FYI: As an experienced professional interpreter, I'd like to remind pedes that any simultaneous interpreting is going to omit at least 30% and possibly more content and meaning from the interaction.
When an interpreter does not have native-level fluency in the target language, also, a variety of nuances can be lost.
Listening to the interpreter ("interpreting" = audio or spoken translation, "translation" = translation of a text), it is clear that a number of nuances were omitted, and sometimes not well expressed in English.
E.g. At one point, the interpreter for Putin says "That's a subtle question". It seems clear from context that what he means here is "that's a crafty question" that is, a question designed to trick, or maneuver, or manipulate the respondent.
Recommended: to really understand and grasp the content of Putin's replies, seek out a translation into English of a transcript of his answers.
When a transcript is created, all the words spoken are recorded and then a translator can spend much more time and effort refining the translation and conveying the nuances, subtle meanings, and exact expressions in the target language - in this case, English.
Simultaneous interpreting delivers only a very broad foundation for interaction and dialog, but necessarily omits a lot of the meaning.
Great. I'm not suggesting that the interpreting was flawed in any particular way. just that, as researchers and analyzers, we anons should be aware that off-the-cuff interpreting is limited. You should certainly be able to get the gist, even fairly well, but that there are going to be some things that don't get across first up.
(I also wanted to simply clarify that I wasn't suggesting the interpreting was flawed, not so much because of your comment, but because I thought some readers might gain that impression from my words)
I would akin this to different translations of the Bible; so much can be lost/misconstrued through translation. Well said and think you for the insight fren
Translation and interpreting are almost arcane (esoteric) from the perspective of most people who are not intimately involved in the practice. Sometimes its like trying to explain a 3D object to someone who only exists in 2D.
So glad you could appreciate the point.
After only a few years of working in the translation industry, I came to realize that no translation can perfectly capture the full meaning of the original. It just doesn't happen.
In the case of the bible, this is why its so important to connect in heart with he Holy Spirit, so that our thought, understanding and sense of things can be raised above the merely literal level, and into a more transcendent realization.
It seems clear from context that what he means here is "that's a crafty question" that is, a question designed to trick, or maneuver, or manipulate the respondent.
Yes, thats what Putin meant, but he is too smooth to say it as such, so its believable that he called it "subtle". Russian speaking Anons can tells us what Putin really said.
Also, I like listening to Putin speaking and reading translations because he has a unique speech voice. That itself makes it worth watching again, but then time is the issue.
hahahah. No, it's not that he is too smooth to say it as such. It's that the interpreter couldn't find a better word in the moment to express exactly what Putin said. Very likely that in Russian, he used a word that is quite nuanced, and one that may not have a related word in English that carries the exact same subtleties.
I fully expect that Putin would have used a 'smooth' way of expressing it. His attitude comes across quite well in the interview, I thought. But I'm saying, in native English, we would not have used the word "subtle" in that situation and context. It's a very archaic meaning of the word. However, it is a good example of how live interpreting is limited in what dimensions of meaning is conveyed.
Sometimes, in order to communicate the real subtleties (no pun intended), and interpreter will have to use a phrase, or a structure, that effectively communicates the sense in the target language, even though the original speaker might use one simple word in his own tongue.
That's just how it is. There is no real thing such as a one-to-one correspondence for 90% of the words between languages.
So it's important to recognize that Putin didn't call it "subtle". He used a Russian word, not an English one. The interpreter used "subtle". "Subtle" is English.
As for watching the interview, I enjoyed it very much, and watched the whole thing, which is pretty rare for me these days. You can pick up a lot from his expressions, manner of speaking, etc.
Also, note: it is possible that it was not a word, but a phrase, or expression. The interpreter grabbed 'subtle' from his lexicon but without being able to listen and understand Russian, we cannot know whether Putin used a single word, or the turn of phrase that the interpreter adopted.
What I do know is that the use of the English 'subtle' is unnatural, and I could sense the tell-tale signs that the interpreter was grasping for.
Note also: even a native Russian speaker may or may not be able to explain or clearly convey the nuances of what Putin said.
I would say its clear he was implying that Tucker's questions was smart, clever, but designed to get to a certain thing that he wanted Putin to answer or say. Aka he phrased his question in a certain way to achieve an end that may not necessarily have been the way that Putin himself sees the issue.
You can see that happen often in the interview, and its a natural aspect of interviewing. Tucker continually tried to create a context or way of looking at certain issues, and Putin fielded those question carefully, with strength and without stepping into frames that Tucker himself was offering.
I think they both did a pretty good job.
FWIW, I am a bit surprised that an interpreter who is not fluent in English was used. It is axiomatic that in translation and interpreting, listening and comprehending one's second language is far easier than expressing meaning in one's second language.
In the translation (text) industry, a native speaker of the target will always be used where possible.
FYI: As an experienced professional interpreter, I'd like to remind pedes that any simultaneous interpreting is going to omit at least 30% and possibly more content and meaning from the interaction.
When an interpreter does not have native-level fluency in the target language, also, a variety of nuances can be lost.
Listening to the interpreter ("interpreting" = audio or spoken translation, "translation" = translation of a text), it is clear that a number of nuances were omitted, and sometimes not well expressed in English.
E.g. At one point, the interpreter for Putin says "That's a subtle question". It seems clear from context that what he means here is "that's a crafty question" that is, a question designed to trick, or maneuver, or manipulate the respondent.
Recommended: to really understand and grasp the content of Putin's replies, seek out a translation into English of a transcript of his answers.
When a transcript is created, all the words spoken are recorded and then a translator can spend much more time and effort refining the translation and conveying the nuances, subtle meanings, and exact expressions in the target language - in this case, English.
Simultaneous interpreting delivers only a very broad foundation for interaction and dialog, but necessarily omits a lot of the meaning.
The girl I work with is from Russia and so is herhusband. Her entire family is in Russia.
They both watch Tucker Carlson all the time.
I will ask her about the interpretation.
Great. I'm not suggesting that the interpreting was flawed in any particular way. just that, as researchers and analyzers, we anons should be aware that off-the-cuff interpreting is limited. You should certainly be able to get the gist, even fairly well, but that there are going to be some things that don't get across first up.
She said that they did a very good job of translating.
She didn't hear anything that wasn't pretty much translated.
Good to know. I wouldn't really expect anything different. That said, I'd still like to see a translation of a transcript!
I wad not implying that.
Just wanted to be able to give more in depth insight.
Yeah, which I think is a great idea!
(I also wanted to simply clarify that I wasn't suggesting the interpreting was flawed, not so much because of your comment, but because I thought some readers might gain that impression from my words)
I would akin this to different translations of the Bible; so much can be lost/misconstrued through translation. Well said and think you for the insight fren
Translation and interpreting are almost arcane (esoteric) from the perspective of most people who are not intimately involved in the practice. Sometimes its like trying to explain a 3D object to someone who only exists in 2D.
So glad you could appreciate the point.
After only a few years of working in the translation industry, I came to realize that no translation can perfectly capture the full meaning of the original. It just doesn't happen.
In the case of the bible, this is why its so important to connect in heart with he Holy Spirit, so that our thought, understanding and sense of things can be raised above the merely literal level, and into a more transcendent realization.
Yes, thats what Putin meant, but he is too smooth to say it as such, so its believable that he called it "subtle". Russian speaking Anons can tells us what Putin really said.
Also, I like listening to Putin speaking and reading translations because he has a unique speech voice. That itself makes it worth watching again, but then time is the issue.
hahahah. No, it's not that he is too smooth to say it as such. It's that the interpreter couldn't find a better word in the moment to express exactly what Putin said. Very likely that in Russian, he used a word that is quite nuanced, and one that may not have a related word in English that carries the exact same subtleties.
I fully expect that Putin would have used a 'smooth' way of expressing it. His attitude comes across quite well in the interview, I thought. But I'm saying, in native English, we would not have used the word "subtle" in that situation and context. It's a very archaic meaning of the word. However, it is a good example of how live interpreting is limited in what dimensions of meaning is conveyed.
Sometimes, in order to communicate the real subtleties (no pun intended), and interpreter will have to use a phrase, or a structure, that effectively communicates the sense in the target language, even though the original speaker might use one simple word in his own tongue.
That's just how it is. There is no real thing such as a one-to-one correspondence for 90% of the words between languages.
So it's important to recognize that Putin didn't call it "subtle". He used a Russian word, not an English one. The interpreter used "subtle". "Subtle" is English.
As for watching the interview, I enjoyed it very much, and watched the whole thing, which is pretty rare for me these days. You can pick up a lot from his expressions, manner of speaking, etc.
What was the Russian word that Putin used?
This, I do not know.
Also, note: it is possible that it was not a word, but a phrase, or expression. The interpreter grabbed 'subtle' from his lexicon but without being able to listen and understand Russian, we cannot know whether Putin used a single word, or the turn of phrase that the interpreter adopted.
What I do know is that the use of the English 'subtle' is unnatural, and I could sense the tell-tale signs that the interpreter was grasping for.
Note also: even a native Russian speaker may or may not be able to explain or clearly convey the nuances of what Putin said.
I would say its clear he was implying that Tucker's questions was smart, clever, but designed to get to a certain thing that he wanted Putin to answer or say. Aka he phrased his question in a certain way to achieve an end that may not necessarily have been the way that Putin himself sees the issue.
You can see that happen often in the interview, and its a natural aspect of interviewing. Tucker continually tried to create a context or way of looking at certain issues, and Putin fielded those question carefully, with strength and without stepping into frames that Tucker himself was offering.
I think they both did a pretty good job.
FWIW, I am a bit surprised that an interpreter who is not fluent in English was used. It is axiomatic that in translation and interpreting, listening and comprehending one's second language is far easier than expressing meaning in one's second language.
In the translation (text) industry, a native speaker of the target will always be used where possible.