Translate or Interpret???

[freezeframe]

Could either verb be used in ddablo's example?

I am confused -- as usual.

My dictionary says that "interpret" = to translate orally.

So would it be good English to say:

He interpreted for the foreign investors at the meeting.

Thank you

See Wikipedia:

Despite being used incorrectly as interchangeable, interpretation and translation are not synonymous. Interpreting takes a message from a source language and renders that message into a different target language(ex: English into French). In interpreting, the interpreter will take in a complex concept from one language, choose the most appropriate vocabulary in the target language to faithfully render the message in a linguistically, emotionally, tonally, and culturally equivalent message. Translation is the transference of meaning from text to text (written or recorded), with the translator having time and access to resources (dictionaries, glossaries, etc.) to produce an accurate document or verbal artifact.

[TheParser]

See Wikipedia:

Despite being used incorrectly as interchangeable, interpretation and translation are not synonymous. Interpreting takes a message from a source language and renders that message into a different target language(ex: English into French). In interpreting, the interpreter will take in a complex concept from one language, choose the most appropriate vocabulary in the target language to faithfully render the message in a linguistically, emotionally, tonally, and culturally equivalent message. Translation is the transference of meaning from text to text (written or recorded), with the translator having time and access to resources (dictionaries, glossaries, etc.) to produce an accurate document or verbal artifact.

Thank you for the great answer.

But I am a VERY slow learner.

So could you tell me:

Is it good English to use "interpreted" in the thread starter's

sentence?

Thank you

[freezeframe]

Thank you for the great answer.

But I am a VERY slow learner.

So could you tell me:

Is it good English to use "interpreted" in the thread starter's

sentence?

Thank you

Yes that is the correct choice.

However, you can conceive of situations where translation is more appropriate. For example, the translator is given some documents beforehand. These documents are presented during a presentation to the foreign investors. Here, he translated for the foreign investors at the meeting. But, without such convoluted scenarios, "at the meeting" implies he was translating "on the spot" -- that is, interpreted.

[TheParser]

Yes that is the correct choice.

However, you can conceive of situations where translation is more appropriate. For example, the translator is given some documents beforehand. These documents are presented during a presentation to the foreign investors. Here, he translated for the foreign investors at the meeting. But, without such convoluted scenarios, "at the meeting" implies he was translating "on the spot" -- that is, interpreted.

Thank you very much!!!

[ddablo]

Finally, your posts have cleared up any confusion I had.

Thank you so much!!!

[TheParser]

He _________ for the foreign investors at the meeting.

1. translated
2. interpreted

Which one should I use?

Can anyone tell me the difference between "translate" and "interpret"?

I think they look similar....

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) I was reading a magazine article this morning when I was reminded

of your post.

(2) Here is what Mr. Tim Parks wrote on page 84 in the April 8, 20ll, issue

of The New Yorker:

"A common but untransalatable [my emphasis] Italian idiom, un

gioco al massacro (literally, "a game to the massacre"), is telling; it

refers to conflicts where both parties are destroyed because of their

obstinate determination to win an argument."

(3) You notice that Mr. Parks (a British gentleman who is a translator and

lives in Italy with his Italian wife) says it is "untranslatable," yet he

translates it for us. I guess that he meant it is impossible to translate the

"feeling" that an Italian has when he uses that idiom. In other words,

when an Italian says that idiom, all kinds of thoughts come to his/her

mind, including -- perhaps -- reminders of the country's history.

(4) Translation is truly an art. And very difficult. For example, take the

word "yeah." Most dictionaries simply say it means "yes." But you need

to live with Americans to understand that it can mean many things --

depending on how you say it and under what conditions:

The boss: I have to fire you.

Tom: What? I have been working here for five years. I have done

an excellent job.

The boss: Your're right. You're my best employee.

Tom: Then why are you firing me?

The boss: I want to force you to get a better job where they will pay

you more money than I can. I am firing you because I love you.

Tom: Yeah!!!

That "yeah" means something like:

You know that you are lying to me; I know that you are lying to me;

what you are saying is a bunch of ____; do you think that I am stupid

enough to believe that?

[Allen165]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) I was reading a magazine article this morning when I was reminded

of your post.

(2) Here is what Mr. Tim Parks wrote on page 84 in the April 8, 20ll, issue

of The New Yorker:

"A common but untransalatable [my emphasis] Italian idiom, un

gioco al massacro (literally, "a game to the massacre"), is telling; it

refers to conflicts where both parties are destroyed because of their

obstinate determination to win an argument."

(3) You notice that Mr. Parks (a British gentleman who is a translator and

lives in Italy with his Italian wife) says it is "untranslatable," yet he

translates it for us. I guess that he meant it is impossible to translate the

"feeling" that an Italian has when he uses that idiom. In other words,

when an Italian says that idiom, all kinds of thoughts come to his/her

mind, including -- perhaps -- reminders of the country's history.

(4) Translation is truly an art. And very difficult. For example, take the

word "yeah." Most dictionaries simply say it means "yes." But you need

to live with Americans to understand that it can mean many things --

depending on how you say it and under what conditions:

The boss: I have to fire you.

Tom: What? I have been working here for five years. I have done

an excellent job.

The boss: Your're right. You're my best employee.

Tom: Then why are you firing me?

The boss: I want to force you to get a better job where they will pay

you more money than I can. I am firing you because I love you.

Tom: Yeah!!!

That "yeah" means something like:

You know that you are lying to me; I know that you are lying to me;

what you are saying is a bunch of ____; do you think that I am stupid

enough to believe that?

NOT A TEACHER.

I think he meant that the expression cannot be translated idiomatically. The translation he provided is a literal one. "A game to the massacre" is not something you would say in English, at least I don't think you would.