The Untranslatable
Tarjima qilib bo‘lmaydigan
Sarlavha va pastdagi so‘zlarga qarang. Matn nima haqida bo‘lishi mumkin? Bir daqiqa o‘ylab ko‘ring — bu miyani o‘qishga tayyorlaydi.
Tarjima qilib bo‘lmaydigan so‘zlar va til hamda tafakkur o‘rtasidagi bog‘liqlik haqida.
Kalit so‘zlar
Bu so‘zlar matnda uchraydi va matnda ajratib ko‘rsatiladi. Bosing — talaffuzini eshitasiz.
⏱ O‘qish boshlanganda vaqt o‘lchanadi — oxirida tezligingizni ko‘rasiz.
👆 Istalgan so‘zni bosing — tarjimasi yoki lug‘atga havola chiqadi.
Every language seems to contain words that resist translation. Portuguese has “saudade”, a longing for something absent that may never return; Japanese has “komorebi”, sunlight filtering through leaves. Lists of such words circulate widely online, often accompanied by the suggestion that speakers of other languages simply cannot experience these things.
Har bir tilda tarjimaga bo‘ysunmaydigan so‘zlar borga o‘xshaydi. Portugal tilida “saudade” — hech qachon qaytmasligi mumkin bo‘lgan yo‘q narsaga sog‘inch; yapon tilida “komorebi” — barglar orasidan sizib o‘tgan quyosh nuri bor. Bunday so‘zlar ro‘yxatlari internetda keng tarqalgan bo‘lib, ko‘pincha boshqa tillarda so‘zlashuvchilar bu narsalarni shunchaki his qila olmaydi degan fikr bilan birga keladi.
That inference is almost certainly wrong. The absence of a single word does not imply the absence of a concept; English speakers can feel saudade perfectly well, even if they need a sentence to describe it. The strong version of linguistic relativity, the idea that language determines thought, has few defenders among contemporary linguists.
Bu xulosa deyarli aniq noto‘g‘ri. Bitta so‘zning yo‘qligi tushunchaning yo‘qligini anglatmaydi; ingliz tilida so‘zlashuvchilar uni tasvirlash uchun bir gap kerak bo‘lsa ham, saudade’ni juda yaxshi his qila oladi. Til tafakkurni belgilaydi degan lingvistik nisbiylikning kuchli varianti zamonaviy tilshunoslar orasida kam tarafdorga ega.
A weaker version, however, enjoys considerable support. Languages differ in what they oblige speakers to notice. Speakers of Guugu Yimithirr, an Australian language that uses compass directions instead of “left” and “right”, maintain a remarkable sense of orientation at all times. Languages that grammatically mark whether information was witnessed or reported may encourage attention to sources of knowledge.
Biroq kuchsizroq variant katta qo‘llab-quvvatlanadi. Tillar so‘zlashuvchilarni nimaga e’tibor berishga majburlashi bilan farq qiladi. “Chap” va “o‘ng” o‘rniga dunyo tomonlaridan foydalanadigan avstraliyalik Guugu Yimitirr tilida so‘zlashuvchilar har doim ajoyib yo‘nalish tuyg‘usini saqlaydi. Ma’lumot guvohlik qilinganmi yoki eshitilganmi, buni grammatik jihatdan belgilaydigan tillar bilim manbalariga e’tibor berishni rag‘batlantirishi mumkin.
Translators, then, face not an impossibility but a choice. Every translation involves loss, but also gain: a translator who renders “saudade” with a carefully constructed phrase may illuminate the feeling more fully than the original word, which native speakers use without reflection. Untranslatability is less a wall between languages than an invitation to look more closely.
Demak, tarjimonlar imkonsizlikka emas, tanlovga duch keladi. Har bir tarjima yo‘qotishni, lekin ayni paytda yutuqni ham o‘z ichiga oladi: “saudade”ni puxta tuzilgan ibora bilan beradigan tarjimon bu tuyg‘uni ona tilida so‘zlashuvchilar o‘ylamay ishlatadigan asl so‘zdan ham to‘liqroq yoritishi mumkin. Tarjima qilib bo‘lmaslik tillar orasidagi devor emas, balki chuqurroq qarashga taklifdir.
Literary translators often speak of the tension between fidelity and fluency. A translation that follows the original word by word may be accurate but awkward; one that reads naturally may drift from the author’s intentions. Poetry intensifies the problem, since rhythm, rhyme and sound are as much a part of the meaning as the dictionary sense of the words.
Badiiy tarjimonlar ko‘pincha aslga sodiqlik va ravonlik o‘rtasidagi ziddiyat haqida gapirishadi. Aslni so‘zma-so‘z ta’qib qiladigan tarjima aniq, ammo g‘aliz bo‘lishi mumkin; tabiiy o‘qiladigani esa muallif niyatidan uzoqlashishi mumkin. She’riyat muammoni kuchaytiradi, chunki ritm, qofiya va ohang so‘zlarning lug‘aviy ma’nosi kabi ma’noning bir qismidir.
Machine translation has transformed everyday communication, yet it struggles precisely where human translators earn their keep: with irony, cultural allusion and deliberate ambiguity. A system trained on vast quantities of text tends to choose the most common interpretation, which is often exactly what a skilled writer was trying to avoid.
Mashina tarjimasi kundalik muloqotni o‘zgartirib yubordi, lekin u aynan inson tarjimonlar o‘z mahoratini ko‘rsatadigan joyda qiynaladi: kinoya, madaniy ishoralar va ataylab qilingan ikki ma’nolilikda. Ulkan hajmdagi matnlarda o‘qitilgan tizim eng keng tarqalgan talqinni tanlashga moyil, bu esa ko‘pincha mohir yozuvchi aynan qochishga harakat qilgan narsa.
Tushundingizmi?
Javob topa olmasangiz, «O‘qish» bosqichiga qaytib, matnga qarang — bu ham mashq.
-
Asosiy g‘oya
1 What is the writer’s main argument?
-
2 What is the “strong version” of linguistic relativity?
-
3 Why are speakers of Guugu Yimithirr mentioned?
True / False / Not Given
True — matnda aynan shunday deyilgan. False — matn aksini aytadi. Not Given — matnda bu haqda ma’lumot yo‘q.
-
1 The writer believes translation always involves only loss.
-
2 Most published novels are now translated by machines.
-
3 “Komorebi” is the most popular untranslatable word online.
-
4 Machine translation often struggles with irony.
-
5 Word-by-word translation always reads naturally.
-
6 Most contemporary linguists reject the strong version of linguistic relativity.
So‘zni ma’nosi bilan juftlang
Chapdan so‘zni, o‘ngdan uning ma’nosini tanlang. Hammasi juftlansa, natija chiqadi.