Soru

The following two passages discuss the theory and practice of translating historical and classical literature.

Passage A
The primary responsibility of the translator of classical literature is not to the syntactic peculiarities of the original text, but to the lived experience of the contemporary reader. When ancient audiences encountered these foundational epics, they were not struggling through archaic syntax, pausing to parse unfamiliar grammatical structures, or puzzling over culturally opaque idioms. Instead, they were completely absorbed in a fluid, emotionally resonant narrative that spoke directly to their own cultural context. To reproduce the literal word order or preserve culturally dead idioms in a modern language is to create a reading experience fundamentally different from what the original author intended. Therefore, successful translation requires a rigorous process of adaptation, where alien concepts are thoughtfully replaced with familiar equivalents and clunky, literal phrasings are smoothed into graceful modern prose. The translator’s invisibility is the ultimate mark of success: the contemporary reader should feel as though the text was originally written in their own language. By prioritizing readability and narrative momentum, the translator ensures that the ancient text remains a living, breathing document rather than a sterile academic artifact locked behind a barrier of linguistic friction.

Passage B
In recent decades, the prevailing trend in translating historical texts has heavily favored fluency, a method that systematically smooths over the linguistic, structural, and cultural differences of the original work. This approach, while often well-intentioned in its desire to make ancient texts universally "accessible," is ultimately an act of cultural erasure. When a translator seamlessly maps modern concepts onto ancient words—substituting a contemporary idiom for a historically specific one—they create a dangerous illusion of universal similarity. This denies the reader the crucial opportunity to encounter the genuine alterity of the past. A more ethical approach to translation actively resists this assimilation. By intentionally retaining the strangeness of the original text—preserving its unfamiliar syntax, retaining culturally specific idioms even if they require sustained effort to parse, and refusing to domesticate its distinct narrative voice—the translator reminds the reader of the immense historical distance separating them from the source material. The resulting text will undoubtedly be more challenging to read, but this friction is not a flaw; it is essential. It forces the reader to pause and confront a worldview fundamentally different from their own, rather than presenting them with a comfortable, artificially modernized mirror that merely reflects their own contemporary sensibilities.

Based on the passages, how would the author of Passage B most likely respond to the assertion in Passage A that a successful translation replaces "alien concepts... with familiar equivalents"?