в 29


this is the second homogeneous predicate traversed (the crowded room) with an interesting gate combining a skip with a sidle. The Ukrainian versions/equivalents of this participial word-group may be:

1. ,

2. , , ... These two variants are

possible due to the sense of the word-group (combining) a skip with a

sidle (in a word-for-word translation " ). Equally of

interest may also be the last homogeneous predicate with its conclu

sion clutched the lean hand of her host, which should be transformed

through addition into the following sentence: /,

, .

The dialogue between the woman character and her host is of interest both from the structural/syntactic, stylistic and semantic points of view. All these dialogues are both abrupt, elliptical, and sentence-type, presenting in some places regular monologues. Their peculiar features, naturally, must also be maintained in Ukrainian. The highly emotional nature of speech presented in the dialogues of the woman character, her extensive use of subjective and objective modality often requires the employment of such means of expressing modality in Ukrainian as modal particles. This can be observed practically in most addresses of the woman, as in the following dialogues:

Now I got you! she said. !

Now you can't get away! .


"Why, hello, said her host. , ,-.

Well. How are you? . / ?

Apart from the use of the expressive modal particles (, , ) the highly emotional speech of the woman character abounds in wrong forms of some words. Cf.:

Oh, I'm finely. she said. . .

Just simply finely. Listen. I want . -

you to do me the most terrible . , ,

favor. Will you? Will you please?

Pretty please? - ? -,

? !

The wrong use of finely instead of the correct form fine is not easy to translate into Ukrainian, where there is no corresponding cor-


rupted form of this adverb. Hence, the stylistically possible wrong imployment of the adverb with the aim of compensating the English corruption in Ukrainian translation.

Certainly of some interest, but without any difficulty for translators, may be the oxymoron the most terrible favor which should be in Ukrainian simply or . Of interest is also the fifth sentence (What is it?), which may have some versions, though not the word-for-word version ? or ? as the host meant some concrete idea of the noun the favor. Correspondingly, the interrogative sentence may have one of the following four faithful variants: 1. ()?; 2. ?; . ?; 4. ?.

In the sixth block of sentences, certainly of interest from the point of view of translation, may be some word-groups and sentences, even the simple and constantly used concluding words he said/she said after the direct speech. These several times repeated English sentences, naturally, can not (for stylistic reasons) be translated word-for-word as / . Acceptable may be, depending on the context, the following versions: /, /, /, / and sometimes an omisionof this tag sentence altogether.

Certainly of some difficulty in the sixth sentence may be the verb meet in the utterance / want to meet Walter Williams, where it has the contextual meaning of ; hence, the Ukrainian version must be ³ and not ³.

No less interesting, though far from easy to render, are some other sense units in sentence 6 in the woman's dialogue. Among them is the sentence Honestly, I'm just simply crazy about that man in which there are some stumbling blocks worth being analysed. For example, honestly may have some faithful variants in Ukrainian: , , -, . Any of the first three versions may be used in this Ukrainian translation. As to the part of the sentence I'm just simply crazy (about that man), it may have two variants in this sentence: 1. (and not - , which may have some other meaning) or 2. ." No direct (word-for-word) translation can be suggested for the sentence


Oh, when he sings, which may have two faithful variants: 1. , ົ and 2. , ົ (with the use of the emphatic particle ).

Some difficulty may arise when translating the utterance Well, I said to Burton, when I left, it's a good thing for you Walter Williams is coloured I said, or you'd have lots or reasons to be jealous.Its faithful version in Ukrainian can be achieved only through a deep inquiry into the content and style of the utterance. Probably the most difficult is to translate the repeated utterance I said, which is a kind of an inserted sentence often used in narration in Ukrainian too, but only in present form of a definite personal sentence (in reported speech). Its form is (cf.: , , etc). Hence, the only correct/faithful Ukrainian translation of this block of sentences may be as follows: / , : , , ³ , / .

Two more utterances of the block are not easy from the point of view of translation either: 1. I'd really love to tell him which can be translated as or ' and 2. heard him sing which can not mean , , which is of no importance for the host or anybody, since to hear anybody sing is no great privilege whatsoever. Only her having attended some of the singer's concerts could be qualified in certain periods of the U.S. history as a bold deed. Because of this the sentence should be translated as follows: , / . In this way the woman could show herself in the eyes of the guest as a bold, progressive and devoted to arts person.

The concluding utterance in block six of sentences presents some interest as well having practically two neutral, i.e., semanti-cally equivalent for the context variants: ; ... / . The answer of the host (sentence 7) is pretty clear, but it requires a proper expression in Ukrainian where Why, certainly may be translated faithfully in some ways: 1. , , 2. , or even 3. , / , 4. ' .

The third utterance of this block of sentences The party's for


him) may have at least two versions as well: 1. - ; 2. / ; 3. .

In the eighth block of sentences of interest may be utterance 3: Well, I think you're simply marvellous, giving this perfectly marvellous party for him and having him meet all those white people, and all. In this utterance transformations are needed in some places, the first being that of the word-group simply marvellous, which can not be translated as , but only as a substantival word-group or still more accurately /- . The participial construction/word-group giving this perfectly marvellous party for him can also be translated in two ways: 1. or 2. / / .

Some difficulty may present the translation of the often used by the woman empty phrase and all, which corresponds not to our , but to 볻 or 볻.

Certainly the most difficult may be the translation of the last utterance of the woman in the eighth block of sentences Isn't he terribly grateful? and the answer to it (sentence 9) I hope not, said her host.

When translated the woman's question word-for-word as ³ ? and the host's answer as - , the sense of the utterances would be completely perverted, i.e., wrong. This is because the woman made her emphasis on the adverb terribly (grateful). Consequently, the Ukrainian equivalent must be ³ - , ? The host's answer / hope not as a reaction to the emphatically stressed adverb must not be translated word-for-word either as , but as , ( ) . This answer called forth the protesting reaction of the woman character who did not quite agree with the host by saying I think it's really terribly nice - I do, which corresponds to the Ukrainian , ... / (). The concluding sentence, as had been said already, is merely an empty phrase, often used by the woman to substantiate her assuredness.

Block 10 of the woman's utterances contains some sense units


which should be analysed semantically and stylistically with the aim of finding faithful Ukrainian versions for them. These utterances and word-groups are: 1. Why on earth it isn't perfectly all right / / , . Here even a broader transformation is possible: / ; 2.1 haven't any feeling about it at all - or: , or even: . It goes without saying that only one of these synonymous versions is to be used. No less interesting from the structural/stylistic and semantic points of view are other utterances that follow. For example, utterance 11: Did he come to-night? which may have some faithful realizations: 1. ? 2. / ? 3. ? Any of these variants may be taken as a faithful Ukrainian version for this sentence, though not all of the woman's cunning contemplations are quite easy to render fully and accurately into Ukrainian, as in case of There's no telling what I'll do. Only a thorough analysis of the whole story helps comprehend what the woman character meant by saying so. It becomes clear from the deeper analysis of the text, what she wanted to say by that (she was eager to shake hands with the coloured singer). The Ukrainian variants of this utterance, consequently, may be only the following: 1. / , ; 2. , ; 3. , . 4. , . Needless to emphasize, that any of these versions may well fit in the Ukrainian translation, though only one and no more can be used.

Some colloquial style utterances of the woman character may cause even difficulty for the translator, as it is with one utterance in block 12, where it contains a somewhat obscure/not quite transparent lexical meaning of the verb move. Cf.: He was so tired out, he couldn't move. A thorough semantic analysis of the context proves that the verb's semantics was not in any way connected with the state of Burton's physical ability. What the verb move really means in this context is that Burton did not react in any way to what his wife said to him after having decided to make a very courageous (in her


judgement) step, i.e., shake hands with the well-known coloured singer, whom she, as a half-racist, in reality, despises. Hence, taking into consideration the lingual and extralingual factors, the only correct/faithful translation of the utterance and its tag question (Isn't it a shame?) should have the following Ukrainian version: ³ , () . The tag-question may have respectively one of the following three versions: 1. , ? or 2. , / ? . , -?

Neither can there be only one single solution to the possible translation of the host's laconic and clearly evasive answer Ah (sentence 13) to the above-cited tag-question. His Ah may be interpreted as a neutral answer, not sympathising with the judgement of the woman. Consequently, the Ukrainian variants of it may be simply A... or , , etc. It is clear from the context, that the host did not support but sooner rejected that woman's accusation of her husband's lack of attention.

The fourteenth block of utterances, which is a regular long monologue of the woman character contains some interesting ways of expression, emphatic colloquial phrases and structures worth a more or less thorough analysis as well. Among them is already the first sentence emphatically uttered by the woman: Wait till I tell him I met Walter Williams!, which contains wishful modality and is to be expressed with the help of some Ukrainian modal particles. The most fitting in this utterance will be /-: -, , ³! or , - ...

The following utterance 'He'll just about die presents no difficulty for translators due to its transient meaning, which enables to suggest some equivalent versions in Ukrainian: 1. ³ ; 2. ³ ; 3. ³ ( ). All these three variants are synonymous and fit well in the context. Consequently, each of them may be used in Ukrainian. The next utterance (Oh, we have more arguments about colored people) contains a grammatical and logical error in the use of the indefinite pronoun/adjective more instead of many repeatedly testifying to the woman's low (if any) education and her very low cultural level.

Probably one of the most interesting structural transformations must be performed to achieve faithfulness in translation in two utter-


ances that follow the previous one. Neither of the two, when transplanted, as they are placed in the original passage, would well fit semantically into a good Ukrainian literary version. Cf.: I talk to him like I don't know what. I get so excited. 1. , . 2. . When translated, however, beginning with the second utterance, with the substitution of some words for a more common Ukrainian way of saying, the target language literary variant becomes more natural and more expressive, and thus more acceptable to Ukrainian colloquial speech style:

1. I talk to him like I don't know what. 2.1 get so excited. Hence,

it must be transposed into:

2. /, 1. ,

, .

This kind of transformation through the change of placement in the row of utterances makes the Ukrainian version more logically and stylistically grounded, because the woman, as anybody else in her place, got excited first and only then talked to him (Burton) like nobody knows what. In view of this, her very mild reproach, instead of the naturally expected strong words of accusation or indignation, is much milder and weaker, and contrary to that, which might have been expected: Oh, don't be so silly. These words disclose the double-dealing conduct of this woman character, who only wanted to camouflage her false inside. This can also be clearly seen from the Ukrainian variant of the utterance: , , - . These words, of course, are far from expressing any threat or strong reproach, as the woman character pretended.

Other utterances of this block containing peculiar features, which are important to know and still more to translate for a student and future translators, are as follows:

1. he's heaps broader-minded (hyperbolized), which will be

more expressive and more faithful when translated antonymically as


2. Southerners can be translated faithfully only in a descrip

tive way as / ϳ ( );

3. this regular old nigger (contemptuosly) mammy should

be translated as -;

4. he just simply loves her , -


5. he does really to this day /



Always important for the translator is to keep in memory the already solved problems concerning the rendition of some peculiarities of the source language or of the target language, as in the following two utterances: 1. All he says is, he says, he hasn't got a word to say -; 2. The only thing he says, he sayshe wouldn't sit down with one, - both these italicized colloquial structures have an identical translation: , , ...

A very interesting structural transformation has to be performed on two clauses of one sentence, which follows the above-analyzed ones. Namely: He's always doing things for them - giving them clothes and I don't know what all.

When translated without any change of placement of its clauses, the utterance will be structurally clumsy in Ukrainian: ³ - . By changing the placement of its clauses, the utterance acquires the following form: - , , . Thus, the transformation through the change of placement of some parts of the sentence makes the utterance sound absolutely Ukrainian (stylistically natural) and se-mantically transparent.

The choice of a lexico-semantic equivalent may sometimes cause trouble even in a seemingly explicit utterance. Cf.: You make me sick talking like that, where sick is semantically associated with sea-sick. At any rate, this meaning may prompt the hard thinking student-translator to use the verb , which perfectly substitutes the English word-group make sick in the utterance above. Hence, the faithful Ukrainian version of it may be only: , /.

The beginning translator must be aware of some peculiarities of the source language, which may have no equivalents or even analogies for some sense units in the target language. Among these are not necessarily the culturally biased national notions, dialectal, archaic, idiomatic or other elements. These may be simple grammar or phonetic mistakes/corruptions in a text/speech of characters often causing barriers for inexperienced translators, as in the following question of the woman character: Aren'tI terrible? (instead of -4m I not terrible?).

It goes without saying that irregularities of the kind may be observed only in speech of small Ukrainian children and almost never


in speech of our grown-ups. That is why the utterance can only be translated in a literary (correct) form: 1. ? or 2. , ? 3. ? Any other, even slightly corrupted Ukrainian versions are next to impossible to suggest in this case (like in other cases). As a result, the speech irregularity remains not completely expressed in Ukrainian. The short reply of the host (Oh, no, no, no. No, no.) can also have some interesting versions, which may be suggested by the translator: 1. Hi, , . , . 2. , . 3. , .

It may be even more difficult to select the right/faithful variant for the utterance, in which the woman character objects to her being not terrible to her husband and insists on the contrary: I am, she said. I know, I am (i.e. terrible). This emphatically pronounced and rather assuring utterance in her own support can not be translated word-for-word as , , (). The translator here must again resort to a structural transformation of the utterance in Ukrainian in order to make it sound absolutely natural for the readers. In this case the device of extension may be useful for I am, she said. I know, I am. Namely: ( ), - . , ( ). This transformation through extension of the complex sentence in the second part of the utterance, as well as the replacement of the verb am by / makes the whole reply absolutely literary and quite natural for young as well as for old Ukrainian readers.

Similar transformations are necessary in the succeeding highly emotional utterances of the woman character. These utterances, though seemingly simple and easy to comprehend, are not so easy for inexperienced students to translate. Thus, the first utterance Poor Burton! is not simply ! which will not fully express the high emotion of the woman character. Stylistically more fitting here would be ! or , ! or , ! The latter would sound also more Ukrainian. The other two emphasized and emotionally pronounced utterances of the block that follow (1. Now me, I don't feel that way at all. 2.1 haven't the slightest feeling about colored people.) are not less expressive. Hence, their Ukrainian versions may be as follows: 1. . or 2. .3. ³ / . Each of these semantically synonymous versions of the English utterance is emphatically charged, and can be best


expressed through the modal particles plus the corresponding intonation. As to the second utterance (I don't feel that way at all), it can also be translated into Ukrainian by at least one of the following four synonymous substitutes, each of which being equally acceptable: 1. . 2. . 3. or even 4. .

As could be ascertained, transformation through extension (cf. Now me , ) is often the only way of adjusting the English peculiar expressions (and their expressiveness) to literary colloquial Ukrainian. Transformations of any kind help avoid literalism (cf. Now me is not , ), which would be absolutely unacceptable in any literary translation. A word-for-word translation (without any transformations with the aim of adjusting the English language and its peculiar features to the Ukrainian literary standards) is therefore an obligatory means in the process of translation. Because of this and due to the performed transformations, the utterance I haven't the slightest feeling about colored people also acquires a quite natural Ukrainian version (and sounding). When translated word-for-word, it would express an almost opposite meaning: / . No need to emphasize that (feel) does not in any way correspond to the real contextual implicit meaning of this verb, which can be seen from the following Ukrainian translation: / / .

Practically the same, as in the initial utterance of the excerpt, is the meaning of the adjective crazyin the sentence that follows the previous one: Why, I'm just crazy about some of them, which can have only the following realization in Ukrainian: , though 쳻 may equally be substituted in this utterance for the semantically equivalent prepositional phrase . The essence of her craziness, however, is far from real or sencere, which can be seen from the following utterance: They're just like children - just as easy-going, and always singing and laughing, and everything. This utterance is not easy to translate first of all because of the concluding pronoun everything, whose contextual meaning, naturally, is not or i , or even , but ᳻. Only this pronominal


particle semantically completes the authoress' content of this utterance, which will then have the following wording in Ukrainian: , : , ᳻. The introduction of different Ukrainian particles (, , , ) helps fully express the inner/psychological state of the woman character and makes the whole utterance sound as natural and as convincing in Ukrainian, as it is in the source language.

The use of particles helps express optative and grammatical modality in the next utterance (Aren't they the happiest things you ever saw in your life?), in which the noun things may become a lexico-semantic stumbling block. Its contextual meaning here is or . It is not easy to quickly choose the most suitable between these two practically equivalent lexically and stylistically variants. Taking into account the woman's falsehood and her doubledealing, any of the two variants may well fit in the context. Cf.: .ճ /, - ? or To , - ? Both these variants, naturally, are fully in line with the philosophy and conduct of the woman character, so brilliantly depicted by the authoress in her story. The choice of the suggested substitutes in the utterance may be well justified by the woman's concluding sentence of the excerpt: Honestly, it makes me laugh just to hear them. Here the adverb honestly can scarely be substituted for one Ukrainian adverb only. The deep context requires some other substitutions for it, namely 䳻/ 䳻/ and even -/- . Neither can the verb laugh (they make me laugh) be translated in this excerpt as simply or still less as . The deeper context prompts a quite different synonym, as the cunning woman considers the coloured people to be like children, who could entertain the grown-ups like her by their behavoir. This is the main reason why the Ukrainian equivalent can not be used and should be substituted for the only suitable in this utterance synonym . For this reason the verb hear can not (and does not) mean , but only . Hence, the only possible, i.e., faithful translations of this utterance may be as follows: , , or -, , .


The final two utterances of block 16 present no great difficulty for translation with the exception of the concluding one: I really do. Here one of the already employed above versions may be helpful (as in Oh, I like them. I really do.) , . /.

It must therefore be repeatedly emphasized in conclusion that the right choice of an appropriate target language synonym for a source language sense unit is always predetermined by some factors: a) by its semantics in the context; b) by the stylistic or genre peculiarities of the text; and c) by the texts' pragmatic orientation/ toning. Any disregard of these requirements may bring unnecessary distortions into the author's conception (and content).

The student, who has closely followed the above-performed translator's grammatical/structural, semantic and stylistic analysis of the excerpt from D.Parker's brilliant psychological story must have obtained a much clearer idea about the ways and means of achieving faithfulness in written translation. Naturally not all texts require such kind of deep and scrutinized analysis on the part of the translator and not always so much inventiveness as in the belles-lettres texts. Nevertheless, the beginning translator must be always on the alert and ready to do everything to overcome the many stumbling blocks that are often hidden even in texts belonging to other than the belles-lettres style. There will be a good chance to ascertain it while working at various texts on the forthcoming pages, which are assigned to semantic and stylistic analysis or to written/oral class and home translation. The samples of the analysis must be carefully studied first in order to establish the peculiarities characterizing the publicistic and newspaper style texts. Only in this way can a student acquire the necessary knowledge and skill in translation. Of great help in this can also be the practical use of the principal theoretical rules, which were given in the preceding chapters and which must be followed while working at any type of texts, extended syntactic unit or even at single/ isolated sense units.

sdamzavas.net - 2017 . ! , ...