Lost in over-translation

Two cases in which good translation is no translation

Looking at Hebrew translations for the digital media, we can see two common cases of over-translating. The results of over-translating are different for each case, but they are both about losing something: focus, coherence, or meaning.

Translating auxiliary verbs

In this case, the English auxiliary verbs (do, be) and the modal verb 'can' that sometimes has an auxiliary's functionality, are translated to Hebrew. This is a problem because Hebrew doesn’t have auxiliary verbs. Hence, they are translated into ‘’real’’ verbs, that are really redundant and thus make the sentence more complicated than it should be.

The most confusing auxiliary / modal verb for Hebrew translators is ‘can’. Hebrew has a ‘’real’’ verb for ‘can’ that can be added to almost any sentence (unlike ‘do’). Thus, sentences like ‘’How can I get it’’ that should have been translated to Hebrew as ‘’How I get it?’’ (כיצד אקבל אותו), are mistakenly translated as ‘How can I get it’, or as ‘’How is it possible to get it’’:

The auxiliary ‘do’ cannot be translated to Hebrew without changing the meaning of the sentence, so you would expect translators to drop it and avoid this common mistake. Yet some Hebrew translators really go the extra mile, and so they found a way to keep the redundant auxiliary, even when it has no Hebrew literal translation: They replace it with ‘can’! Thus ‘’How do I adjust…’’ is translated as ‘’How is it possible to adjust…’’, instead of ‘’How I adjust…’’ (כיצד אשנה...):

The solution here is simple: When translating to Hebrew, drop the auxiliary verbs and modals functioning as auxiliary verbs. Can’t recognize auxiliary verbs when you see them? Look at your Hebrew translation and check if dropping ‘can’ or ‘is / are’ would change the meaning of the sentence. If it doesn’t – drop them.

What happens to a term deferred?

In the second case, English terms that were borrowed by Hebrew are translated into their deferred Hebrew version, when they should be translated to their accepted borrowed version.

Some borrowed terms have Hebrew versions that were rejected by Hebrew users. This may be the case of the term ‘post’ (blogging). This term has a Hebrew version (רשומה) that has been used by top Hebrew native blogging systems like Tapuz. And yet, the borrowed version of this term (פוסט) is widely used by users and other top Hebrew native blogging systems and news websites, like Israblog, Demarker Cafe’, Globes, and many more. This may indicate that we had tried to ‘’convert’’ the term to Hebrew, and the Hebrew public has rejected the Hebrew version.

The way ‘post’ was translated by leading international brands reflect the confusion caused by a term whose ‘’conversion’’ to Hebrew has failed.

Microsoft translators who seldom go beyond literal translation use the Hebrew (deferred) term:

Google translators, who seem to go with the flow, chose the borrowed version of the term:

And Facebook translators, baffled by the controversial term, replaced ‘posting’ with ‘publishing’ and ‘posts’ with ‘publications’:

So, what happens when the ‘’conversion’’ to Hebrew fails? I think Google did the right thing by sticking to the borrowed term. If the Hebrew public resist a Hebrew term, there is probably a reason. And what is ‘localization’ if not following the wisdom of the (local) masses?