Creativity, when it is verbal, is limited by the language in its universal appeal. Even the best of the writer remains unknown just because the writings were in a particular language. This void is partially filled by the effort called translation. A translator tries to bring the ideas from a particular language into another, to the best of his or her capability and understanding. The limitation extends further depending on the reader also. There are three kinds of readers of a translation. There are some who do not know the language or the culture of the original work. In some instances the reader may know the milieu of the work and not the language. Limited are the readers who know both the original and the target languages. These are the best judges of the quality of the translation. With this situation in view one has to consider the importance to be given to the two factors in any creative work, Viz. the form and the content. Every sentence in any language conveys more than the words in it do. Usually translations suffer in bringing this untold aspect of the content. The use of words in each language is peculiar to the region, culture and other variations. The same word means a hundred things. How then one transmits the idea in another language where perhaps the idea itself sounds alien? Translation thus is love’s labor not totally lost. Readers may get some idea about the content. Some times you may understand it totally also, if the narrative is effective. Creative works suffer immensely at this point, because the form is more important in them. In the name of the impending problems we do not stop doing what we wish. This sentence itself is an example of troubles in translation. Syntax smacks of some other language and definitely not English!

 

When the work is of a documentary nature where the content is more important than the form, any kind of translation is good enough as long as the reader gets the same idea as with the original. Where creativity is involved the original writer wants to remain with work in any language and wants to impress the reader with his or her own identity. When the original writer has a specific identity as far as expression is concerned, it is necessary that in the target language also the style is reflected as far as possible. It may sometimes disturb the understanding of the idea. You can not help it because the same happens with the original language also. Not all the poetry is understood completely even in the original language. Some works totally defy translation because in them there is a dimension apart from the form and the content which can never be conveyed however good the translation is. It is better to leave such works for the readers of the original language alone. Pun can never be translated. Imagine trying to translate Kanyasulkam, and you will shudder to think of some expression in English which can convey the between the words meaning all those dialogues.

 

Sincerity to the original writer is a point of debate when translations are concerned. I am of the strong opinion that all through the translation, every word of the work should remind the reader that the idea does not belong to the target language. The proficiency of the translator should not overshadow the expression of the original writer. Usually translators try to improve on the original. This is sacrilege.

 

You are only a spoon when you are translating an idea into another language. You can never add any new taste to the dish being served. If the taste changes because of the contact with the spoon perhaps it can not be helped.