m&d: stingl on translation problems

[Lorentzen / Nicklaus]

 read recently nikolaus stingl's short essay on his translation process with 
 m&d. thanks for the hint to thomas e.

 nikolaus stingl: ...not so much transported as translated. unterwegs zur 
 deutschen fassung von  m a s o n & d i x o n. pp. 219-221 in: schreibheft. 
 zeitschrift für  literatur. nr. 52, may 1999. edited by norbert wehr. essen:  
 rigodon-verlag.  

 here are some outtakes in m.o.p.a.t.: 

 "the german of the 18th century is much farer away from contemporary german 
  than 18th century's english from that of today. does one consider this greater 
  distance? does one produce a german text which is 'older' than the english   
  one?  
  i decided to take back the aging process carefully. today, to us the german 
  language appears old untill wide parts of the 19th century. take a look at the 
  translations in the second edition of the old great  m u r e t-s a n d e r s 
  [- i'm using as dictionary the 'little muret-sanders' from 1985 with its 130  
  000 words - kfl] from 1906: in many cases they'll have so much patina, that 
  they're perfect for the purposes of this translation. (...)
  
  the author consciously uses modernisms, that one translates adequately: 
  modern. doing so one realizes the strange phenomenon that, in many cases, the 
  old english, carrying the emerging tension, can get along much better with 
  modernisms than the german, in which these forms often do sound wrong. 
  if this is true - an emotional assumption, for which i don't have a proof -, 
  then it probably has to do with this already mentioned difference of distance 
  between the two states of language. when one translates 'correctly', taking 
  the modernism unembarrassedly, it has the effect of making sound the 
  translation wrong, though, actually, the boldness is on side of the author. 
  if one, on the other side, makes the translation as a whole more modern, to   
  soften the contrast, other shades, as important, will get lost.
  similar it is with pseudo-modernisms. when, for example, a darts-board appears 
  in a 18th century pub, it might be historically correct (games with darts are, 
  so i was told, at least 500 years old) and a historizing english text can use 
  the word 'darts-board' quite unembarrassed. not so in german; there the word 
  will, unavoidably, be considered to be modern (far too long darts-boards did 
  not belong to the inventory stock of german pubs). on the other side, i've 
  found in old dictionaries words like 'wurfpfeile' etc. only refering to war 
  weapons, never to toys."

 another problem are the regionalisms. stingl decided not to translate dixon's 
 dialect in general (- & this, i think, was a good choice). where the dialect 
 itself becomes a theme of the text, dixon's northumberland language - shipping 
 industry in the north! - is transformed into hamburgian low german (- & this 
 again, if you ask the incurable local patriot in me, was a good choice). & so 
 "'did ye see them rahde the eeahr at taahburn?" becomes "'hevt ju in taahbern 
 ook welk bummeln seh'n?" & "'did thoo understand 'em the weeay theey talk, 
 down theere ...?" changes into "'hevt ju denn de lüüt overhaupt verstahn, so 
 wie de doar snakt ...?" 

                                      bis die tage, kai