Because true translation is not a binary affair between two languages but a triangular affair. The third point of the triangle being what lay behind the words of the original text before it was written. True translation demands a return to the pre-verbal. One reads and rereads the words of the original text in order to penetrate through them to reach, to touch, the vision or experience that prompted them. One then gathers up what one has found there and takes this quivering almost wordless “thing” and places it behind the language it needs to be translated into. And now the principal task is to persuade the host language to take in and welcome the “thing” that is waiting to be articulated.
Interesting, huh? That mechanical translation matches word to word then seeks to get the grammar correct, but is the original idea or meaning translated well that way?
As I begin to live in a country where the language is not my first language, I find that, at least in this first phase, I’m translating all the time. Reading or hearing French and translating it into English in my head to understand the meaning. But already there are phrases which seem to require no translation, and phrases that pop into my head fully formed in French. I’m guessing that gradually I’ll do less and less translation.
But actually although Berger is talking about translating a text from one language into another, I think maybe the same issues apply to all communication. I have an idea or a feeling to express, pick some words, some phrases. I’m translating it into written or spoken language. Aren’t I? Which leads me to wonder about the rich diversity of inner lives. I’m sure we all get that experience, from time to time, where we think that someone else seems to come from another planet. Where their worldview is so different from ours that we don’t even seem to be speaking a common language, despite the fact that a superficial observation would lead to the conclusion that we are indeed speaking the same language.
When Berger mentions the third point of the triangle, I suspect he is thinking of our inner lives. That leads me to three questions today.
- How can I know my inner life?
- How can I express or show my inner life?
- How can I know the inner life of another?
For me, the first involves practices of awareness and reflection, the second, creative acts, and the third requires ongoing dialogue. Isn’t it interesting that all three have no end? I will never know myself completely, never be able to fully express myself, and never fully know another. That makes me feel both excited and humble.
Excited because all that is an adventure, a voyage of discovery, and a constant stream of revelation and wonder. It is the ‘émerveillement du quotidien‘.
Humble because nothing can be known completely, fully or finally. Montaigne knew that with his ‘Que sais-je?‘
Over to you now. How do you answer those three questions? You, personally, in your own life?
- How can I know my inner life?
- How can I express or show my inner life?
- How can I know the inner life of another?
Heroes Not Zombies 
Leave a Reply