I personally think that translating Orc into a half-orc is a bit difficult to understand. For one thing, this species is not like a “half-beast” and cannot embody characteristics. To embody the characteristics, it is more like a “caveman”, but it is not accurate enough. Secondly, if it is directly transliterated as “Ok” and does not adopt the strategy of naturalization, will it be a little strange and incomprehensible to domestic audiences?

The Chinese translation subtitles of the re-screening version have been reset. The name in the film is different from the conventional name of the earlier DVDs and nowadays. For example, it is called “Oc” in the Orc movie. Jin Li is translated as “Jimley”, the Elf Queen Galadriel is called “Galadril” in the movie, which is a transliteration. The hobbit was called Aragorn called “Strider” (now known as “Wanderer”), and Rivendell, the elven realm, was called “Valley.” But there is a reason for this translation, because Tolkien wrote an article “The “Lord of the Ring” Translation Guide”, which stipulated that no matter which type of translator, the name and name of the person in the entire mythical world that met him The place name must be translated according to his meaning. Some words need to be translated meaning, and some words need to be transliterated, both have instructions. For example, the word “Orc” is a proper noun. It is Tolkien’s rule that it must be transliterated. It is Oak, (in some book versions, the plural is “Orc”), not “half orcs.” The translation of the re-screening version of the subtitles should comply with this standard. However, there is one place in the movie where Legolas yelled “Orcs”, as if it was a scene in the mine of Muria. The subtitles of the theater were “Orcs”. Because this one in the original book originally said “goblin”, goblin is a kind of name for Orc and other beast human beings by humans. The difference between goblin and Ork is equivalent to monsters and monsters in our context. In the distinction of vixen, this type of creatures are all monsters/goblins, but the species produced after the soul of the elves are corrupted* (set in the early stage, changed to the product of the human soul in the later period), the proper noun is “Orc” (Ok). Therefore, when the original work is called “goblin”, the subtitles are replaced by “half orcs”, which is more rigorous and can be regarded as sentimental. But how did our conventional name come from nowadays? It is caused by popular culture. On the one hand, it came from the movie version released 20 years ago, the popularization of pirated DVD translation names and folk names, and then various games, such as the popular “Warcraft III” that year, the Orcs borrowed the name Orc, and then Chinese translation into an orc, and Jay Chou’s promotion song “Half Orc”, so the word Orc violated Tuo Lao’s wishes and was called a half-orc. But anyone with a discerning eye knows that Orc in “Warcraft” and Orc in “Lord of the Rings” are obviously not the same. It is worth mentioning that the “Lord of the Rings” published by Century Wenjing and translated by Deng Jiawan in 2016 also referred to this standard. The Chinese translation of “The Lord of the Rings” so far is roughly divided into six editions: Yilin four edition, Taiwan edition one edition, and Shiji Wenjing edition one. Early Yilin 2001 edition of “The Lord of the Rings Trilogy” was divided into hardcover and paperback editions. Hardcover is relatively common. I saw it in bookstores when I was young. It is said that the translation of this edition is general, and the translated name is completely different from the current one. I don’t know who is who, and there are some unsatisfactory words. However, some people say that this edition is the most literary and readable, and it’s all hearsay. , I haven’t read this edition either. As for the paperback version, I am not impressed anymore. The content is the same. There was a reprint in 2008. Later, with the translation of movies 20 years ago, the popularity of various games and folk names, many names have become customary, such as Rivendell, Helm Valley, Half Orcs, and Jinli. Therefore, Yilin has published several more editions, changing the names and place names to the appellations we are familiar with today. The most widely circulated so far is undoubtedly the 2013 edition published by Yilin and Zhu Xueheng’s translation (also revised many times). In addition, because the translator himself is a fan, the electronic version can be found online, probably based on this. In 2016, Century Wenjing also published a version by Deng Jiawan and others. According to Teacher Deng Jiawan, Zhu Xueheng’s version was first revised by her. Later, the version translated by herself was re-translated according to her own tone, and the character names and place names were retranslated. , Changed to Tolkien’s translation standard, but it caused some obstacles in reading, but after all, it respects the author’s original intention. After all 20 years ago, the translation of movies, various games and the popularization of folk names, many names were made in accordance with the conventions. The official translation of the early film was also called “The Lord of the Rings 1: The Reappearance of the Ring”. Now this version is not suitable for it. , But sometimes the gap between the preconceived name and the standard translation cannot be smoothed. Like many football stars, Hazard and Giroud used to call Hazard and Girod the wrong pronunciation, but fortunately they changed it. But Arsenal star Henry is not good enough. According to the standard translation, it should be called “Angli”. The name is called out and it can’t be changed. Similarly, there is De Bruyne of Manchester City. Now this pronunciation is a transliteration of the French-speaking part of Belgium, but the player is actually from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. De Bruyne is also obviously a Dutch name, and the pronunciation is similar to “De Bruyne”. At that time, CCTV explained that Shen Fangjian used this “Debrunner” to rectify the World Cup when he was explaining the World Cup, but he was frantically complained, and later he died without a problem. The subtitles of “Lord of the Rings” should be reset to take this opportunity to re-standardize the translation. After all, the standardization of the Chinese translation of The Lord of the Rings has only just started, and it should be based on the author’s wishes. For example, the Hobbit called Aragorn “Struggle”. This is a kind of scorn and suspicion made by the little guy towards this down-and-out vagrant. In the early versions of various books and discs, the “walker” and “stride” were used by the little guy. “Xia” and so on, although it sounds nice, but it doesn’t have this meaning (there is also a translation of “stride”). Regarding the two versions of “The Lord of the Rings” translated into Lin and Wenjing, some people said that “Zhu Xueheng’s version is the most classic and Deng Jiawan’s version is the most accurate.” Friends of the two versions, you can also talk about your feelings.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5 months ago

Translation in movies usually refers to subtitles. When “The Lord of the Rings” was introduced in the mainland, there was no mature translation available for reference. Therefore, both the officially published DVD subtitles and online subtitles were derived from Taiwan’s Zhu Xueheng’s translation. Zhu Xueheng has already translated many other fantasy works (including video games), and Orc is an “orc” to him. Therefore, almost all we see on the DVD are “orcs”. There is no other deeper reason.

5 months ago

This thing is really a habit of an era. The Lord of the Rings movie was from 2001 to 2003, and the translations we are familiar with today were basically fixed slowly after 2005. It can be said to be a mess before, and it is normal that the habit of fixing at the back does not match the front. I have a set of the Lord of the Rings at home, I bought it when the Lord of the Rings was first released, and I was dizzy when I watched it. A few years after dropping this set of books, after learning the whole story of the Lord of the Rings from other places, I picked up the set of Lord of the Rings, and finally understood why the set of Lord of the Rings I saw was so confusing. In that set of Lord of the Rings, the familiar “human race” has been translated into “adult race”, and the familiar “elf” has been translated into “little elf”. There are countless other things that don’t match up… “Meeting between humans and elves” and “Meeting between adults and elves” are completely two pictures in people’s minds, but they are actually two different things in the same sentence. Different translations. The “orc” proposed by the subject is translated into “half orc” instead of the “orc” we are familiar with today, which can be regarded as an innocuous question. It is not a strange phenomenon to unify the translated names as they are used. The bureau said in the program more than once that he had proposed and organized the compilation of a dictionary, which was used to regulate the Chinese translation of foreign military weapons. For example, “harpoon” can be translated as “harpoon” or “whaling fork”. Foreign troops have anti-ship missiles called “harpoon”. Should it be translated as “harpoon anti-ship missile” or ” “Whaling fork anti-ship missile”, in fact, both can be, but they cannot coexist. So the bureau organized the compilation of a dictionary to fix these translated names.

5 months ago

If Orcs translates into Oak or Oaks is not good, just ask: How are the translations of Hobbit, Haflin, Ente, Goblin, Sphinx, and Harpy? . Some people will say that it is impossible to imagine what it looks like when translated into Oaks, so I just…the hobbit can’t imagine what it looks like. . I think Orcs itself is the name of a race, there is no need to translate it specifically according to the characteristics of the race. The orc in other works has been translated into Ouke, Orcs, Half Orcs, and Greenskin, which is not very influential to understanding, just a code name. In addition, this is already a translation of the movie version. I think it is understandable to see what the look is translated into. . Only discuss works that can see the image (movie, comics and games). For example, there are three tribes of humans, gods and insects in StarCraft. The human race is okay, but the Zer race is barely able to do so. Protoss really has nothing to do with the image, but it does not hinder it. The player understands. The halo Guru, Gnolls, Elite Warriors, Flood Demon, Gnolls still barely reluctantly, Guru and Elite Warriors have nothing to do with the image, the Flood Demon is a pure translation, not snow translated into Snow Nuo. Kind of, but flood translated into flood, only to read Chinese and think about it to think that it means surging like a flood. The Ouke, Titanium Empire, and Spirit Race in Warhammer 40k are similar. Another example is the various alien races in Star Wars. The names are purely transliterated, and it does not affect the understanding of the plot.

5 months ago

I think the subtitles for the re-screening of this movie are Oak. . I don’t know if the Orc was translated as Orc by the influence of the Warcraft series at the beginning of the century. But the orc in many other fantasy works is far behind. Even strong races with long fangs that are not called orc will be translated as orcs. If the public has become accustomed to equating orc with the term orc, it may not be a bad idea, but keeping the transliteration should be a better choice.

5 months ago

Tolkien has a translation guide for his own work, which clearly mentions that the word Orc needs to be transliterated, so the best translation version of Century Wenjing is translated into “Ok”. There is no question of whether it can be understood. The so-called “strong orc” corresponds to “Uluk” in English, and there will be no confusion. Some fan games or other works require prefixes for the subdivision of Oak, and may use names such as “orcs”. As for the many translations that have not read the guide before, it is purely a question of imprecision. Everyone who has learned a foreign language or translation can ask, it is much better than imagined here. When I was in school, the teacher used the three words “sincere, expressive, and elegant”. Isn’t it clear at a glance? I still said that whether the translation accurately expresses the original intent is the fundamental attribute of the translation. The readability in the context of this culture is just the criterion for judging the quality of the translation. Otherwise, we can expect one with two Authors with cultural background use the context of their mother culture to introduce another culture. Why bother to translate? After all, translation is ultimately what it does. If someone refutes the professional argument of translation studies, I am happy to accept it. If you still use your own conjecture to say something about your position, it is best to reconsider it. I will not accompany you here. Regarding Tolkien, does the Oxford linguistics professor know anything about linguistics? You must know that the Lord of the Rings trilogy includes the Silmarillion and other works. In his own opinion, it is not a novel, but a real history. He himself is a translator. The most typical examples are “Imladius” and “Rui “Wendell”, the former is derived from the Elvish language, so transliteration is required, and the latter is a lingua franca, which is a modern English name, so it can be translated into “Glen”. His translation guide is not self-righteous, but is about this “fictional history.” Responsibility is an integral part of this worldview. If you say throw it away, then throw it away? Also, for transliteration such as Oak, don’t blame the translator for lack of imagination. It is necessary to take care of the reader, but the giant infant is not included. Finally, it is emphasized that, from the perspective of Tuo Lao, the works of the Middle-earth series are completely translations of Elvish historical texts. It is not entirely correct. They are more of a series of “historical stories” from the perspective of elven narratives. As with translation and transliteration, translation guidelines are not so much the rules and constraints from the author’s perspective as they are the corresponding laws inherent in Elvish and other languages. Therefore, the translation of certain nouns is basically a matter of principle, and there is nothing to say. of. This is not a myth to support the old, nor is it to justify myself. I put my opinion here, and I have already said it very clearly. Everyone has the right to express their opinions. However, if someone refutes me on professional grounds, it doesn’t matter if they still insist on their own wishful thinking, it is better to start anew. I am sorry for the comment here.

5 months ago

Why is Orc translated as a half-orc in the movie “The Lord of the Rings”? Words: 1 thousand and 5 If I translate it, I will definitely translate it into “half orcs” or “orcs”. Because the translation method of “half orcs” has been the most widely accepted in the current market. The “beast” of the “half-orcs” can barely imply “barbarism”, and “barbarism” happens to be their main characteristic. The work of Middle-earth is over, and the translation method of “half orcs” cannot be overturned. What is a rollover? To give two examples, for example, in “Lord of the Rings X”, a new race emerged, which is the product of a hybrid between humans and beasts, which also happens to be called “orcs”. The appearance of such creatures will make the translation of “orcs” unreasonable. For another example, the big demon in “Lord of the Rings” announced the synthesis formula of “half orcs”, saying that the “half orcs” contained only 25% of beasts. This will make the “half orcs” become “half orcs”, which will naturally cause the original translation to lose its rationality. These are very realistic when dealing with the translation problem of this huge worldview. Because once the translator does not deal with it well, or fails to consider the problem in the long term, he will inevitably be ruthlessly attacked by the time and space police in the future. This is why the “half-orcs” will not be in danger in this regard. I haven’t checked the potential danger of “Ok”, because I don’t have the energy to check whether there is a character or region called “Ok” in the entire Middle-earth world. However, today I am not actually here to talk about “half orcs”, I am specifically here to talk about the transliteration method of “Ok”. I saw other respondents mentioned the so-called “translation guide written by Tolkien himself”, I want to borrow a word to comment, historical documents! Let’s first take a look at the main content of the translation guide written by Tolkien. The original text is as follows: These Notes on Nomenclature were made by JRR Tolkien to assist translators of the book into other languages. They were composed when only the Swedish and Dutch translations had appeared. They have been revised for publication by Christopher Tolkien. All references to The Lord of the Rings are by volume and page of the Second (Revised) Edition. The above is the foreword written by the editor (not Tolkien) who compiled the translation guide. The Swedish and Dutch translators of “Jie”. All names not in the following list should be left entirely unchanged in any language used in translation, except that inflexional -s, -es should be rendered according to the grammar of the language. The point is: all words not mentioned in this article must be kept intact during translation. It is worth noting that the second half of this passage mentions “inflection” that does not exist in Chinese. Since it is a translation guide, how does Tolkien think about translation? Let’s take a look at Tolkien’s criticism of Dutch Swedish translation: In the Dutch and Swedish versions Isengard is left unchanged. For Isenmouthe the Dutch uses Isenmonde, translating or assimilating to Dutch only the second element (a more complete translation to Ijzermonde would seem to me better). The Swedish renders it Isensgap, which is incorrect, since Isen is not a proper name but adjectival. This is a criticism of “Isengard”. (You may have doubts about the translation of “Isinger” after reading this article. To avoid additional conflicts, I am writing the original English here.) The general idea here is: Tolkien thinks Dutch and Swedish There is a problem with the translation of. Dutch only paraphrases the first half of “Isengard”, while Swedish only paraphrases the second half of “Isengard”. In short, Tolkien believes that the word “Isengard” cannot be transliterated in Dutch and Swiss languages, but should be translated freely. Tolkien explained that because “Isengard” does not contain any proper nouns, it needs to be translated, not transliterated. Regarding transliteration, Tolkien rarely mentioned in this guide about his preference for “sound”, but the “Orc” entry is one of the few examples. The original text is as follows: In any case orc seemed to me, and seems, in sound a good name for these creatures. It should be retained. The above sentence is written under the “Orc” entry, and it says: Tolkien thinks ” The pronunciation of the word “Ok” is appropriate. But if we continue to read the above, we will understand where the etymology of “Orc” is. The original text is as follows: I originally took the word from Old English orc [Beowulf 112 orc-nass and the gloss orc = pyrs (‘ogre’), heldeofol (‘hell-devil’)]. This is supposed not to be connected with modern English orc, ork, a name applied to various sea-beasts of the dolphin order. It is not difficult to find that “Orc” is not a newly coined word by Tolkien, that is to say, “Orc” is not a proper noun, but a Common nouns. If we follow Tolkien’s guidance in “Isengard”, then “Orc” should be translated, not transliterated, because “Orc” is not composed of proper nouns. If we were to paraphrase “Orc” in Chinese, we would translate it into “half orcs”, “orcs” and so on. But this will make us betray Tolkien, who likes the pronunciation of “Ok”. All contradictions come from one point. This point is that this set of translation guidelines is not at all the guidance materials that Tolkien wrote for Chinese translation (the same does not apply to Cyrillic, Greek, etc.), so Tolkien has never considered that it may be in other languages. There is a problem of incoordination of font type and pronunciation. So I think that some people, using the content of the exclusive “Translation Guide” in Swiss and Dutch to demonstrate how Chinese should be translated, is completely using chicken feathers as an arrow. It is the ethics of Lu Xun’s writing, and even a little bit. Cleverness is mistaken by cleverness.

5 months ago

My point is that the translation of ORC/ORK into orc/half-beast talent is more accurate. I understand Tuo Lao’s translation guide: it is a stalk that is easy for everyone to understand at first, like a storyteller telling a story “I heard a legend from my grandfather (in fact, the story was made up by himself)… A strange bird is called Gulugulu. Why is it called the local dialect? I transliterated it in Mandarin”. So ORC uses English pronunciation to transliterate the creature created by Tuo Lao in the fantasy story (although Tuo Lao may refer to Beowulf’s story), telling you to call this creature that is more muscular than you use a passerby. Savage, pig-nosed monster, Pluto’s corpse, undead elves, etc. are all suitable translations. Then we turn to the issue of Chinese translation. If the old book was translated in the 50s and 60s, then it would be appropriate to use Oak/Ox directly. However, the era when the Lord of the Rings is well known to the public is from the 1990s to the new century. At this time, the more common term for ORC in Chinese-speaking areas was Orcs, Half Orcs, and Big Eared Monsters. Because of the fantasy culture that is more easily promoted by using the Lord of the Rings as the standard background board: DND, Warhammer, Might and Magic, Warcraft entered the Chinese circle earlier, and the term Orc has long been called. If the above logic is not easy to understand, let me give two examples: 1. West Asia and North Asia call China Khitan, and Europe and America call China Porcelain. Because when they met us for the first time, they were called that in that era. Therefore, it is easier for them to describe the Qin Dynasty, Han Dynasty, or even earlier periods in the texts, using Khitan or porcelain instead of using the transliteration of Daqin, Dahan, Huaxia, and Yanhuang. 2. The Japanese tube elevator is called エレベーター, which is a transliteration. Because they don’t have the right words to describe this new thing. We call it the elevator because when we came into contact with the elevator, we already had a mature local vocabulary to translate it. If the elevator is called a wormhole elevator, its father is called an elevator prototype. It is impossible for our Chinese translation to be transliterated into a Wormhole Avery, or a prototype of Avery, right? I think Tolkien’s ORC is a father-son relationship with DND’s ORC.

5 months ago

The early Yilin edition mentioned that the original author requested the transliteration of nouns like orc because orc is a fometic word (orcs is a plural). The Taiwan Zhu Xueheng edition translated it as “half orc”, which was well received, mainly because the post-80s had fantasy games, The basics of animation understanding. In other words, it is best to read the original English version of “The Lord of the Rings”, which is very artistic. When you see frodo and gandalf, you don’t need to change your mind to “Frodo”, “Gandalf” or “Gandalf”.

5 months ago

This is a habitual translation. Saying “Ok” is more difficult to distinguish between characters. I don’t know what kind of positive character I think it is (the protagonist of the game is called “Ori”, and the man is a tree elf); say “half orc” Everyone knows that these characters are “ugly and bad.” “Half-orc” personally thinks that it is similar to “centaur” and “half-human bird.” “Tauren” is more in line with the literal description of “half-orcs”, and the head and lower body are “beasts”. Goblin, you can hardly tell where he is “half beast”. Later, whether it was games or film and television works, everyone acquiesced that the “ugly monsters” with “human figures” but no “heads” were “half orcs” or “orcs”.

5 months ago

Due to the questions raised in the comment section, some other directions were thought of. Supplements the analysis of Orc, “Ok”, and “Half Orcs” based on Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalence theory: Orc: The original vocabulary of the author of “The Lord of the Rings”, which is often used in fantasy works later. For English readers, there may be two situations: one is that the reader does not understand fantasy and has never seen Orc (of course, including early readers). Such readers’ knowledge of Orc comes from the novel itself, except for the pronunciation. , It is difficult to get other information from the word Orc; another reader may have been exposed to fantasy culture (this type of readers may be more now), seeing the word Orc can associate the image of Orc in other works, and understand it better Easy, although it may be different from the race in The Lord of the Rings. “奥克”: Transliteration of Orc for Chinese translation readers is closer to the first type of English readers, except for the pronunciation, no other information can be obtained. However, the readers of these translations cannot understand the word itself as easily as the second English readers. “Half Orc”: The translation of “Half Orc” is likely to be influenced by other fantasy works later. When Chinese readers who have come into contact with those fantasy works, when imagining “Half Orc”, they may be very close to the English readers’ imagination of “Orc” Because the images of “Orc-Orc” are all from the same works. It can be said that although the “half-orcs” have some deviations in describing the unique races in “The Lord of the Rings”, the reader experience is very close to that of some native readers. In terms of Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalence theory, translation should make the reading experience of the target language readers basically the same as that of the source language readers. From this perspective, the two translation strategies have achieved partial results. After reading some answers, let’s answer. The main reason is that individual respondents seem to have serious misunderstandings about translation studies. Although personal translation studies are not very good, let’s say a few words. Obviously, there are two main opposing views on this issue. They are nothing more than: transliterating Orc-“Oke” according to the author’s wishes, or transliterating Orc-“Oc” to serve the readers. Both sides have their own reasons. Transliteration of Orc, on the one hand, respects the author’s wishes, on the other hand, it is more in line with the background setting of the original overhead world. In this regard, many respondents have detailed explanations and will not be expanded. The free translation of “half orcs” is more inclined to serve readers. Orc is the original ethnicity of the author. For an ordinary reader, there is no relevant knowledge. At this time, if the transliteration of “Oke” is adopted, the reader will not receive information other than voice, which will cause a certain understanding. Obstacles and troubles seriously affect the expression effect of the translation. As for the question of the subject, or that the paraphrase is OK but the “half orc” is not appropriate, it is actually a problem. This is also a bit of helpless translation. According to personal understanding, the translation into “half orcs” is likely to be influenced by the translation of some later fantasy works or fantasy games (such as DnD), and the order of introduction of these works may be ranked in the several translations of “The Lord of the Rings” Before the version (the earliest version of the old Yilin was transliterated into “Oke” and some later were not). In the case of a closer concept of “orcs” in the fantasy world, such naturalization is still more vivid. Of course, after all, this race of “The Lord of the Rings” has its own characteristics, and it must be biased and difficult to express. I personally think that there is untranslatability here. Up to this point, it can only be said that how to translate depends on the translator’s translation strategy, and the reader’s freedom to choose how to deal with it. This is a matter of opinion, and there are some theoretical foundations on both sides. It should be emphasized that there is no absolute way to say that one kind of treatment is clever, and the other is clumsy. At least the two have achieved certain and irreplaceable effects. I wrote this answer and I originally wanted to oppose the dawn of the individual respondent @佩兰诺. Taking the theory of “faithfulness and elegance”, I think it should be transliterated, which is very puzzling. Because this makes it easy for readers to understand that the handling methods that cannot be handled are also not “reaching”, which is untenable in the first place. It is even more problematic to think that the author’s transliteration point must be followed. Besides, Xindaya is not the only criterion for translation (I don’t know why the answerer thinks that Xindaya is the fundamental attribute of translation!) If you can’t take a standard, it will put a certain translation on the pillar of shame! As for that, if you want to think that the author set this way, you must follow the author’s requirements, which is also possible (in fact, I tend to support transliteration). The theory to follow should be “faithful”, “reader close to the author” and other theories, rather than “faithful and elegant”, let alone the author’s linguistic background. As for the idea that readers can’t understand “Ok” is the reader’s problem, the view that “translators don’t need to serve giant infants” is really appalling! It’s quite a bit of that kind of circle, and it is also suspected of personal attacks on readers who raise reasonable questions. Let alone those theories that the reader is the core, the translation is still “one servant and two masters”. Finally, I want to ask, I promise. A certain respondent who said, “Friends who study translation can ask questions” and “will gladly accept that the basis of translation studies can be refuted”, why not let the comment? This is really contradictory.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x