Abstract
The translation of certain toponyms that had not yet been assimilated to the Romanian language at the beginning of the 19th century represented a real challenge for translators at that time. A first aspect to be considered here is the linguistic status as proper names and the possible translation options that could not be correlated to any tradition. A second aspect is the precarious stage of Romanian geographical terminology, reflected by the terminological variation for the same concept and the lack of semantic affinity, either real or related to the actual terminology. This article addresses mainly the first aspect mentioned above. The issues addressed are as follows: a concise presentation of the concept of proper names translation, the distinction between untranslatable and translatable or partially translatable proper names, the factors motivating the option of translating or not the translatable terms from a toponymic collocation. Our corpus reflects the incipient stage of the translation of translatable or partially translatable toponyms in Romanian, a stage in which the translator is free to decide upon translatability. Compared to the actual norm, the different choices from one translator to another or even those opted for by the same translator—especially the option of not translating toponyms that are nowadays translated in most languages—reveal the lack of importance of linguistic meaning (that is the lexical meaning of the etymon) of the proper name as far as its functioning was concerned, as well as the role of this non-functionality in identifying the linguistic status of a proper name.
Highlights
The translation of proper names is as complex as the status of the proper name as a linguistic sign, being characterized by the same heterogeneity concerning the perspectives and approach methods
The eclectic approach of the strategies implying the transfer of the proper name from one language into another is favoured by its lack of clear identity as a linguistic entity, mainly with regard to its content: “the only words one does use as names in the logical sense are words like «this» or «that»” (Gardiner, 1957, p. 59, an idea shared by Kuryłowicz, 1980, p. 6); “il peut y avoir des sous-catégories fonctionnelles, comme le nom propre à l’intérieur des pronoms-substantifs” (Hjelmslev, 1971, p. 207); “le nom propre est [...] fondamentalement un référent” (Clarinval, 1967, p. 34); “en effet, le nom propre est un nom, mais
This aspect cannot be considered when analyzing the translation of proper names since it relates to the inaccurate understanding of the text rather than to a translation option
Summary
The translation of proper names is as complex as the status of the proper name as a linguistic sign, being characterized by the same heterogeneity concerning the perspectives and approach methods. An intermediate step would be to determine why some translatable proper names are translated (see the examples above), while others are not (Salt Lake City, Rio Grande, Mont Blanc, etc.). Another topic concerning the translation of proper names is the non-differentiated treatment at a general level of the titles and proper names (which can function as titles or parts of titles). Some denominative collocations (compound proper names) are partially translated, as in the following examples: Lat. Mare Mediterraneum – Fr. Mer Méditerranée, Rom. Marea Mediterană, Engl. A typology of the translation of proper names, including toponyms, should consider the criterion of translatability and discern, first of all, between the properties that render a proper name translatable or untranslatable and between the properties that make translatable (or partially translatable) proper names be translated, partially translated or untranslated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
