Before pondering over the art of translation, let us think about why the need to translate erupts. There are so many languages in the world that it is impossible for a person to learn them all, as determined as they may be! And yet, the distance between countries and continents is decreasing day by day. Exchanges between countries are increasing and incidents that demand several countries to deliberate together are occurring almost on a daily basis. Generally, the people who participate in such meetings do not know each other’s languages. Hence, due arrangement needs to be made for everyone to understand what each person says. There can be three ways of doing so. First is that each person learns each of the languages. However, we just saw that it is not possible. The second way is to make use of a language that everyone can understand. Several efforts have been made in this direction. A world-language called Esperanto had been created, but it could not be of any use. Therefore, the third way is translation i.e. translating a person’s speech into all the other languages. In present times, all international congregations have this kind of an arrangement in place. The speaker speaks in their language, and listeners listen to its translation in their preferred language through headphones. Same is the case with International news. The news that is published by newspapers across the world in their respective regional languages becomes available to them through translation from different languages. Thus, even newspapers — an influential institution of the contemporary world — cannot function without translation. The regional newspapers of our country, especially, cannot function without translation even for a moment. It is so because the news agencies convey the news to these newspapers in English. In the near future, these news agencies might start conveying the news in Hindi, but then too, the news would have to be translated into languages other than Hindi. 

So, we have taken a look at the place of translation in the everyday exchanges of the modern world. Other than that, a person desires to be in touch with the literary creations and schools of thought across the globe for one’s own cultural/personal development; for that, they need to closely study the various literary and intellectual works written across the various countries of the world, and that too is mostly possible only through the translations of such works. Hence, translation is essential to both practical and cultural motives of humans.

Translation, being an essential tool of cultural contact in the world, encourages the act of deliberation and creation in our country. It widens the horizons of its perspective, and by acquainting one with the accomplishments of people across disciplines, it encourages one to work equally hard. Shri Kakasaheb Kalelkar has called the translator the ambassador of a culture, which is completely appropriate from this point of view. 

Now we shall give some thought to the nature of a translator’s job and the difficulties it entails. A translator’s job is to accurately depict in their own language, the meaning and the spirit of a work written in an alien language as understood by them. Here, I use the word spirit in the context of emotions. Whenever we read a piece of writing, we grasp its meaning and simultaneously, the meaning kindles certain emotions or sentiments in our minds. A translator needs to accurately depict both the meaning and the emotion in their language. In other words, a translator’s job is to present a work from an alien language in their own language in a way that by reading the translation a reader can feel the same emotions felt by reading the original text.  

It is easier said than done. That’s why someone has said that a translator’s job is similar to uprooting a plant from one soil and planting it in another soil. The reason behind the difficulty in translating a text from one language into another is that every language has its own unique nature and individuality. Hence, every language expresses various things in its own peculiar manner. A particular event does not affect two people in a similar way because of their life experiences and nature, and hence it is not possible for two humans to have the exact same experiences; similarly, two different languages also do not express things in an identical manner. Every language is uniquely shaped by its use through centuries and the social and literary history of its speakers in such a way that each of its iotas are filled with contextual indications, ethos and peculiarities of emotions and subtleties of meaning; synonyms for the same in another language are rarely found. Furthermore, a literary writer strives to make their depiction as effective as possible by utilising the multifaceted power of the language to its optimum. By means of the meanings and peculiarities attached to the sound, the phonetic form of the letters, the rhythm of the sentences, the ascending and descending notes, and specific arrangements of words, a translator transfers the meanings and emotions from one language into another. This task is as difficult as transferring a foetus from one womb into another. It is well known that Tolstoy was lucky to have ingenious and persistent translators such as Maud and Garnet for his works, and yet he often complained that his works felt completely different and odd in translation. The above discussion was regarding the translation of prose. Talking about the translation of poetry, a well-known professor of the French language has said that there is not a single English translation of French poetry which retains more than half of the essence of the original!

It is said in our language that ‘one’s hands are bound to get black while dealing with the coal’. From this, I am reminded of Late Balvantrai Thakor saying something similar regarding translation, that translation is a trade of coal. It means that translation being an extremely tough job, one has to take care of so many things that some flaws are bound to be there somewhere or the other, and as a result, the translator is granted as much flak as the praise or more flak at times, and at times, nothing but flak. A couplet in Hindi goes like:

kājarkee koṭhareemeṅ kaiso hee sayāno paiṭhe

ek leek kājarkee lāgee hai pai lāgee hai

It means that however cautious a person is while entering a room full of kohl, they are bound to get stained. 

Same is the case with translation.

As Acharya Kshitimohan Sen has said, “a translator’s job is to build a bridge….in order to build a bridge, the translator needs to be in unison with both the shores in the true sense. I have seen so many translators who, being greedy for fame, start building a bridge without achieving a unison with both the shores. A number of simple wayfarers trust them blindly and end up committing suicide by falling in the valley of death while attempting to walk.” It means that two things are a must in a translator. First, an adequate and dependable proficiency in the language they want to translate from, and second, a proper command over their own language to express the things read in another language in their own language. 

Seeing from this perspective, the act of translating consists of two components. One is to understand the things said in another language with complete clarity and second is to render it accurately in one’s own language. If the translator themself has not understood something properly then it is impossible to convey the entire meaning in the translation. Therefore, it is extremely important that the translator endeavours to understand the original text properly in order to come up with a good translation. Here, the act of understanding is not limited to identifying the words used in the source text but to get a sense of the particular contextual meaning of each and every word. At times, there are several meanings attached to a word. A sentence cannot be understood until the implied meaning of a word is not identified from all the homonyms. Moreover, every good writer uses words in their own unique style and renders them a new meaning and interpretation. Good authors use every single word keeping the entire text in mind. Figures of speech such as simile and metaphor too are interconnected and deeply related with the entire text, and the modulations and the length of sentences too are oriented to the purpose. All these things create the ambience and the spirit of the text, and that is as important or rather more important than the semantics. It means that once the core meaning is determined, the surroundings of the attached emotions, hidden indications and ancillary meanings existing around that meaning also need to be pondered upon. Hence, understanding a literary work means experiencing all these complex and minute peculiarities of meanings and emotions. In other words, to savour the literary sentiments of the literary work, or to study it in detail from the point of view of a critic. In short, to relish it wholeheartedly, to get absorbed in it. 

After this much preparation, that is to say after getting a clear impression of the original text in the mind, one can begin translating. The first draft can be translated at a fast pace, if one can’t think of a particular word at a particular point or if the translation remains imperfect, one shouldn’t bother about it, but one should also keep in mind that it is a rough draft. Once that is done, one should think about such instances at one’s leisure and use words best suitable for the desired meaning with the help of dictionaries, etc. One thing needs to be kept in mind here. Any given word has several meanings in a language, and it is rare to find an equivalent target language word which comprises all the meanings that a word has in the source language. It means that one particular target language equivalent can’t be utilised for a word in the source language at all places. At times, there might be a need to use different equivalents appropriate to express different contextual meanings of a word and thus, the translator would be tested every time they are needed to choose the most suitable equivalent word. Let’s take the English word ‘idea’. While translating it one may have to use various equivalents such as ‘khyāl’, ‘vichār’ or ‘kalp’, depending on the context. 

At times, a writer also expresses their own sentiments about the subject under discussion through the selection of their words. Hence, a translator has to keep that in mind as well while choosing words in their (target) language. In my translation of “Kalki”, I had used the word “jāṅgad lagna” for “trial marriage”. Late Shi Narharibhai Parikh had pointed out to me that the word used in translation invokes a slight feeling of abnegation which is not there in the source text and is therefore not appropriate. Keeping aside the debate of whether such is the case or not, the point that he raised is indeed a very important one. It is a flaw on the part of the translator if an interpretation, which is not there in the source text is reflected in the translation, and so is the case with an interpretation present in the original text that is not reflected in the translation. However, a few peculiarities of a language are impossible to express in another language and there one has to interpret the function of the same in the original. Let us take a common example. In Bengal, a daughter, a granddaughter, or a daughter-in-law are all addressed as “mā”. This practice is a reflection of a kind of sentiment that exists for women resulting from the centuries old traditions of Goddess worship and other similar reasons. That is the basis of the feeling that consists of respect, affection and endearment, which is expressed through this simple address, and it is not possible to convey this amalgamation of feelings in a single word in other languages. Even if we keep the address “mā” in Gujarati, it feels inappropriate because the word does not have the same function in Gujarati as it has in Bengali. If we use addresses common in Gujarati such as “bahen”, “beṭā” then the characteristic of the source language goes missing. In such cases, retaining the original word and explaining the social context of it in the notes seems to be the most appropriate solution. Sometimes, a translator resorts to adaptation which often taints the beauty of the source text and the translation suffers greatly due to the modifications performed. A lot of such adaptations or transformations of western literature have been performed in our language (Gujarati) and hence, one can be sure of the above statement by comparing them to the originals. 

Barring such unavoidable exceptions, the language of translation should be the conventional Gujarati. The idioms of other languages must be expressed in our language (Gujarati), and word-for-word translation should be avoided at such places. However, while translating from one of the Indian languages, it is possible that the meaning of an idiom remains understandable even in translation; but that should be considered an exception. The purpose of a translation fails if the translation doesn’t remain comprehensible while remaining faithful to the sentence-structure of the source language. Therefore, special attention must be paid towards retaining the instinctive qualities of the source language and the clarity and lucidity of meaning in the translation.

One has to be extra careful while translating  dialogues from stories or plays. In such cases, the language is more local, concise, accelerated and accurate. And one has to be extra careful in translating them so that the sentences in translation do not look unconventional, awkward or improper. Special attention should be paid towards the word order and the placing of adjectives, adverbs, etc. in the dialogues. Many times, a little change in the same can alter the meaning completely or decrease its effect and accuracy. Moreover, the social status of the characters gets reflected in their dialogues, which should be understood and retained in translation. 

Another point that I am addressing has already appeared in the present discussion in an implicit manner. The translator should have an adequate contextual knowledge of the social and political, religious and cultural life of the speakers of the language he is translating from. In lieu of that, there is a peril of misunderstanding or not understanding a few things and as a result, some horrible mistakes are made.

The above discussion must have made it clear that a translator has to cultivate as much language skills as an author. It is not possible to do justice to the original text without that. Moreover, a translator can only hope to succeed if they possess a certain amount of creativity. But that creativity too is to be dedicated in the service of the author of the source text; the translator doesn’t have to try beautifying or outshine the original text. It’s another thing that at times a miracle such as the English translation of the Bible springs out of the endeavour to remain faithful to the original text, but it should only be accidental. A translator should never attempt to enhance the beauty of the original by polishing it. There is a saying in Gujarati, ‘there’s no wisdom in copying,’ which stands applicable here. Here, I am reminded of the Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s words. He said: 

Translation is an art of seeking the exact word, and when the exact word is found, circumlocutions can be avoided, and the style preserved. Translation also requires a certain stupidity, and the best translation is the stupid one which does not go out of its way for ‘brilliant’ interpretation…For only the stupid man has fidelity.

In other words, the respect for the original text in the eyes of the translator is essential, the kind of respect that hinders them from taking any kind of liberty with the original.

2

(In this section, the author talks about translating into Gujarati)

After pondering upon questions such as why the need for a translation erupts, what a translation should be like, and what are the problems of translation; now let us come to the questions surrounding the practice of translation. In our country, most of the time translation is undertaken from the regional languages, such as Bengali, Marathi, Hindi, etc., or from English and at times, from Sanskrit; Hence we would reflect from that point of view only.

In a way, translating from Bengali, Hindi, etc. is easy because of the similarities between our languages which have descended from Sanskrit. Many Sanskrit loanwords are frequently used in our Indian languages. Plus, several colloquial words descended from Sanskrit too are similar to the ones in our language. In addition to that, Persian, Arabic, and English words which are used in all the languages are more or less similar. There is a great deal of similarities in terms of the sentence-structures too, and not only are the social, religious and cultural backgrounds similar but also, similar idioms are found across them. As such, the easier it gets to translate from these languages, the more there is a chance of  misunderstanding these languages as identical due to these similarities. Earlier I have said that all these languages frequently use Sanskrit loanwords but at times these words carry distinct meanings in different languages. If we can’t catch that, there’s a possibility of a blunder. In Marathi ‘paraspar’ means ‘without anyone’s accord’. ‘rāg’ also means ‘anger’ or ‘irk’ in Marathi and Bengali.  In Hindi and Bengali ‘shikṣhā’ means ‘education’. In Bengali, ‘anek’ also means ‘abundant’. ‘khāoyā’ also means ‘to drink’ which means that Bengali uses the same verb for both, eating and drinking. In Bengali ‘cheṣhṭā’ means ‘effort’, ‘vyāpār’ means an ‘event’, ‘incident’ or a ‘matter’; ‘vasant’ means ‘smallpox’; ‘vāṇee’ means ‘message’, ‘vyast’ or ‘vyagra’ means ‘occupied with work’ in Hindi as well as Bengali. In Bengali ‘baḍ’ also means ‘a lot’- “āmi tāke baḍ bhālbāsi” means “I love you a lot”. ‘barābar’ also means ‘constantly’, ‘always’, ‘regularly’ in Hindi-Bengali. ‘barkhāst’ means ‘dismissed’ in Bengali. Hence if one tries to translate based on the similarities of these words without knowing their peculiar meanings through an in-depth knowledge of the concerned language(s), failure is inevitable. 

In comparison to Hindi-Bengali, English is a diametrically opposite language from Gujarati. Its syntax too is different from that of Gujarati. And hence, translating from English turns out to be the most difficult task. At times, one has to break the English sentences down and re-arrange them in a way that is appropriate to the nature of Gujarati. And while doing that, due care should be taken to preserve the meaning of the original. It is well known that a structure, in which the adjective phrases come after the noun, suits the nature of the English language better, and therefore the relative pronouns are frequently used in that language. The nature of Gujarati language is such that the structure, in which the adjectives come before the nouns, suits it better and hence one has to arrange a sentence in such a way while translating. For example:

Once upon a time, a beautiful girl named Rhodopis was bathing in the waters of the Nile, when suddenly an eagle swooped down, snatched up one of her sandals and flew away with it. 

In this sentence, ‘girl’ is the subject, ‘beautiful’ is an adjective, and ‘named Rhodopis’ is the adjective phrase of the subject. In English, the adjective phrase came after the subject but in English, it would come before the subject. “ekvār Rhodopees nāme ek rupāḷee chhokaree neel nadeenāṅ pāṇeemāṅ nahātee hatee.” In English, the plural form the word i.e. ‘waters’ has been used. Similarly, we (Gujarati) can also use the word “jaḷ” in its plural form: “neel nadeenāṅ jaḷamāṅ nahātee hatee.” The latter part of the sentence is a specimen of the English syntax. It starts with a relative adverb like ‘when’. In Gujarati, we’ll have to start with a new sentence only and we would begin the sentence with ‘evāmāṅ’. “evāmāṅ ek samaḍee saḍsaḍāṭ karatee ākāshmāṅthee neeche āvee ane tenee ek chaṁpal jhuṅṭee laeene uḍee gaee”. The ‘with it’ of English is not needed in Gujarati. The English version has three different verbs: ‘swooped down’, ‘snatched up’ and ‘flew’. We have used two verbs – ‘āvee’ and ‘uḍee gaee’ and one relative past participle, ‘laeene,’ in the Gujarati translation. This structure of the relative past participle suits Gujarati more whereas the sentence structure consisting of various verbs with or without putting ‘and’ in-between suits English more. In English, “John went to London and bought an umbrella,” is a very common and natural structure. While translating in into Gujarati, we might be tempted to retain the same sentence structure and translate it as “John laṁḍan gayo ane chhatree khareedee.” But there’s a problem in that. The English sentence has two verbs- “went” and “bought” and both have a common subject–John. Hence the sentence would have to be written in this manner: “john laṁḍan gayo ane teṇe chhatree khareedee”. This structure looks loose at the first look itself. In Gujarati, it would be appropriate to say the same thing in this manner: “johne laṁḍan jaeene chhatree khareedee” or “john laṁḍan jaeene chhatree khareedee lāvyo”. Both these sentences have only one verb – “khareedee”  –      “khareedee lāvyo.” And the subject is John.  The meaning of the second verb has been conveyed through the relative past participle – “jaeene”. And this only is the established practice in Gujarati. “teṇe āvine māree pāse pāṅch roopiyā māṅgyā.”  This is a natural Gujarati sentence. If one wants to translate it into English with similar sentence structure, then it can be translated as “coming to me” or “having come to me he asked for five rupees”. But that would look awkward. The natural structure is:

He came to me and asked for five rupees.

Such differences between the nature of two languages should be kept in mind while translating. That is the only way to retain the innate nature of a language in translation.

Now we will look at a few examples from Sanskrit in order to gain further clarity regarding the above discussion. 

In the play ‘shākuṅtal’, when the King expresses the desire to inquire about Shakuntala, Priyaṁvadā says: “alaṁ vichārya. aniyantraṇānuyogo tapasvijano nām.” If we translate it as, “one doesn’t need to ask an astrologer for that. There is never a hindrance in asking something to an ascetic.” In this context, one has to accept the fact that Ansuya talks to the King has been neglected here. These sentences should be translated in this manner: “What is to be pondered over in this matter? One can definitely ask the ascetics freely.”

Similarly, when the ascetics leave Shakuntala alone in the Durbar and go away, the King says, “bho tapasvin kiṁ atrabhavatee vipralabhase.” If we translate it as, “Oh ascetic! Why are you fooling this lady?”, then the fact that the speaker here is the King seems to be forgotten.

In the fifth act, when Shakuntala addresses the King for the first time, the source text is as follows: “āryaputra… (eetyadhorkte) sanshayit eedāniṁ pariṇaye vaishsamudāchārah. paurav.” Here, if ‘āryaputra’ is translated as ‘dev’,  the underlying meaning of husband doesn’t get conveyed appropriately and thus the expression becomes less effective.

At times, one needs to be careful while using Sanskrit and Prakrit words. In the examples stated above, the propriety of the language is not maintained due to the lack of pride and modesty in the language. Assume that one is translating the barber’s story from the “paṅchtaṅtra.” In the hurry of going out, the barber tells the woman while standing at the door, “māruṅ kṣhurbhāṅḍ jaldee lāv, jethee hu kṣhaurkarm karvāne māṭe jaldee jāuṅ. pachee hajāmaḍee e kṣhurbhāṅḍmāthee ek astro kāḍheene hajām taraf feṅkyo.” If we translate here in this way than using words like ‘hajām’, ‘hajāmaḍee’, and ‘astro’ doesn’t seem appropriate with words like ‘kṣhurbhāṅḍ’ and ‘kṣhaurkarm’. In the same story, if we translate what the judges say while granting justice in this way: “aho! ā rājapurooṣhonuṅ vachan satya chhe. ā pāpee chhe. eṇe ā bichāree nirdoṣh streene duṣhit karee chhe”, then it wouldn’t be appropriate. The phrase “duṣhit karee chhe” in the original only indicates or means “eejā pahoṅchāḍee chhe.” But it should be kept in mind that in Gujarati, that phrase means something entirely different.

Every translator endeavours to beautify their translation to whatever extent possible, and yet at times, the strange mistakes that enter a translation can be due to the fact that the translator doesn’t doubt even once that they may not have understood the meaning of a word or sentence. This argument would get more explicit with a couple of examples.

To me he symbolizes the pioneer qualities—the large, free, unconventional, humorous point of view of men, who sail new seas and blaze new trails through the wilderness.

mārā mat pramāṇe temanāmāṅ mahatvanā guṇo moortimaṅt thayelā hatā. je koee navo dariyo kheḍe ane jaṅgalamāṅ maṅgaḷ pragaṭāve, temane viṣhe teo vishāḷ, svatantra, lokāchār viruddh vinodee draṣhṭee rākhatā.

Here, the term “pioneer qualities” has been translated as “mahatvanā guṇo” which is inappropriate. It should be actually translated as “pahel karanārmāṅ hoy chhe evāṅ guṇo” (the qualities present in an initiator), those qualities are mentioned in the later part of the sentence. But that part has been understood in an incorrect manner in the above translation. It should be translated in the following manner:

temnāmāṅ pahel karnār sāhasikanā guṇo moortimaṅt thayelā hatāṅ. navo dariyo kheḍanār ke jaṅgalamāṅ navo cheelo pāḍanār māṇasomāṅ je udār, mukt, arooḍh ane vinodbharee draṣhṭee hoy chhe te temnāmāṅ hatee.

There is a phrase in the description of the nature:

..and wild cherry trees on which little icicles were beginning to form like pendants.

This has been translated as below:

jhāḍ upar dāṁbhik panḍitonee māfak nānā himakaṇo jāmavānee sharooāt thaee hatee.

Here, the translator has read ‘pedant’ in place of ‘pendant’ which is used in the source text and has translated accordingly. However, the translator hasn’t thought for once that how can icicles and pedant scholars be related?

Look at another similar example. The English sentence is as follows:

My mother and my teacher spilled into my hands as the train sped past orange and eucalyptus groves, through the soft sage-scented brown hills.

This has been translated as following:

māree mā ane mārā shikṣhikā mārā hāthamāṅ te pradeshnuṅ varṇan lakhatā hatāṅ. saṅtarā ane yukelipṭasnee vāḍeeomāṅ thaeene gāḍee jhapāṭābher pasār thatee hatee, ane ruṣhimuni jevā māṇasoe punit karelee pochee bhuree ṭekareeomāṅ thaeene doḍatee hatee.

The disarray gets created here due to not understanding the meaning of ‘sage’ in ‘sage scented’. Sage is a kind of fragrant plant and its green-grey leaves are used in cooking in the Western countries. Thus, “sejnee mrudu sugandh wāḷee bhukhree ṭekareeo” has become “ruṣhimuni jevā māṇasoe punit karelee pochee bhuree ṭekareeo”, and the translator doesn’t doubt for once that there seems to be some inconsistency there. Otherwise, they would have looked up the meaning of ‘sage’ in a dictionary. 

Now let’s see what translating in an absent-minded state leads to. The original description is as follows:

A single energetic fly circled round the room. The rest were asleep on the ceiling. Only this solitary one seemed to have the strength or willpower to move about, making its faint buzzing noise.

Its translation is as follows:

ek himmatvān paṅkhee oraḍāmāṅ laṭār māree gayuṅ. beejā to chhatne paḍachhe jaṁpyāṅ hatāṅ. koi ekalveer māṅ j ghumavānee, potāno nāno dheero avāj karavānee shakti hoy chhe ne! kadāch āvee eechchhā paṇ ene j thāy.

Here, ‘energetic’ has been translated as ‘himmatvān’ which is inappropriate. Instead, ‘sfoortiluṅ’ or a similar word should be used. Translating ‘fly’ as ‘paṅkhee’ (bird) is however the biggest mistake. Birds can’t sleep hanging to the ceiling the way flies can. A problem is encountered due to this so there the translator uses ‘chhat ne paḍachhe’ instead of ‘chhat upar’ but didn’t confirm the implied meaning of ‘fly’. In the first sentence, “circled round the room” has been translated as “oraḍāmāṅ laṭār māree gayuṅ,” which again is not appropriate. Here past continuous tense has been used which can be understood from the context. Therefore, what is intended to be said here is, “ek sfoortilee mākhee oraḍāmāṅ chakkar lagāvatee hatee jyāre beejee badhee chhat upar unghee gaee hatee”. The sentence after that is about a fly going round and round but the translator has generalised it. The meaning of the sentence is as follows:

kevaḷ ā ekleemāṅ j maṅd maṅd baṇbaṇāṭ karatāṇ āmtem farvānuṅ baḷ ane eechchhāshakti hoy em lāgtuṅ hatuṅ.

Sometimes the translator’s own style ruins the translation. Let’s look at an example:

“You are a good boy”, the old man said, staring away to where the sun was sliding into obscurity behind the distant western hills. How this old woman would have loved to stand here beside him now in this warm and pleasant land. ….a good and true wife to him. Life was so empty without her voice and patter of her feet and the tough of her hand.

“sāro chhokaro chhe tuṅ”, vrudhdh bolyo. enee najar to āthamaṇee ḍuṅgaree pachhavāḍe dhoobako māratāṅ sooraj par hatee. [It pinches how the original “sliding into obscurity behind the distant western hills” has been translated here as “dhoobako māratāṅ” and yet, the meaning of ‘obscurity’ is not conveyed therefore a new sentence had to be added.] e khovāee javāno. [Thus, a beautiful description is ruined by the decorative style of the translator.]The last two sentences have been translated as:

kevee raseelee patnee! ena jheeṇā raṇakā jevā avāj vinā, paglānā maṅd rav vinā, hāthnā mrudu sparṣh vinā, jāṇe jindagee lukhkhee ane khālee hatee.

Here ‘good and true’ has been translated as ‘raseelee’ which is outright inappropriate. The meaning of the original doesn’t get conveyed in the translation at all. The original sentiment of a true wife possessing judicious qualities doesn’t get conveyed in the translation. In addition to that, the translator adds adjectives to the sound, footsteps, and touch from their own will, and instead of making the meaning clearer, it makes the translation uglier. Further, the sentiment of the small, energetically sprinting footsteps implied in ‘patter’ doesn’t come across in the translation at all. The adjective ‘lukhkhee’ attached to ‘jiṅdagee’ too is not present in the original.

At times it so happens that the meaning of the original is retained properly in the translation. Language too is conventional and lucid and yet the translation seems to be lifeless. Explaining the reason behind this and suggesting a solution is difficult, but it is a truth that such experiences are frequent. At the end, the only thing I have to say is that like swimming, translation too is an inborn skill. Everyone translates in their own unique way. No rules of translation can be stated. But it seems that studying good translations can be helpful to a certain extent. In our (Gujarati) language, the translated works of few good translators such as Mahadevbhai, Narharibhai, Swami Anand, Chandrashankar Shukla, Vishwanath Bhatt, Ambalal Purani, Sundaram, Manibhai Desai, Gopaldas Patel etc., are easily available. After translating a specimen of the original, one should compare their translation with the translations of these eminent translators. We will come to know of the problems of translation once we translate, and after studying their translations we would be able to see how they solve the problems they confront while translating. It is not possible to understand these things by only reading translations.

***