
In any case, it is very recommended to point out that it is a poetic translation if you add one.
Some time ago I proposed a classification system for LT translations to inform the readers and make searching for poetic/singable translations easier. My suggestion was ignored. Here it is again anyway:
The [LASER] system:
Primary markers:
L. Literal translation (no form enhancements).
A. Adapted to sound natural (includes word and line order changes, translated idioms, language-specific minor stylistic touches, meaning clarifications, etc.)
S. Singable (some rhythmic inconsistencies are present in translation and/or the original, but they don't interfere with singing).
E. Equirhythmic (the same number of syllables per line as in the original, preserving the original meter with mostly natural syllable stressing in the translation).
Secondary markers:
R. Rhymed translation (applies to categories S and E only, there is no point in rhyming the unmetered text).
p. Poetic license - deviations from the meaning of the original are present (extra words, extra or omitted information, substituted concepts).
Separate category:
P. Poetic translation (metered and rhymed but not matching the meter of the original, i.e. not singable to the original musical score).
The allowed marker combinations:
[L], [A], [A-p], [S], [S-p], [SR], [SR-p], [E], [E-p], [ER], [ER-p], [P].
The [ER] translations are the ultimate goal. All my translations are currently marked in the comments, using the proposed system. It would be nice to have a feature like that available to mark every translation by selecting from [LASER] menu when posting.
Hm, I don't remember having read that suggestion of yours before.
I don't think we need so many categories. For one, almost no one will use most of them, and also not everything will fit neatly into these categories. For example if it's a longer text, parts of it might fit one category, parts another. And whether there are "deviations from the literal meaning" or not also is a matter of degree, not a simple dichotomy.
And you might also want to distinguish between P and P-p - I have poetic translations with only very few poetic licenses, and so it is possible to have them with none.
Furthermore, what about rhyme without rhythm? You say it's not a thing, but I wouldn't think so.
And what is if the original is not equirhythmic? (seems pretty frequent to me that it isn't)
I think this classification encompasses everything one could possibly write when translating. Singable and equirhythmic translations don't just happen by accident: they are a result of translator's intent and significant extra effort. Surely readers would appreciate knowing in advance whether a translation is singable or equirhythmic.
Regarding system usage: if one posts a translation without considering all these implications, it should be automatically marked as [L] by the system. Selecting correct classification markers from the menu is up to the author if he chooses to do so. If the author overindulges and marks his/her output as something it is not, then editors/mods should be able to correct the claimed attributes. To me it sounds like a useful feature to be developed.
Yes, it is possible to have a distinction between [P] and [P-p] and there are people on LT who post mostly [P]/[P-p] translations, but I have always considered preserving the meter in poetry and poetic songs to be paramount.
Hardly any of my poetic translations is truly equirhythmic but most are rhyming, at least for the most part.
Perhaps you could try and categorize some of my translations?
The poetic ones can be found here: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/collection/poetic-translations (2 of them are into English)
And one further point, if you allow: I think the first category (L) is not even allowed here, as that would be mere glossing, unless the languages in question are so similar that they always have the same word order.
To do that one needs to understand both languages or (if one doesn't understand the source) at least have a target meter pattern posted for the translation (I usually post the meter for my [E]-class translations, especially to English, to make sure that stresses are correctly applied). Unfortunately, I don't know German and won't be able to properly classify your translations.
Regarding the L category: I agree - what I meant to say is that obviously any [L] translation must follow the grammar rules of the target language and then preserving the word order is next to impossible for most language pairs, but you will be surprised how many people here post "mere glossings" that deserve only an [L]. I personally would never do such a thing: to me every translation must be adapted to the target language to make any sense, but if you look at my work you will notice that most of it is [E] (equirhythmic) - that's what I strive to achieve (not just approximate singability), although very few people seem to appreciate that.
A better definition of [L] category: literal translation adhering to all grammar rules of a foreign language (with that, the word order changes are allowed since they are unavoidable).
To do that one needs to understand both languages or (if one doesn't understand the source) at least have a target meter pattern posted for the translation (I usually post the meter for my [E]-class translations, especially to English, to make sure that stresses are correctly applied). Unfortunately, I don't know German and won't be able to properly classify your translations.
Okay, I guessed that might be an issue - with most of your categories only referring to the form, though, I assumed you might be able to if you knew the target language.
I have some from Spanish to English, but they are not poetic translations.
Regarding the L category: I agree - what I meant to say is that obviously any [L] translation must follow the grammar rules of the target language and then preserving the word order is next to impossible for most language pairs, but you will be surprised how many people here post "mere glossings" that deserve only an [L].
Well, then feel free to report them. I very rarely encounter those.
I personally would never do such a thing: to me every translation must be adapted to the target language to make any sense, but if you look at my work you will notice that most of it is [E] - that's what I strive to achieve (not just approximate singability), although very few people seem to appreciate that.
Considering a major part of the songs from which I translate are not fully equirhythmic in the original, some being not metric at all, I don't think it's something that is of that high importance, even though I do appreciate good poetic translations (of any category).
Quote: "Considering a major part of the songs from which I translate are not fully equirhythmic in the original, some being not metric at all, I don't think it's something that is of that high importance..."
Well, it is true that not every song has a consistent meter, but most must have some kind of meter (to be singable). Occasional deviations from the consistent meter are what often makes a song memorable and unique. Originals are not equirhythmic (only translations can be such) but it is very rare for them to have no metric pattern at all. Whatever the original meter pattern might be is how you remember and recognize the song. If you want to sing the song in a foreign language maintaining the original rhythmic structure exactly (with all deviations), you need an equirhythmic translation. Most equirhythmic "translations" in the world of music are usually adapted covers: new poetry is written to match the original meter exactly but the meaning is routinely sacrificed (or completely changed) in the process. Some people here do that too: imho such output is not "translations" and should not be allowed. After all this is a translator's site.
IMO, the number of syllables is not always totally relevant, there might be slight deviations, for ex. in English. What is more important is the meter, based on the tonic accent. Sometimes you might find two short syllables in the place of a long one, but the meter is kept. In Edgar Poe's "The Raven" for ex, you can read :
"Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor."
If you want to keep the rythm (and so should you), then you have to pronounce "And each sep'rate dying ember", although normally one says "se-pa-rate". Same with the verse "Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling" (it looks like there is an excess syllable - in "ebony" - , but the rythm is there). I guess one doens't have to keep absolutely the same number of syllables in the translation, just the rythm.
In French we have the notion of "synérèse" and "diérèse", meaning that some words can be pronounced using a varying number of syllables. For ex, "hier" (=yesterday) can be prounounced "hier" (one syllable, synérèse) or "hi-er" (two syllables, diérèse) if so needed in a poem. But in French, the number of syllables is relevant in a verse, because we don't have the same notion of rythm as in English, German or Russian.
In French we have the notion of "synérèse" and "diérèse", meaning that some words can be pronounced using a varying number of syllables. For ex, "hier" (=yesterday) can be prounounced "hier" (one syllable, synérèse) or "hi-er" (two syllables, diérèse) if so needed in a poem.
In fact it's pretty common in songs, especially at line endings where "pro-vence" usually becomes "pro-ven-ce". "L'important, c'est la ro-se" etc.
And each separate dying ember
At least if it's in a translation, this ambiguity (for the uninitiated reader) can be avoided by spelling it "sep'rate".
And you have the same issue in other languages, e.g. Italian or Spanish where adjacent vowels cause entire syllables to "disappear" in a contraction when spoken ("nell' aria il fumo" = "nell-a-rial-fu-mo" - five syllables, not seven).
I've written a couple of equirhythmic translations into German and sometimes even I have to pause and remember how exactly I intended the syllables to fit the meter.
That's why in addition to classification markers it is important to identify the meter in [S], [E], and [P] translations, especially when translating to languages where the majority of words are short with one and two syllables (like English), otherwise the metric pattern is not really obvious (unlike in Russian for example, which generally has longer, multi-syllable words with specific stressing patterns: that makes identifying the meter much easier).
In my [E] translations of poetry to English I usually post the running meter in the comments if it is consistent throughout, like
[ -^ -^ -^ -^ -^- ]
[ -^ -^ -^ -^ -^ ]
In [S] and [E] translations of songs this is often not necessary, since one can easily follow the original song in the video and reproduce the rhythmic pattern.
In fact it's pretty common in songs, especially at line endings where "pro-vence" usually becomes "pro-ven-ce". "L'important, c'est la ro-se" etc.
Well, if at the end of a verse, it's something different. If a verse ends with the word "Provence" for ex, that's called a "rime féminine" (feminine rhyme), because it ends with a "e muet" (mute e), which normally isn't pronounced... except if you're from Southern France or in some cases in songs.
If you consider any classical verse ending with a feminine rhyme, you'll notice that the final "e muet" doesn't count for a syllable. Say for ex :
"Tous ses projets semblaient l’un l’autre se détruire :" (Racine, "Athalie").
This is an alexandrine (12 syllables) : Tous / ses / pro / jets / sem / blaient // l'un / l'au / tre / se / dé / truire
So you notice that the final syllable is "truire", although inside the verse, the word "autre" (also ending with a "e muet") counts for 2 syllables, because it is followed by a consonant (se).
True, by now, there are less and less (French) people understanding what is a "e muet" and what are the rules about it in a poem or a song...
Actually, as I forgot to mention it, the synérèse / diérèse may only concern words including vowels following each other, the first one being either i, u or ou (diphtong). For ex:
purifier (pu / ri / fier, or : pu / ri / fi / er)
délicieux (dé / li / cieux, or : dé / li / ci / eux)
ruine (ruine, or : ru / ine)
fouet (fouet, or : fou / et)...
In my [E] translations of poetry to English I usually post the running meter in the comments if it is consistent throughout, like [ -^ -^ -^ -^ -^- ]
One might also name the meter : chorea, iamb, anapest... The number of "feet" may vary along the verses, even if the meter stays the same :
Ты оденешь меня в серебро (3 times tadadam)
И когда я умру, (only 2 times tadadam)
Выйдет месяц — небесный Пьеро, (3 times)
Встанет красный паяц на юру. (3 times)
(Blok)
but it's all anapests here.
One as well might, however I doubt that most users here know the names of poetic meters and their patterns, but anyone can follow the rhythmic structure if it is explicitly shown. Notice that in the example I provided the meter is consistent but the endings of odd and even lines differ:
[ -^ -^ -^ -^ -^- ]
[ -^ -^ -^ -^ -^ ]
Just giving the meter name won't provide such details.
IMO, the number of syllables is not always totally relevant, there might be slight deviations, for ex. in English. What is more important is the meter, based on the tonic accent. Sometimes you might find two short syllables in the place of a long one, but the meter is kept. In Edgar Poe's "The Raven" for ex, you can read :
"Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor."
If you want to keep the rythm (and so should you), then you have to pronounce "And each sep'rate dying ember", although normally one says "se-pa-rate".
If the "separate" there was a verb, your opinion would be perfectly correct. But it's an adjective, and thus has two variants of transcription -> ˈsɛp(ə)rət. Just like "moderate" for instance. ;)
Same with the verse "Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling" (it looks like there is an excess syllable - in "ebony" - , but the rythm is there).
The same comes for the "ebony" - it has two variants of transcription.
St. Sol wrote:
Regarding the L category: I agree - what I meant to say is that obviously any [L] translation must follow the grammar rules of the target language and then preserving the word order is next to impossible for most language pairs, but you will be surprised how many people here post "mere glossings" that deserve only an [L].
Sciera wrote:
Well, then feel free to report them. I very rarely encounter those.
Well, I am already blacklisted by the LT mods for daring to suggest that some of the mods' translations are misleading, misunderstood, and need corrections. One example (I am not going to name names) currently stands out as a completely misunderstood and mistranslated piece by a certain mod, currently with 22 Thanks and counting (pity those misled souls, reading and thanking that incoherent output). So, if you excuse me, I am not going to report anything nor will I attempt to make this site better for everyone anymore. Actions have consequences, and letting police police themselves obviously isn't working.
I think that many categories is unnecessary. Beyond poetic/liberal translation, I think the translator can just specify in the title or the comments on that translation, and similarly if know the meter etc. I think that the vast majority of translations are going to be fairly literal or a bit of a mix which will be a headache to finely categorise. If someone is specifically looking for a singable translation where only a literal one exists, I think they can put in a new translation request and specify that it should be singable etc. in the target language.This is my opinion, I think if people want to include these on their own translations to go ahead but I don't think it will necessarily become important for more than a few users?
Well, I am already blacklisted by the LT mods for daring to suggest that some of the mods' translations are misleading, misunderstood, and need corrections.
Well, even the Holy Bible's translations are misleading, misunderstood, and need corrections, here and there. And those who dare say this are always blacklisted by the clergy. :D Actually, nothing changes as time passes. Except some minor details... :)
Not that anyone cares, but about 95% of my translations are equirhythmic singable ones, and most of them are rhymed as well. Some people just need/want a real challenge, and making [ER] translations without overusing poetic license is the ultimate challenge. I see many more members attempting equirhythmic/singable translations nowadays, hence some built-in system to inform the readers would be really useful imho.
Well, it is true that not every song has a consistent meter, but most must have some kind of meter (to be singable). Occasional deviations from the consistent meter are what often makes a song memorable and unique.
Well, some of the songs I know truly have no meter, but that might be due to the music genre.
E.g. one of the Spanish ones I translated: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/andramelech-visi%C3%B3n-destino-unificaci...
Or the majority of songs by this band: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/deathspell-omega-lyrics.html (a lot of their lyrics are more theological treatises than poetry)
Originals are not equirhythmic (only translations can be such) but it is very rare for them to have no metric pattern at all. Whatever the original meter pattern might be is how you remember and recognize the song. If you want to sing the song in a foreign language maintaining the original rhythmic structure exactly (with all deviations), you need an equirhythmic translation.
Seems like I misunderstood your explanation of "equirhythmic". I understood it as "keeping the same rhythm through the whole text". I now see that your explanation is ambiguous.
I don't think I added much any equirhythmic translations but some nevertheless are quite singable to the original melody, e.g.
https://lyricstranslate.com/en/they-rode-se-ts%C3%B4ren-waita.html
What seems most important is not that the rhythm is entirely the same but that there is the same amount of stressed syllables as in the original, as was mentioned before.
Most equirhythmic "translations" in the world of music are usually adapted covers: new poetry is written to match the original meter exactly but the meaning is routinely sacrificed (or completely changed) in the process. Some people here do that too: imho such output is not "translations" and should not be allowed. After all this is a translator's site.
If a poetic translation is actually performed, then it normally should be added as a song instead of as a translation. But that rule doesn't depend on how close it's to the original in content.
If it is a fully different content I would agree, though, that one might instead better add it as lyrics, but this again is a sliding scale.
Well, I am already blacklisted by the LT mods for daring to suggest that some of the mods' translations are misleading, misunderstood, and need corrections. One example (I am not going to name names) currently stands out as a completely misunderstood and mistranslated piece by a certain mod, currently with 22 Thanks and counting (pity those misled souls, reading and thanking that incoherent output). So, if you excuse me, I am not going to report anything nor will I attempt to make this site better for everyone anymore. Actions have consequences, and letting police police themselves obviously isn't working.
That's entirely new to me as a mod. Feel very free to leave feedback like that on my translations, I get hardly any.
Sciera wrote:
Seems like I misunderstood your explanation of "equirhythmic". I understood it as "keeping the same rhythm through the whole text". I now see that your explanation is ambiguous.
Sorry if I didn't explain it properly, but it is pretty straightforward: the original may or may not have a CONSISTENT meter (a specific repeatable pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables in every line), but the translation is EQUIRHYTHMIC only if it duplicates the entire rhythmic pattern of the original whatever it might be (in every line) and as such it can be sung with perfect synchronicity with the original. If rhythmic inconsistencies (deviations from a rigid rhythmic structure throughout the piece) are present in the original, they may be preserved in the translation OR eliminated altogether by adding/removing syllables to restore the underlying rigid meter and improve singability. In the latter case I usually note in the comments that "rhythmic corrections" were employed in the translation. If the original has no an underlying rigid meter (which can be variable even within one line, like [--^ -^ --^ --^- ]), then the point of equirhythmicity is moot. Hopefully that explains it.
Sciera wrote:
Seems like I misunderstood your explanation of "equirhythmic". I understood it as "keeping the same rhythm through the whole text". I now see that your explanation is ambiguous.Sorry if I didn't explain it properly, but it is pretty straightforward: the original may or may not have a CONSISTENT meter (a specific repeatable pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables in every line), but the translation is EQUIRHYTHMIC only if it duplicates the entire rhythmic pattern of the original whatever it might be (in every line) and as such it can be sung with perfect synchronicity with the original. If rhythmic inconsistencies (deviations from a rigid rhythmic structure throughout the piece) are present in the original, they may be preserved in the translation OR eliminated altogether by adding/removing syllables to restore the underlying rigid meter and improve singability. In the latter case I usually note in the comments that "rhythmic corrections" were employed in the translation. If the original has no an underlying rigid meter (which can be variable even within one line, like [--^ -^ --^ --^- ]), then the point of equirhythmicity is moot. Hopefully that explains it.
Thanks, then I now had understood it correctly.
Eliminating inconsistencies in the original doesn't necessarily make it more singable if the melody includes these inconsistencies itself, e.g. in order to stress certain parts.
If the "separate" there was a verb, your opinion would be perfectly correct. But it's an adjective, and thus has two variants of transcription -> ˈsɛp(ə)rət. Just like "moderate" for instance. ;)
Same with the verse "Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling" (it looks like there is an excess syllable - in "ebony" - , but the rythm is there).
The same comes for the "ebony" - it has two variants of transcription.
True, my Harrap's indicates the pronunciation [sep(ə)rət] for the adjective "separate". But for "ebony", it gives ['ebənɪ]. My conclusion is that the syllable count in English is not always very accurate. I suppose that some English speakers (perhaps American ones) pronounce ['eb(ə)nɪ]. At the moment, I can't fancy similar cases in French, except for the case of the dieresis.
Oh, of course i should have mentioned the case of the "e muet" in French : the sentence "je me retourne" (I'm turning back) can be pronounced as : "Je me retourne", "J'me retourne, "je m' retourne, "j'me r'tourne"... But that is all felt as colloquial, it may be OK in colloquial style songs but not in high level poetry.
With the system in place, nobody will be forced to use it or ponder the meaning of different categories. An automatic [L] classification will be applied to every posted translation unless the author decides that his translation is more than [L]. Then (if he wishes) he can select an appropriate category for his work based on what he believes he accomplished (whether he adapted it to sound natural, made it singable or equirhythmic, rhymed it, or just wrote a poetic piece with a different meter). It will be totally up to the author to add (mark) these attributes and inform the readers, or just ignore it all and post his translation just as it is done now. No pressure to learn new things or study metric patterns. It makes sense to me.
But what about the vast amount of songs having no rhythm (and no words, and no melody) in the original version ? I mean the "yeah yeah yeah oh I miss you" songs ? o:)
Sorry, I thought we were talking about art... Yet I repeat, every song must have some kind of a meter to be singable (even if the meter is inconsistent or just a "yeah, yeah, yeah..." pattern). The classification can be applied (but only if desired by the author) to any translation. If a song is just a random cocktail of sounds, then any translation will be [L] or [A], that simple.
I just came across a French version of "Puff, the magic dragon" which is quite instructive. True, it's an adaptation, so one should't look for a "word to word" translation, and true, the translator did his (or her) best to find rhymes. True again, this version has been sung (by Claude François) on the same melody as the original, but to me the result is mostly painful. You can read the French lyrics and listen to the result here on bide-et-musique.com (« bide et musique » meaning "total flop and music" !)
Already in the first verse :
Puff, the magic dragon > Puff, le dragon magique. Right, but in French the stress is on the secund syllable of « magique », and hearing « maaaaaagique » sounds heavily artificial, while in English, « draaaagon » seems quite natural.
The same with "Et Puff, sans son ami, s'endormit" (aaaaami, horrible !)
Also : A dragon lives forever > Un dragon vit éternellement (ouch!) Etc.
Then in some verses there are plenty of excess syllables, so the poor singer has to run along them in order to try sticking to the rhythm : "Puff devint très triste, ses écailles tombèrent comme la pluie" (Green scales fell like rain) : 9 syllables instead of 5... (if spoken in a colloquial way, because normally there are 11 syllables there).
(some other verses sound not bad, like "Vivait dans un pays lointain, tout au bord de l'océan."
Of course, this is not supposed to be a masterpiece, but is shows how delicate it is to adapt the rhythm of a foreign song, and what kind of mistakes one should avoid. I tried a translation too, but it's not supposed to be an equirhythmic one ! (my belly was just aching from the former French « translation » ;( ).
Sorry, I thought we were talking about art... Yet I repeat, every song must have some kind of a meter to be singable (even if the meter is inconsistent or just a "yeah, yeah, yeah..." pattern).
Well, then please take a look at the examples I linked here yesterday. Those lyrics certainly are art, and they are sung, at least for the most part, but I would have a hard time to find any meter in the majority of the texts.
This is an excellent idea. I have been even thinking when filling in the request to have a field where to mention whether a poetic translation is asked for or just a "word to word" one and yet to make some sense, of course.
This is an excellent idea. I have been even thinking when filling in the request to have a field where to mention whether a poetic translation is asked for or just a "word to word" one and yet to make some sense, of course.
I have seen requests where it was specified in the "requester's comment" field (and even fulfilled one of these requests myself some time ago).
Well, I might give those requests a try when there is an easier way to find them ;)
Please check this thread https://lyricstranslate.com/en/forum/updates/translation-tags
I applaud anyone trying to make a translation singable. That's actually two jobs--the translation from one language to another, and then trying to adjust the rhyme, meter, etc.
It's practically making a whole new song.
One of the better "professional" examples might be "Yesterday When I Was Young" (https://lyricstranslate.com/en/Herbert-Kretzmer-YESTERDAY-WHEN-I-WAS-YOU...). This song was originally entitled "Hier Encore" (French:Yesterday Again-- https://lyricstranslate.com/en/charles-aznavour-hier-encore-lyrics.html). Herbert Kretzmer wrote new lyrics that really captured the meaning of to Charles Aznavour's song.
Going the other way, Jacques Yvart's "Ma maison au bord de l'eau" (sung by Nicole Rieu -- https://lyricstranslate.com/en/nicole-rieu-ma-maison-au-bord-de-leau-lyr...) caught most of the meaning of John Farrar's "Have You Never Been Mellow (sung by Olivia Newton-John -- https://lyricstranslate.com/en/olivia-newton-john-have-you-never-been-me...) Heck, the two singers even sound alike!
