ProZ.com Translation Forums

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Don't offer universal recipes

kd42 — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:33:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: kd42
Post title: Don't offer universal recipes

[quote]Marijke Singer wrote:
I like this Spanish saying. Literally, It is in the fifth pine tree.
It means to be far away or in an inhospitable remote place. I would translate it as being in the back of beyond. [/quote]
OK, but what if the text plays upon the concept of "pine tree" later on?
What if it is interpreting, not written translation?

I know many stories about real situations with the translation of proverbs and sayings.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Está en el quinto pino

Marijke Singer — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 09:22:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Marijke Singer
Post title: Está en el quinto pino

I like this Spanish saying. Literally, It is in the fifth pine tree.
It means to be far away or in an inhospitable remote place. I would translate it as being in the back of beyond.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | You need both!

Daryo — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 11:36:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Daryo
Post title: You need both!

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
No, but you know what you think, and what you think affects your translation choices. You are the reader, and when you ask "what is the author trying to say?", you are asking "what is the author trying to say to me?"[/quote]

I agree, Philip. I was merely responding to Samuel's claim that I don't agree with. If you as a translator feel that "slave" is a proper translation, then you aren't responsible for readers confusing the concept of slavery between eras. That's all I'm trying to say.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
This is dodging the issue. A translator is not responsible for a reader's knowledge, or lack thereof, but translators are responsible for their own knowledge, and for how that knowledge affects their work.[/quote]

Again, I agree. I'm not sure why you are trying to use this against me. My response to Samuel had nothing to do with my earlier replies to your posts. I simply don't agree with the statement that we should consider what "our readers" (who might be a very diverse bunch of people) think about our translation if we think it's a proper one.

EDIT: let me put it this way, and perhaps we very much disagree on this: in my view a translator should try to get into the head of the author, not into the head of the reader. It's not our job to clarify things on behalf of the author, but "merely" to convey what they are trying to say, and how they are saying it.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 07:51 GMT] [/quote]

You surely do need to 'get into the head' of the author (and understand the whole 'context' at the time and place of writing) but that's only the first step.

Once you are reasonably sure that you have yourself understood the ST, you have next to 'get into the head' of the intended readership otherwise you've done only half of the job, quit halfway.

Limiting yourself to"merely" convey what authors are trying to say, and how they are saying it is fine, but has to be done in a way that the intended audience understands what's really in the Source Text. In doing that, there is a not so small difference between 'pandering to what readers like or don’t like to hear' [so that they can keep believing that their own time-and-space-limited bubble is all that ever existed anywhere at any time] and ‘adapting to the intended audience by using 'their language' in a way that the intended readers understand what the ST really says'.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Ask your professor

kd42 — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 20:06:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: kd42
Post title: Ask your professor

[quote]Tasneem Burqan wrote:

Hello everyone,
I am a student at Palestine Polytechnic University, taking a course in translation. I am currently working on a small project about translating proverbs from English to Arabic.

I would really appreciate hearing from professional translators and experienced language users:

• What strategies do you use when translating proverbs that don’t have a direct equivalent in another language?
• Do you prefer to find a cultural equivalent, explain the meaning, or translate literally with a note?
• Can you share an example of a proverb you translated and how you handled it?

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
[/quote] This is a topic in Practical Translation, there is no single recipe, your professor should explain you the theory, provide examples, and conduct a workshop.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | @Agneta

Samuel Murray — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:37:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Agneta

[quote]Agneta Pallinder wrote:
Swedish "Den som gapar efter mycket mister ofta hela stycket"
Literal translation: "He who opens his mouth for a big bite often loses the whole piece" [/quote]
How about, "He who tries to carry all the groceries all at once ends up dropping it all" (-:

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Their crime

Samuel Murray — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:31:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: Their crime

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
Their crime was not so much the sexual aspect of their behaviour, but the fact that they "mingled" with outsiders, thus showing disloyalty to the household. [/quote]
I think what the slave girls were guilty of and why Telemachus felt that he was doing justice to them is similar to what happened to some women at the end of the Second World War in countries that were occupied by German forces.

After the war, when "order was restored", women who had relations with soldiers of the occupying force were treated very poorly (publicly humiliated, raped, etc.), and the people who did these things to them felt a strong sense of justice doing it. Even today, in the Netherlands, when these events are recounted in history lessons, the narrator is often extremely objective and does not have any criticism of the local population or exhibit sympathy for the women to whom these things have happened.

It is a similar situation where in modern times local people work as professional interpreters for foreign, enemy, occupying forces. And it is amazing how perspective plays a role. Most people in the Netherlands take sides with the local people who worked as interpreters in US-run Afghanistan even though they were collaborators with an occupying force. Those same people feel justified in continuing to use slurs for people who collaborated with the occupying German forces 75 years ago.

In a modern retelling of Odyssey, I suppose Telemachus would simply fire the maids. For even though maids are not slaves, even maids have a disadvantaged power position in modern society which limits their ability to "say no" to their superiors. I would be fine with a "translation" that does that.

[Edited at 2026-01-18 10:33 GMT]

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | @Tasneem

Samuel Murray — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:09:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Tasneem

Do you mean "proverb" (i.e. a wise saying) or do you mean "idiomatic expression" or "metaphor"? Can you give some examples of what you're referring to? Do you mean "Strike while the iron is hot" or "It's a piece of cake"?

[quote]Tasneem Burqan wrote:
• What strategies do you use when translating proverbs that don’t have a direct equivalent in another language? [/quote]

I first ask whether a target language reader would recognize that the text is not meant to be interpreted literally, but as a proverb. Then I ask whether a source language reader would likely know what the proverb means, and/or if it is just a fixed expression in the language. E.g. "strike while the iron is hot" has nothing to do with domestic abuse, but how many English speakers will know that it refers to an activity in a foundry?

Other questions include whether a source text reader who has never encountered the proverb will know what the proverb mean. Or how important it is to the translation that (a) the translation contain a proverb and (b) the proverb reference the specific literal elements of the original.

Translators in my bubble are all about speed. We can't spend too much time trying to come up with the ideal translations. So we try to find a translation that is "good enough", and quickly.

If you can't think of a translation immediately, you can ask ChatGPT for 10 other proverbs that mean the same thing, and see if you can quickly find the translation of any of the other proverbs. Or, you can try to replace variable elements and see if a literal translation still sounds odd in your language. E.g. "the early bird catches the worm" > the early angler catches the fish.

With longer proverbs, like "if your dog starts biting your hand, someone else is feeding it", I would be inclined to translate it literally (if the same cultural elements also appear in the target language) and trust that the reader will be able to figure it out.

[quote]• Do you prefer to find a cultural equivalent, explain the meaning, or translate literally with a note? [/quote]
No translator uses footnotes, uUnless you're translating a text where the reader is aware that he is reading a translation *and* the reader is the type of reader who would like to be exposed to curated elements of the original culture in a safe environment.

Sure, you can use internal notes. E.g. you can replace a Russian proverb "AAA" with "as the Russian proverb goes, 'BBB', which means CCC". (and BBB being a literal translation of AAA).

[Edited at 2026-01-18 10:12 GMT]

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Excuse me

Philip Lees — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 06:13:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Excuse me

[quote]Agneta Pallinder wrote:

An example:
Swedish "Den som gapar efter mycket mister ofta hela stycket"
Literal translation: "He who opens his mouth for a big bite often loses the whole piece"
English equivalent: "Grasp all - lose all". [/quote]
Never heard that one.

How about: Don't bite off more than you can chew?

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | first things first

Gregor Trebec — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 01:26:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Gregor Trebec
Post title: first things first

First things first! Inform yourself about the meaning of the proverb in original language. Than try to find it translated. If worse comes to worse, translate it literally.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | A side note, hopefully relevant

kd42 — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 20:37:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: kd42
Post title: A side note, hopefully relevant

A passage from “Escape Attempt” — a novel by the Strugatski brothers, and a linguistic explanation by the patient janitor. The events are in the distant future, Saul is from XX century, he was accidentally catapulted into the future.

The novel:
[quote]— W-well… if it’s the coast, then the coast, — Saul said uncertainly. He looked at Anton. — For my purposes, — he cleared his throat, — the choice of location is not essential.
— Splendid! — said Vadim. He briskly dropped into the chair beside Anton. — That’s enough! — he announced. — The captain has been struck with paralysis and, in a deplorable state, carried off to his cabin. The broad-shouldered, well-built second pilot has taken command. — He placed his fingers on the bio-control contacts, and the Ship immediately plunged into an abyss. The continent on the screen began to rotate nauseatingly. Vadim declaimed:

All with terror weep and wail
Trambling like a bathhouse leaf!
For the Ship is now commanded
By the most structural linguist.

Saul dropped his briefcase with a clatter and clutched Anton’s shoulder.
— Dimka, at least tell us where you’re aiming, — Anton asked.
— There, — Vadim replied vaguely. — Where blue waves caress the sand.
The Ship lurched heavily to starboard.
— Easy, easy, — said Anton. — Less emotion. You won’t hit the continent.
— Maybe I will.

— We’ve landed, — said Anton. — Welcome to Saul’s planet.
— Nevertheless, you are a daring pilot, — Saul said to Vadim.
— Extremely daring, — Anton agreed. — Do you know how far off you have made it, Dimka? About two hundred kilometers. But you managed to switch off the screen in time — well done.
— Habit, — Vadim said carelessly.
Anton stood up.
— By the way, what is a “bathhouse leaf”? — he asked.
Vadim stood up as well.
— That, Toshka, is a murky question. There’s an archaic idiom: “to tremble like a bathhouse leaf.” A bathhouse leaf is a kind of brazier, — he began gesturing with his hands. — It was installed in the floors of smoke-filled bathhouses, and when “steam was thrown” on — that is, when water was splashed onto the brazier — the red-hot sheet would begin to vibrate.

Saul suddenly burst out laughing. He laughed deeply and with relish, wiping tears with his palm and stamping his boots. No one understood anything, and within a minute everyone was laughing.
— A funny custom, isn’t it? — Vadim said, coughing with laughter.
— Really, Saul, why are you laughing? — Anton asked.
— Oh! — said Saul. — I’m just so glad I’ve arrived on my own planet…
Vadim stopped laughing.
— In the end, I’m not a Slavist, — he said with dignity. — My specialty is structural analysis.
[/quote]

The explanations:
[quote] 1. What the idiom actually means (from Saul’s point of view)
The Russian expression «дрожать как банный лист» is an old colloquial simile meaning to tremble violently with fear.
In Saul’s 20th-century cultural frame, a банный лист (“bathhouse leaf”) is not a technical object at all. It refers to:
• either a birch leaf (or a bunch of leaves) used in a traditional Russian steam bath,
• or more loosely, a thin leaf stuck to a sweating body, trembling and fluttering.
The phrase survives as a fossilized idiom; its imagery is vague but culturally familiar, and no literal explanation is normally expected or needed.

2. Vadim’s explanation — plausible, technical, and wrong
Vadim, living in the future and trained in structural analysis, does not actually know the idiom’s origin. Instead of admitting ignorance, he:
• invents a rationalized, quasi-technical explanation,
• reinterprets “leaf” literally as a metal sheet,
• situates it in an imagined archaic technology (a brazier in a smoke bath),
• and explains the trembling as thermal vibration.
The explanation sounds:
• learned,
• confident,
• internally consistent,
• and completely fabricated.
This is characteristic of Vadim: he replaces cultural knowledge with structural plausibility.

3. Why Saul laughs
Saul’s laughter is delayed and uncontrollable because several realizations hit him at once:
1. He instantly recognizes the explanation as utter nonsense.
2. He realizes that:
• a future intellectual,
• a “structural linguist,”
is confidently explaining his own native idiom to him — and explaining it wrong.
3. The idiom, something utterly mundane in Saul’s time, has:
• become obscure,
• lost its living cultural context,
• and turned into a subject of speculative pseudo-scholarship.
For Saul, this is not just funny — it is existentially comic.

4. The deeper, science-fictional layer
The joke works on a classic sci-fi theme:
• Cultural entropy over time: everyday expressions degrade into misunderstood artifacts.
• The future misunderstands the past, even while believing it understands it better.
• Scientific confidence replaces lived knowledge.

5. Why Vadim’s final line matters
Vadim’s closing remark:
“I’m not a Slavist. My specialty is structural analysis.”
is both a defense and a punchline.
It admits, without quite admitting, that:
• formal analysis without cultural grounding leads to absurdity, and
• expertise in systems does not equal understanding of human meaning.
In short, the misunderstanding is funny because it is perfectly logical, entirely wrong, and historically inevitable. [/quote]

Vadim is actually mixing two ancient idioms:
- to tremble like an aspen leaf;
- to stick like a bathroom leaf.

So much for understanding what Homer wanted to say.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Look for an equivalent

Agneta Pallinder — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 12:00:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Agneta Pallinder
Post title: Look for an equivalent

If you are translating a text that happens to include a proverb I would try to find an equivalent in the target language/ target culture.

So much of the power of proverbs comes from the fact that they are familiar and instantly bring up a whole lot of associations. If you just translate the text of the proverb you lose all of that. Much better to spend some time and imagination on working out what the associations are that the source text proverb carries with it and look for a proverb or saying in the target language that carries similar associations. Mind you, you might still lose some of the expressive power of the original.

An example:
Swedish "Den som gapar efter mycket mister ofta hela stycket"
Literal translation: "He who opens his mouth for a big bite often loses the whole piece"
English equivalent: "Grasp all - lose all".

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Still not possible

Philip Lees — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 07:38:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Still not possible

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:

While I acknowledge everything you said about how difficult it is to escape from own time's and culture's viewpoints when translating an ancient text, I think what Wilson has tried to do is exactly not that: she wanted her translation to reflect the original viewpoints and social values.[/quote]
I'm not questioning her intention, but I still think it's not possible to do that. At least, not in this manner.

[quote]She feels that if the source text says "slave women", then we should not translate it as e.g. "domestic servants", even if those women happen to have been domestic servants also, or as "whores", even if those women were guilty of whoring.[/quote]
The original Greek word was not included in the quoted text, so I asked ChatGPT to look it up, and it's δμῷή (dmōē), meaning female slave or female household servant. Further research reveals that these slaves would have probably been captured in battle, and thus became the victor's property, as was the rule at that time.

So there's no question but that these women were indeed slaves. Their crime was not so much the sexual aspect of their behaviour, but the fact that they "mingled" with outsiders, thus showing disloyalty to the household.

[quote]Put differently, she wants her translation to reflect Homer's point of view, not Telemachus' or Eurycleia's point of view. What Telemachus and Eurycleia might have thought of the slave women is not relevant to Wilson: only what Homer thought is relevant.[/quote]
But even accepting that "slave" is a better translation of δμῷή than other alternatives, does that tell us what Homer thought about it, i.e. how he perceived the word δμῷή? I don't think so.

Would Homer's emotional response to δμῷή match that of a modern reader to the word "slave". We can't possibly know for sure, but personally, I would doubt it.

Although educated Greeks in those ancient times did have moral questions about the whole idea of slavery, and the concept of "owning" another person, it was nevertheless standard practice among the civilisations of that time, and Homer would have considered these women's status to be a component of a normal aristocratic household.

You can't "reflect the original viewpoints and social values" of a far-off age and a different culture without understanding that culture in depth. It isn't just a matter of how you translate individual words, because those words may have had a completely different emotional resonance for the people of that era than they do for the typical reader today (whoever that is). I think you made this point yourself, Samuel, in an earlier post.

Summing up, whether "slave" is a better translation of δμῷή than "maidservant" or other alternatives, whether it is "closer" to the original, depends on what was upmost in Homer's mind when he came up with the description. Nobody knows that for sure, except Homer himself.

And finally, since Homer didn't write his epics down, it's possible that his stories were "edited" by subsequent artists before being put to paper and reaching the form we have available today.

So who knows what Homer thought about it?

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators

Tasneem Burqan — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 01:15:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Tasneem Burqan

Hello everyone,
I am a student at Palestine Polytechnic University, taking a course in translation. I am currently working on a small project about translating proverbs from English to Arabic.

I would really appreciate hearing from professional translators and experienced language users:

• What strategies do you use when translating proverbs that don’t have a direct equivalent in another language?
• Do you prefer to find a cultural equivalent, explain the meaning, or translate literally with a note?
• Can you share an example of a proverb you translated and how you handled it?

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | @Daryo, @Philip

Samuel Murray — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:59:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Daryo, @Philip

[quote]Daryo wrote:
What I'm most sceptical about are any claims about 'the authentic meaning' of something written about 27 centuries ago. [/quote]
On the one hand, I think we need to realize that the Facebook article was written with a particular audience in mind. We should take such wild statements with a pinch of salt. The publisher is trying to convince potential purchasers (who are not translators or classicists) that this book is somehow different from all the other translations.

On the other hand, whitewashing (or sanitizing, or whatever we call it) is a frequent criticism of translations of classical literature, so if a translator chose to translate as close to the actual meaning as she can possibly get -- within the limits of her knowledge and expertise -- then I kind of understand what she is trying to say. Her publisher wants to assure us that they did not give her restrictions (e.g. ask her to soften the language, so that it offends fewer readers), but allowed her to be as explicit as she believes was necessary to convey the original meaning.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
Is it a good thing for someone to produce a new translation of Homer that reflects 21st century western viewpoints and social values? [/quote]
While I acknowledge everything you said about how difficult it is to escape from own time's and culture's viewpoints when translating an ancient text, I think what Wilson has tried to do is exactly not that: she wanted her translation to reflect the original viewpoints and social values.

She feels that if the source text says "slave women", then we should not translate it as e.g. "domestic servants", even if those women happen to have been domestic servants also, or as "whores", even if those women were guilty of whoring.

Put differently, she wants her translation to reflect Homer's point of view, not Telemachus' or Eurycleia's point of view. What Telemachus and Eurycleia might have thought of the slave women is not relevant to Wilson: only what Homer thought is relevant.

[Edited at 2026-01-15 20:11 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | @Lieven

Samuel Murray — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:50:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Lieven

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:
[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:
We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".[/quote]
We ask "what is the author trying to say" and try to convey exactly that. [/quote]
Yes, obviously, and then we choose words that our readers will understand correctly (as opposed to words that a dictionary says is the correct word, or words that an etymologist thinks is correct, etc.). And in the case of the translation of a story, we are usually not flying blind w.r.t. our readers -- we know what kind of reader will read our translation.

Is the reader an academic classicist or is the reader a member of the public with a fleeting interest in something classical? I get the impression that Wilson's translation is not meant for students of Greek, but for the public, and specifically (if I may speculate) a US public.

[quote]For the example you are giving I would say a translator is most definitely not responsible for readers' presumed lack of knowledge about the difference between slaves in the classical antiquity and African slaves in the US. [/quote]
No, but the translator can take it into account when choosing the most appropriate word.

It is possible that translators who had a classical education are are fully aware of the difference between modern life and classical life, but I had no such education, and I can assure you that the average person of my level and type of education would not know that when Homer says "slave", he might actually mean a perpetual indentured servant.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Selling

Maria Laura Curzi — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:24:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Maria Laura Curzi
Post title: Selling

[quote]Evgeny Sidorenko wrote:

I wonder why anyone would like to translate something again. Only because it would be more 'readable' for the modern user or gender-biased or something? There's lots of untranslated books. Not all of them are Homer of course, but I have never understood the concept of 'new translations' often promoted by the publishers. So much resourse has been spent on retranslating of books, some of which are not worth this double effort, while there are so many more that would never be translated at all. There may be cases of very bad quality translations of supposedly 'very good books' that have at some point actually justified a new translation, but on the whole I think it's a great waste of translators' time and energy. [/quote]

AFAIK, publishers' ultimate goal is to sell as many books as possible.
An "old translation" - I would consider "old" a translation done more than 30 years ago - is harder to market to new readers than a new translation.
So, even if they spend resources on new translations, their ROI is always bigger, especially if we consider the rates the literary market offers.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Agree

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:04:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Agree

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

EDIT: let me put it this way, and perhaps we very much disagree on this: in my view a translator should try to get into the head of the author, not into the head of the reader. It's not our job to clarify things on behalf of the author, but "merely" to convey what they are trying to say, and how they are saying it.[/quote]
I just noticed this addition, so let me say that I completely agree with you, Lieven, and in fact I've expressed the same view in another discussion here.

"The words are mine, but the voice the reader hears - if I've done my job properly - is not mine: it's the author's voice, just speaking a different language."

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | None taken

Lieven Malaise — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:18:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: None taken

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
I wasn't trying to do anything "against" you, and I'm sorry if it came over that way. It appears I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, given the varying context. I respect your opinions, even if I may not agree with all of them.[/quote]

No offense taken. It just seemed you were trying to say that I contradicted myself in some way and I was struggling to see how.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
But don't all writers, including translators, have some kind of mental picture of their reader (or, ideally, readers), and how they are likely to respond to what they read. We don't just write for ourselves - or do we? [/quote]

Well, as you already sort of said: we are translator and reader at the same time, so of course it's important to ask oneself if what we write makes sense from a reader's point of view. As a translator, though, I feel more like we write for the writer/author and less for the reader. It's the author that has a mental picture of their readers. As a translator we will probably/hopefully identify those readers through the source text (or because we are simply told for whom the text is meant) and take that into account, but I strongly believe we should be more like modest "servants" (mind you, not "slaves", to stay a little closer to the topic :-)) at the service of the rock stars (the writers) than trying to be a bit of a rock star ourselves.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 08:19 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Deleted

Lieven Malaise — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:17:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: Deleted

Double post

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 08:18 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | No offence

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:55:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: No offence

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

Again, I agree. I'm not sure why you are trying to use this against me. My response to Samuel had nothing to do with my earlier replies to your posts. I simply don't agree with the statement that we should consider what "our readers" (who might be a very diverse bunch of people) think about our translation if we think it's a proper one. [/quote]
I wasn't trying to do anything "against" you, and I'm sorry if it came over that way. It appears I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, given the varying context. I respect your opinions, even if I may not agree with all of them.

But don't all writers, including translators, have some kind of mental picture of their reader (or, ideally, readers), and how they are likely to respond to what they read. We don't just write for ourselves - or do we?

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Clarification

Lieven Malaise — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:35:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: Clarification

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
No, but you know what you think, and what you think affects your translation choices. You are the reader, and when you ask "what is the author trying to say?", you are asking "what is the author trying to say to me?"[/quote]

I agree, Philip. I was merely responding to Samuel's claim that I don't agree with. If you as a translator feel that "slave" is a proper translation, then you aren't responsible for readers confusing the concept of slavery between eras. That's all I'm trying to say.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
This is dodging the issue. A translator is not responsible for a reader's knowledge, or lack thereof, but translators are responsible for their own knowledge, and for how that knowledge affects their work.[/quote]

Again, I agree. I'm not sure why you are trying to use this against me. My response to Samuel had nothing to do with my earlier replies to your posts. I simply don't agree with the statement that we should consider what "our readers" (who might be a very diverse bunch of people) think about our translation if we think it's a proper one.

EDIT: let me put it this way, and perhaps we very much disagree on this: in my view a translator should try to get into the head of the author, not into the head of the reader. It's not our job to clarify things on behalf of the author, but "merely" to convey what they are trying to say, and how they are saying it.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 07:51 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Dodging issues

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:18:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Dodging issues

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:
We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".[/quote]
We ask "what is the author trying to say" and try to convey exactly that. In my opinion that has got nothing to do with what readers might think. We mostly don't know those readers, apart from the "market" they belong to, let alone what they might think.[/quote]
No, but you know what you think, and what you think affects your translation choices. You are the reader, and when you ask "what is the author trying to say?", you are asking "what is the author trying to say to me?"

[quote]For the example you are giving I would say a translator is most definitely not responsible for readers' presumed lack of knowledge about the difference between slaves in the classical antiquity and African slaves in the US. [/quote]
This is dodging the issue. A translator is not responsible for a reader's knowledge, or lack thereof, but translators are responsible for their own knowledge, and for how that knowledge affects their work.

And when we are trying to figure out what a writer meant when using a particular word there is no "exactly" (apart from trivial cases): there is only our best guess, and different people may guess differently. That doesn't mean that one is right and the other wrong.

(Unless you are able to ask the author: [url removed] )

Is it a good thing for someone to produce a new translation of Homer that reflects 21st century western viewpoints and social values? I would answer, "Yes!" Apart from anything else, it has prompted one of the more interesting discussions on these forums.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Getting real

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:56:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Getting real

[quote]Daryo wrote:

What I'm most sceptical about are any claims about 'the authentic meaning' of something written about 27 centuries ago. Getting right the meaning of words (their denotations and connotations) as they were used barely a century or two ago can already be a tricky business enough - anyone claiming that they can fully immerse themselves in the language, ways of thinking and living from about 2700 to 2800 years ago based on nothing more than not that many surviving documents leaves me highly unconvinced.

I still think the book is worth reading, as no translation of such an old text could be 'the definitive one'.
[/quote]
These are the same points I wanted to make. I suppose there might be a "definitive" translation of the Odyssey for the 17th century English reader, but the "definitive" translation for the 20th or 21st century reader might be quite different.

The point about different perceptions of slavery in different eras and societies is a good one. Let's do a thought experiment.

Assume that human society is still around 2000 years from now, and in that future society, people look back on our current era and, given the disastrous environmental and economic consequences that their ancestors (i.e. our descendants) had to survive, they view the massive and universal use of oil-burning vehicles for individual transportation with the same kind of repugnance that we now view the massive and universal practice of slavery 2000 years ago.

Now imagine that you are a translator in that future society, and you are translating a work of 20th century fiction, when you come across a scene in which a single character gets into a car and drives to the supermarket to do some shopping.

How are you going to deal with that behaviour in your translation? Will you present it with the same insouciance as it would be viewed by the character involved - and the people around them - in their own era? Or would you feel you had to put on your fifth millennium spectacles and recast the activity in a way that reflects the views of the people of your time?

There are arguments to support both approaches. But which would produce a target text that was "closer" to the source?

I maintain that there is no correct answer to this question. As I wrote in an earlier post, it is entirely subjective, and purely a matter of perspective.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | You sure could call that 'a status' ...

Daryo — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:11:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Daryo
Post title: You sure could call that 'a status' ...

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:

[quote]The Facebook post:
Earlier translators described these women using various English words: "maids," "servants," "disloyal women." ... Wilson looked at the Greek. The word Homer uses, she explains, has a root meaning "to overpower, to tame, to subdue." These were not servants with wages and choices. They were enslaved women with no power to refuse powerful men. Wilson translated the word as "slaves." [/quote]
That is true, but in Odyssian times, slaves had status. By contrast, when US readers read "slaves", they will invariably think of something similar to the African slaves that were brought to the US. US slaves were generally treated very poorly, and did not practice trades but did the most manual work possible. Odyssian slaves were slaves in the sense that they were not free, but they were otherwise ordinary members of society. There were nothing like the US slaves. By choosing to translate the word as "female slave", Wilson risks that her readers will misunderstand what Homer meant by the word. Yes, they were slaves, but not *those* kind of slaves. This is why we as professional translators generally do not look at the root meaning of a word when we translate it. We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".

By the way, I asked ChatGPT how other authors translated this word. ChatGPT then gave me a very useful list, but... it claimed that Wilson had used the term "the enslaved women", which is not true. It is plausible (and we know that ChatGPT excels at telling us plausible things), but it is not true. Wilson used "female slaves". [/quote]

They sure did have a 'status' - the one of being 'things', most literally the personal property of their owners. Plenty resources available about what Aristotle had to say about 'living tools' that can talk (you can look it up for yourself - WITHOUT wasting time on CheatGPT preferably)

'otherwise ordinary members of society'? - Ordinary?? Maybe in the sense that everyone ***at that time*** considered slavery as 'an ordinary thing' but certainly not ordinary enough that their opinion would count for anything, as they were counted as legal objects not as legal subjects! Are you going to say next that democracy was for them also?

The founders of democracy seeing nothing wrong in being slave owners, and even had their own elaborate justification for it? Not the first nor the last 'inconvenient fact' being conveniently forgotten … until some affreux Jojo has the temerity to remind you of them.

What I'm most sceptical about are any claims about 'the authentic meaning' of something written about 27 centuries ago. Getting right the meaning of words (their denotations and connotations) as they were used barely a century or two ago can already be a tricky business enough - anyone claiming that they can fully immerse themselves in the language, ways of thinking and living from about 2700 to 2800 years ago based on nothing more than not that many surviving documents leaves me highly unconvinced.

I still think the book is worth reading, as no translation of such an old text could be 'the definitive one'.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | I disagree

Lieven Malaise — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:15:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: I disagree

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:
We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".[/quote]

We ask "what is the author trying to say" and try to convey exactly that. In my opinion that has got nothing to do with what readers might think. We mostly don't know those readers, apart from the "market" they belong to, let alone what they might think.

For the example you are giving I would say a translator is most definitely not responsible for readers' presumed lack of knowledge about the difference between slaves in the classical antiquity and African slaves in the US.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-14 18:18 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Slaves

Samuel Murray — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:30:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: Slaves

[quote]The Facebook post:
Earlier translators described these women using various English words: "maids," "servants," "disloyal women." ... Wilson looked at the Greek. The word Homer uses, she explains, has a root meaning "to overpower, to tame, to subdue." These were not servants with wages and choices. They were enslaved women with no power to refuse powerful men. Wilson translated the word as "slaves." [/quote]
That is true, but in Odyssian times, slaves had status. By contrast, when US readers read "slaves", they will invariably think of something similar to the African slaves that were brought to the US. US slaves were generally treated very poorly, and did not practice trades but did the most manual work possible. Odyssian slaves were slaves in the sense that they were not free, but they were otherwise ordinary members of society. There were nothing like the US slaves. By choosing to translate the word as "female slave", Wilson risks that her readers will misunderstand what Homer meant by the word. Yes, they were slaves, but not *those* kind of slaves. This is why we as professional translators generally do not look at the root meaning of a word when we translate it. We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".

By the way, I asked ChatGPT how other authors translated this word. ChatGPT then gave me a very useful list, but... it claimed that Wilson had used the term "the enslaved women", which is not true. It is plausible (and we know that ChatGPT excels at telling us plausible things), but it is not true. Wilson used "female slaves".

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Why

Evgeny Sidorenko — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:45:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Evgeny Sidorenko
Post title: Why

I wonder why anyone would like to translate something again. Only because it would be more 'readable' for the modern user or gender-biased or something? There's lots of untranslated books. Not all of them are Homer of course, but I have never understood the concept of 'new translations' often promoted by the publishers. So much resourse has been spent on retranslating of books, some of which are not worth this double effort, while there are so many more that would never be translated at all. There may be cases of very bad quality translations of supposedly 'very good books' that have at some point actually justified a new translation, but on the whole I think it's a great waste of translators' time and energy.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Subjectivity

Philip Lees — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:28:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Subjectivity

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:
By saying this you question her claim that her translation is more accurate, closer to the source. I think that's the most important element here, although this obviously doesn't mean there can't be any bias from her side.

Is there any indication that her translation is not closer to the source (= counterarguments from peer experts in ancient Greek)? [/quote]
I'm sure she is entirely sincere when she says that her translation is closer to the original in some ways. But she also points out that it differs in other ways - in the metric rhythm, for example.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the concept of being "closer to the source" does not withstand scrutiny. Or at least, it is an entirely subjective judgement. I'll give an example.

When I was learning Greek, I read some children's books. As it happens, one was the story of Odysseus. Among his other characteristics, he is described - in a book for Greek children - as being πονηρός (poniros). If you look up πονηρός in a Greek-English dictionary, you will find a number of alternative words. For example, Google translate gives cunning, sly, tricky, canny and foxy. Deepl gives only cunning, which is what I found when I looked it up all those years ago, and I thought it didn't sound like a particularly heroic quality. Nor do the other alternatives, except possibly "canny", which is mainly a Scottish idiom.

The go-to dictionary for modern Greek, by Babiniotis, defines it as (my loose translation of the definition, so watch out for bias) a person who is able to achieve his goals through trickery, often not honest, which may involve deceit, fraudulence, misdirection, and so on. Again, this doesn't sound especially heroic.

However, if you wanted to make Odysseus sound less disreputable, you could also translate πονηρός as "artful", or "shrewd", words that mean the same, but - for me at least - do not have a negative connotation. I would claim that this is "closer" to the source, because in Greek culture the quality of being πονηρός is often viewed as a positive attribute, not a negative one. I know that because I've spent most of my life here. But will a translator three thousand years from now know that? Languages change over time.

So my interpretation of the word πονηρός as a description of Odysseus is coloured, both by my British upbringing, which instilled me with values such as honesty and fair play, and my subsequent life in Greece, which has led me to accept that a bit of trickery is no bad thing.

This interpretation, i.e. my preference for "artful", is entirely subjective and culture-dependent. So is any similar decision, made by any translator, at any time, in any place. If another translator, with a different cultural background, decides on a different alternative, there will be no argument from me.

So the question as to which translation of a word in Homer is "closer to the source" is a meaningless one, in my opinion, because there is no single answer. It's purely a matter of perspective.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Some more food for thouoght

kd42 — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:40:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: kd42
Post title: Some more food for thouoght

Again, another copy-paste, but I think it is a highly relevant perspective.
A very old article, but still true today, there's a Russian word for it -- "netlenka".

[quote]Netlénka (нетле́нка) is a Russian slang word with cultural nuance, and it doesn’t have a single exact equivalent in English.
Core meaning
Literally, it comes from нетленный — “imperishable” or “undying.”
In slang, netlenka means something like:
a timeless classic
an immortal hit
a cult favorite that never gets old[/quote]

==============================+=>

Sorry Guys, You Can't Win

by Danilo Nogueira

ome time ago my e-mail included a message posted by a respected colleague discussing the qualities that made a good translator. The message read like her own CV. She believed she was a competent professional, attributed her competence to certain factors and concluded that those factors were indeed universally applicable requirements.

In other words, she firmly believed there is only one road to becoming a good translator: the road she had trodden.

In fact, most good translators I know have not followed the same path as she did and many of those who have are not good translators at all; the path she followed is not the only possible one. There is no single path to becoming a good translator, there is not even a safe path that will guarantee that those who tread it will become good translators. Some trails are better than others, some are less steep, less arduous, less hazardous, some may be more appropriate to individual tastes. But there are many routes, not just a single one.

Worse still, none of those roads will take us to the very top, to that exalted situation of being a complete translator, for there is no such a thing. No matter what route we follow, every translator suffers from what I call "systemic defects": shortcomings inherently related to the particular path that this individual followed to become a translator.

Perhaps, I should delve deeper into this matter taking my own situation as a starting point.

I was born in Brazil, my first language is Portuguese and my English was acquired in high school. I have spent less than thirty days in English-speaking countries. That gives me a definite edge in translating from Portuguese into English. As a matter of fact, I find translating from English a little terrifying.

Native Stylus vs. Native Style

This is what I call the stylus edge. I found the stylus vs. style thing so cute I could not resist using it here. If you see it used somewhere else, please, remember that this is my creation, or at least I think it is. But let me explain what I mean by native stylus.

Long ago, during the LP-era, I read an item claiming that the most valuable piece of equipment one could buy for one's stereo was a stylus. Stylus, as you'll remember, is what everybody called a needle. The guy proceeded to explain that most people spent a fortune on speakers, amps, pre-amps and God knows what else, but went Uncle Scrooge when purchasing a stylus. This was an error, the guy said, because the stylus picks up the sound and if it does not do a good job of it, there is nothing the rest of the system can do to improve the sound.

Yes, indeed. My style is not native—but my stylus is. Because Portuguese is my native language and I have always lived in Brazil, I can easily pick up and understand half-hidden shades of meaning and cultural allusions that would go unnoticed if I were not a native speaker.

Not that I can always explain it well in English: that is the privilege of the native speaker, the guy who's got the native style.

The Advantages of Transplants

Alas, had I lived abroad, my English would be a lot better. Or might be, because a lot of people live abroad for ages and never learn the language, as everybody knows.

People who have lived abroad claim they make the best translators because they are native speakers of Portuguese and speak English like a native. Their detractors claim their Portuguese starts getting funny long before the improvement in their English begins to show and that she speaks like a native actually means she speaks as only a foreigner will.

Both sides are right to some extent (meaning both are wrong most of the time). The fact is that no matter where you live, your day still has twenty-four hours and the more contact you have with English, the less contact you have with Portuguese. As we say down here, you cannot whistle and chew sugar cane at the same time. But I can think of several types of jobs better entrusted to a transplanted translator than left in the hands of a stay-at-homer.

Not All Translators are Brazilian, Can You Believe That?

Of course, we do not have a monopoly on translating from Portuguese—or into Portuguese, for that matter. Lots of Americans are doing it these days. Many of them even do Portuguese as a "second" to Spanish.

Americans translating from Portuguese into English have better styles than styluses (this is becoming too obvious and quite boring, but I must go on and on) and must work on the decoding side of translation with the same gusto I work on the encoding side.

A translation into English by an incompetent foreigner is a laughable string of nonsense. This is a good thing because the very absurdity of it all will tell the reader the translation cannot be trusted. So it is no security risk.

A translation into English done by a native speaker whose style is OK but who lacks stylus is a lot more dangerous. Because the translation looks OK and reads like decent, honest English, the reader who has no access to or does not understand the original is misled into believing it is correct.

This type of translation is what the French call the belles infidèles, the unfaithful beauties: beautiful text that fails to reproduce the meaning of the original.

Les Belles Infidèles

The term refers to a certain type of translation popular in the nineteenth century, that made excellent reading in French but did not reflect the original for several reasons, including the fact that the translator often was not entirely conversant in the original language.

Unfaithful beauties are not restricted to translations into English. Plenty of them are done from English into Portuguese by Brazilians who believe a few lessons in English or a short stay in the U.S. attending high school under an exchange program entitles them to translate anything.

Are you a professional?

Some of my clients do not object to the fact I am Brazilian (I became a crack stylus salesperson), but would rather have the stuff translated by a lawyer or an accountant, under the belief only a "professional" can handle "technical stuff."

As if translators were not professionals!

It is often difficult to explain to them that translating is a profession and that a good lawyer does not necessarily a good translator make. Some lawyers are excellent translators, certainly, but most are not. Same goes for accountants, doctors, cockroach-breeders and members of other equally worthy professions, trades and calls.

As a matter of fact, being a "professional" (meaning lawyer, accountant, etc., not "professional translator") may be an asset but often it is a liability. Those "professionals" produced some of the worst translations I have seen, for many of them find it impossible to resist the temptation to make an improvement here and another there.

This type of person can be truly difficult as a reviser. A client once made several changes in one of my translations (into Portuguese, for a change) on the grounds that the entity he represented held a different position on the matter and could not publish that rubbish under its name.

It took me more than an hour of heated discussion to convince the man that the text did not purport to convey the opinion of the Brazilian entity. The very purpose of having it translated was to inform the Brazilian public what the foreign professional thought. In the end my, translation was published unchanged, without the benefit of reviser-imposed improvements. I am very good at stamping my foot.

Surprisingly, this denial of translation as a profession also occurs among translators themselves. My brethren often accept the dictum that translations of poetry are best left to poets. Sorry, pals, but I cannot agree. Some poets may be very good translators, no doubt, in the same manner some poets cook well, play admirably on the sackbut or can perform any number of wonderful feats.

But that should not be taken to mean that all poets are good translators or that only poets can translate. Many simply write original poetry, good or otherwise, and publish it as translations or transmogrifications of someone else's work. If you do not believe me, just have the their so-called translations translated back into the original language by a competent translator who does not know the text purports to be a translation, if I make myself clear. Then, compare the original with the back-translation. Any similarity will be mere coincidence.

Those people remind me of Fritz Kreisler (1875-1962), a great Austrian violinist who used to play encores by Pugnani (1731-1798). When a critic asked a few awkward questions, Mr. Kreisler, always the diplomatic Viennese, claimed that the bonbons had been composed by himself, in the manner of Pugnani. That did not improve the musical quality of the pieces but helped pinpoint responsibilities.

Degrees and all that

The old guard (pace Cambronne) never took a degree in translating because there were none to be taken during our salad days. And as old guards are wont to do, we did not surrender to the hordes of degree-bearers that colleges and universities have been pouring into the market of late.

Don't take me wrong. I am all in favor of college training for translators and have had the honor to address student audiences in at least ten different colleges. If I were young and wanted to become a translator, I would certainly enroll in one of those colleges (not any of them, though) and dutifully work for a degree.

Some respected members of the Old Guard, however, affirm the best way to spoil a talent for translation is to put its holder through a college course in translating. I do not agree. When Pixinguinha (please, do not pronounce it pi-ksin-gwin-ha, it is pee-sheen-gheeng-ya—or nearly so) entered the Rio Conservatoire everybody said he would never compose anything of value again. They were wrong and so is anyone who says school is bad for you.

But some facts are true: translation courses range from excellent to horrible, not to say plain evil, and not all graduates are nearly as competent as they believe they are. And, as all new graduates, they need a bit of experience to become good professionals.

On the other hand, not all of those who have learned by holding their several noses very close to the grindwheel are as competent as they would like you to believe they are. The guy who claims he (more probably "she," for most translators are women) has been a translator for thirty years may in fact have been a mistranslator for all that time.

Conclusion-wise:

If you translate into a foreign language, your style will be non-native. If you translate into your own language, you'll miss the point of the original. If you live abroad, your native language will get a bit rusty, and you'll never write the foreign language like a real native does. If you are a translator, you'll fail to grasp the fine technical points of the original or to convey them to the reader using the appropriate language. If you are a non-translator you should be doing your thing, not translating, because you do not know how to translate. If you do not have a degree, you lack the necessary theoretical foundation. If you have a degree, you lack the necessary practice.

You can't win.

© Copyright Translation Journal and the Author 2000
Send your comments to the Webmaster
URL: [url removed]
Last updated: 07/19/2018
==============================+=>

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Source

Lieven Malaise — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 09:25:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: Source

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
I think those other translators would claim - perhaps indignantly - that their assumptions were also based on the original wording, and not on any gender or other bias.[/quote]

By saying this you question her claim that her translation is more accurate, closer to the source. I think that's the most important element here, although this obviously doesn't mean there can't be any bias from her side.

Is there any indication that her translation is not closer to the source (= counterarguments from peer experts in ancient Greek)?