Translations - help needed!

[Pete Eeles]

Hi all,

Now that I have access to pretty much all of the original species and subspecies descriptions, I need help translating some. In particular, I want to refer back to these rather than regurgitate someone else's (occasionally, unnecessarily elaborated) descriptions. So if there are any members who are able to help with French, German and Latin, I'd appreciate your input. And possibly a good diversion during the winter months. [Guy - I know you're fluent in French and German to a lesser degree, but didn't want to presume ]. Anyway - I'll keep posting to this thread and please post responses.

English Swallowtail (Papilio machaon britannicus) - in German

britannicus Spengel i.l. (6d) ist ein breit und tief schwarz gezeichneter machaon, mit besonders breiter, samtschwarzer Submarginalbinde; er kommt in England vor, wo machaon früher weit verbreitet war, jetzt aber auf die Sumpfdistrikte von Norfolk und Cambridgeshire beschränkt ist.

Google translate result

britannicus Spengel i.l. (6d) is a broad and deep drawn in black machaon, with particularly wide, jet black Submarginalbinde, it occurs in England where machaon was once widespread, but now restricted to the marsh districts of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire is.

initial anglification

britannicus Spengel i.l. (6d) is a ???? machaon, with particularly wide, jet black submarginal bands. It occurs in England where machaon was once widespread, but is now restricted to the fens of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I'll enjoy this, as I'm sure many others will too. I can do the French and Latin best, but will gladly have a go at the German, subject to correction from others.

Here, I would say something like, '... is a [form of] machaon broadly and deeply marked in black ...' (or, ... 'with broad, deep black markings...', to sound more natural). 'Breit' is an adverb, not an adjective (here), so it must describe the way the butterfly is marked, not the butterfly itself. The word 'machaon' must be the scientific name of the butterfly, not a vernacular name, as it would begin with an uppercase letter if it were a normal noun.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Guy - brilliant! You can see what I'm trying to do here:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species. ... es=machaon
http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species.php?species=napi

I think seeing the original descriptions is definitely something that's relatively-novel and valuable! It turns out that Mark Colvin has a contact that can help with the German - so let me dig up some French and Latin pour vous Especially since you know how poor my pigeon French is and how it can successfully wind waiters up

Anthocharis cardamines britannica

Original
Dans les îles Britanniques cardamines tend à prendre une form assez particulière qui se distingue par la coupe assez alongée et étroite des anterieures, par le peu d'étendue de la tache aurore, surtout vers l'angle interne, et par l'étendue de la tache noire apicale, qui s'étend jusqu'à l'angle interne et dont le contour est très diffus. Quoiqu'on rencontre des individus semblables à ceux du continent cette race locale mérite le nom de britannica.

Google Translation
In the British Isles cardamines tends to take a rather special form which is distinguished by cutting rather elongated and narrow anterior, the limited scope of the task dawn, especially towards the inner corner, and the extent of black spot apical, which extends to the internal angle and whose contour is very diffuse. Although meeting individuals similar to those of the local breed continent deserves the name of Britannica.

Lycaena phlaeus eleus

Original
Transcribed from : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UXtI ... &q&f=false
alis emarginatis fuscis: anticis utrinque disco fuluo nigro punctato, posticis fasciola fulua, subtus cinereis nigro punctatis.
Habitat in Germania.
Affinis certe H. Helle at omnino distincta. Antennae fuscae, albo annulatae, claua oblonga nigra, apice ferruginea. Alae anticae fuscae disco fuluo, nitido punctis maioribus nigris, subtus cinereae disco fuluo punctis subocellaribus atris. Posticae valde emarginatae et fere bicaudatae, fuscae, nitidae fascia abbreuiata dentata, fulua, subtus cinereae punctis minutis nigris strigaque postica obsoleta, fulua.

Google Translation
brown wings emarginate: anterior side dish best black punctured rear SMALL BANDAGE tawny, under gray black punctate.
It lives in Germany.
Related rate H. Helle but quite distinct. Antennae brown, annulate with white, black, oblong keys, tip rusty. The wings are the best dish on the front brown, glistening points larger black, under a gray dish best points subocellaribus murky. Back door and very nearly bicaudatae emarginate, dark, sleek bra made small toothed, tawny, gray points below minute black strigaque back obsolete, tawny.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Again, to be modified and/or corrected by anyone, here are some suggestions.

For the orange tip:

In the British Isles, cardamines tends to take a rather particular form, distinguished by the somewhat long and narrow shape of the forewings, by the limited extent of the golden spot, especially towards the anal angle, and by the extent of the black apical spot, which reaches to the anal angle and is ill-defined. Although one finds individuals similar to those on the continent this local race merits the name Britannica.

The phrase 'anal angle' is confusing, but that is how butterfly books describe the inner angle of the forewing.

For the small copper:

Wings brown, notched; the forewings in the discal region reddish yellow on both sides, with black spots, the hindwings with a reddish yellow band, grey beneath, with black spots.

Lives in Germany.

Doubtless related to H. helle but quite distinct. Antennae brown, ringed white, with a black, oblong club, tip rust-coloured. Forewings dark brown with a bright reddish yellow discal region with large black spots, grey beneath with a reddish orange discal region with (small?) black eyespots. Hindwings greatly notched and generally twin-tailed, dark brown, with a bright band with short teeth, reddish yellow, grey beneath with minute black spots and a faint reddish yellow outer band.

That obviously doesn't read very grammatically in English (the strings of commas &c.) but might help you decide how to phrase it. I have translated 'fulvus' as 'reddish yellow', though the word 'fulvous' has passed into British butterfly language! The same goes for 'fuscus', which I have translated ' dark brown'.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Brilliant - thanks Guy - more to come

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Please don't take my translations as definitive!

There seemed to be a few typos in the French and Latin. For example: in 'disco fuluo, nitido punctis maioribus nigris', the 'nitido' (bright/shining) agrees with 'disco fuluo', so the comma is misplaced. I would proof-read both against the original before you publish!

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Spotted a typo and some missing accents in the French. The Latin I find difficult to check because it's so hard to see what's an "f" and an "s"

Anyway - both originals attached. Let me know if you spot any mistakes! I can't see to login to the database on the server at the mo - so have included the current transcriptions here also. Thx again!

Anthocharis cardamines britannica
Dans les îles Britanniques cardamines tend à prendre une form assez particulière qui se distingue par la coupe assez allongée et étroite des antérieures, par le peu d'étendue de la tache aurore, surtout vers l'angle interne, et par l'étendue de la tache noire apicale, qui s'étend jusqu'à l'angle interne et dont le contour est très diffus. Quoiqu'on rencontre des individus semblables à ceux du continent cette race locale mérite le nom de britannica.

Lycaena phlaeus eleus
alis emarginatis fuscis: anticis utrinque disco fuluo nigro punctato, posticis fasciola fulua, subtus cinereis nigro punctatis.

Habitat in Germania.

Affinis certe H. Helle at omnino distincta. Antennae fuscae, albo annulatae, claua oblonga nigra, apice ferruginea. Alae anticae fuscae disco fuluo, nitido punctis maioribus nigris, subtus cinereae disco fuluo punctis subocellaribus atris. Posticae valde emarginatae et fere bicaudatae, fuscae, nitidae fascia abbreuiata dentata, fulua, subtus cinereae punctis minutis nigris strigaque postica obsoleta, fulua.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

You've added the accent to 'antérieures' but there is still an 'e' missing from 'une forme' in the first sentence.

You placed the comma as in the Latin text (which you seem to have interpreted perfectly!) but I still think it's in the wrong place! Too bad.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks again - will amend. I've processed one more - so whenever you have time. And absolutely no rush!

Aricia artaxerxes salmacis

Original
Alis fusco-nigris, subtus fuscescentibus maculis subocellatis, anticis supra in masculis puncto discoidali atro, in faeminis albo, posticis utrinque fascia submarginali rubra.
(Exp. alar. ? unc. 1 lin.; ? 1 unc. 2 lin.)

Google Translation
Wings brownish-black, brownish stains under subocellatis anterior above the point discoidali black males, in females, white submarginal red rear fascia on both sides.

Cheers,

- Pete

[MikeOxon]

I don't pretend to be an expert in other languages but I used to work on various international committees and got to know some of the interpreters quite well. They used to emphasise the difference between 'interpretation' and 'translation'. It really doesn't matter too much here, where the aim is to convey the precise technical meaning but, to illustrate what I mean, look at this sentence (pace padfield):

"In the British Isles, cardamines tends to take a rather particular form, distinguished by the somewhat long and narrow shape of the forewings, by the limited extent of the golden spot, especially towards the anal angle, and by the extent of the black apical spot, which reaches to the anal angle and is ill-defined."

It's a reasonable translation, though I think it conveys the wrong impression regarding the black apical 'spot' (patch?), but it doesn't read like English - i.e. we don't talk like that! Also,it is important to get the best possible understanding of what the original author is talking about. The European example below is from http://www.eurobutterflies.com/species_ ... amines.htm, while the UK example is my own photo. I have studied these together with the French text.

We might say something like:

"The British form of cardamines has several distinguishing features. There's a tendency towards rather longer and narrower forewings, together with a reduced area of colour suffusion [I think the author used 'aurore' to convey that he meant all the coloured area, whether orange or brown/black], especially towards the anal angle of the wing. In addition, the narrow black border of the wing almost reaches the anal angle and has a very diffuse inner boundary. Even though one can find individuals resembling those from the continent, the name 'britannica' is appropriate for the local race."

This sort of interpretation takes a long time and can be accused of being too subjective - it's really up to you to decide how much time is worth dedicating to the task! Let me know if you would like me to spend more time on these.

Mike

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Mike - very interesting! I'd be very interested in Guy's view also, and having thought about it, feel that we should be "true" to the original definition, but recognise that some of these (even those that don't need translating!) are quite difficult to parse.

One option is that, in addition to the definition itself, there is a more-subjective summary of key distinguishing features. That would then give us the best of both worlds - the detailed (and often technical) definition for those that are interested in seeing the author's original description, and a more-subjective summary of the definition that provides a "quick reference".

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Someone once said that a translation is like a woman: if it's faithful it can't be beautiful and if it's beautiful it can't be faithful. I do not share the sentiments as regards women but they do reflect some of the difficulties faced by a translator!

With regard to the translations above, I would first say that my intention was to clarify the meaning of the words for Pete, rather than to provide the final version. I agree entirely with Mike that they don't read naturally (and 'patch' was exactly the word I was looking for, but it didn't come!!) and make no attempt to defend them. The more people who contribute to this, the better the final result will be.

However, I do spend a lot of my time reading and referring to ancient texts - mostly in Sanskrit, Vedic or Pali, often in Greek and occasionally in Latin - and have to say, as a scholar, that interpretations (rather than bare translations) are useless to me. It is very helpful to have a literal English version alongside an ancient text but if all that is available is a paraphrase or interpretation I feel I'm on my own. When the translator attempts to say what he thinks the author meant, or rephrases the original in some modern idiom, he sets the reader at a distance from the author and creates a dependence on the translator.

In my opinion, Pete should provide the original and a very literal translation. He should assume the reader is primarily interested in the original, only referring to the translation to help grasp the meaning of the original. The Latin texts in particular are not literary Latin anyway - they are more like Collins Field Guide Latin. A faithful translation would render them as abbreviated, concise summaries, not elegant English.

Guy

[Padfield]

So here is the raw, literal meaning of the salmacis text!

"Wings brownish black, with darkish eye-like spots beneath, with a black discoidal spot in the male on the forewing upperside, white in the female, the hindwing on both sides having a red submarginal band".

Although short, this text is not without diffiulties! 'Fuscescens' (fuscescentibus) means 'darkening' rather than darkish, but what that means in terms of pattern and colour I am not sure. 'Subocellata' (subocellatis) means something like, 'as if eyed' and is an adjective describing the spots (maculis).

Guy

[David M]

Translation is not an exact science. Language is an invention of human beings, and as such takes on many of the characteristics of living things - growth, evolution, suppression of certain elements, etc (even sexism!).

When I was living in France, though my French was perfectly adequate for general, everyday use, it was a different matter entirely when it came to trying to translate things for others. Use of the passive, reflexive verbs and subjunctive, for instance, are very common in French but quite uncommon in English. You have to find a 'way round' these obstacles and no two people are likely to arrive at exactly the same end result, meaning that subjectivity is unavoidable.

[Pete Eeles]

When the translator attempts to say what he thinks the author meant, or rephrases the original in some modern idiom, he sets the reader at a distance from the author and creates a dependence on the translator.

Perfectly stated, Guy. That is exactly why I think we should remain faithful to the original, even if the wording is sometimes convoluted. To be honest, even some of the ssp. definitions written in English are convoluted - but often contain snippets that are missing from easier-to-read interpretations.

As an example, take a look at Polyommatus icarus mariscolore: http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species. ... ies=icarus. That definition contains 2 things that I've not come across before. The first is the comparison with the blue of bellargus (Adonis Blue) and the second is a theory for the bright blue in the female. Almost all definitions I've read simply say something like "the female is largely blue with orange spots on the upperside margins".

Great input all round. This is what UKB is all about

Cheers,

- Pete

[MikeOxon]

A fascinating discussion!

After I first wrote, we had a discussion at home and my wife, who is much more knowledgeable on botany than I am, pointed out that the use of Latin in species definitions is precisely to ensure a common framework and strictness of definitions. Latin is a very rigorous language and is not subject to all the dialect variations of a 'living' language. I guess this applies to some of the other languages that Guy mentions.

I believe that the most important point in my previous post was to look at the specimens being described (of course, many people on this site carry all the info in their heads) and make sure one fully understands what they are describing - hence my illustrations.

Mike

[Pete Eeles]

I believe that the most important point in my previous post was to look at the specimens being described (of course, many people on this site carry all the info in their heads) and make sure one fully understands what they are describing - hence my illustrations.

Ah! I missed the importance of that Mike - and completely agree. If we have photos available, it would be good to see "side by side" comparisons and I'll add this to the list of things to do. I know I need to complete the "similar species" sections anyway, and "similar subspecies" would use the same approach, so I'll do the whole lot in one go.

Another thought along these lines (because it's relevant to this discussion of using images) - this will bring up (again!) the use of images of set (dead) specimens. During my recent visit to the OUMNH, I saw three subspecies of Large Copper side-by-side (dispar, batavus, rutilus) which was incredibly useful - and (especially, in this case, since ssp. dispar is extinct) I don't believe this is a comparison that you could show faithfully in any other way than using set specimens. And some subspecies descriptions rely on upperside features of species that always settle with their wings closed and, again, the use of set specimens would address this (then again, if you never see these features, then there's little point in showing them anyway!). However, doing this would really change the "feel" of UKB (in a bad way) where we don't have any set specimens except in the "Historic Specimens" gallery. I'm wondering if we could use the new "cookies" options to allow set specimens to be viewed if selected (default is off). Perhaps using illustrations would suffice (e.g. Richard Lewington has provided these where available) and, where there are gaps, that would give us something to focus on filling. I discussed this subject briefly with Mark Colvin when we met last week, and we didn't come to any conclusion. Thoughts welcome - although I don't want to unnecessarily go over old ground.

Cheers,

- Pete

[MikeOxon]

(then again, if you never see these features, then there's little point in showing them anyway!)

I think that parenthetical sentence is pretty crucial! I would say that photos help the field observer to know what he is looking at. In that context, there is no need to show illustrations of extinct species on this site.

Mike

[Padfield]

This site celebrates butterflies as living creatures and I agree it is an excellent policy not to use set specimens in the species pages. I don't see this as a cookie thing because it's not so much about the sensibilities or tastes of the viewer as the ethos of the site.

That said, nothing illustrates the tragic fate of some of our former species better than the fact we only have dead insects to show for them. To show a pinned British large copper is as if to say, 'Look what we did. This beautiful creature used to inhabit our fens but we drained them, over-collected the butterflies, and now all we can give you is a dried corpse'.

There is no reason why an extinct form should appear in the main species pages (there are no velociraptors in the Collins Field Guide to Reptiles) but it seems to me quite proper - and educative - to show set specimens in a separate section devoted to the history of British butterflies.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks both. The primary purpose of improving the subspecies descriptions was to aid visitors in identifying living creatures and to distinguish between subspecies. On that basis, I think we should continue as we have. As Mike pointed out, I guess I'd answered my own question!

Cheers,

- Pete