Soru

Passage A
The endeavor to translate poetry often founders on the misplaced desire to retain every structural feature of the original text. Because no two languages share identical syntactic rules, phonological patterns, or cultural associations, perfectly replicating the original linguistic framework is impossible. The translator who attempts a strict, literal word-for-word rendering inevitably produces a stilted, lifeless artifact. The primary duty of a poetry translator is not to serve as a linguistic mirror, but rather as an emotive conduit. The true essence of a poem lies in its ability to evoke a specific emotional and aesthetic response within its native context. Therefore, the successful translator must be willing to dismantle the original poem's formal constraints—altering metaphors, adjusting rhythms, and abandoning rigid rhyme schemes if necessary—in order to recreate that core resonance in the target language. Languages are living ecosystems; transferring a poem requires transplanting its emotional seed into new soil, not merely preserving its dried leaves. This approach acknowledges that translation is inherently an act of creative adaptation. The translator is essentially a co-poet, crafting a new work that stands parallel to the original. To cling stubbornly to the foreign syntax is to sacrifice the poem's living breath for a sterile anatomical exactitude.

Passage B
A disturbing trend in contemporary literary translation is the "domestication" of foreign poetry, wherein translators aggressively smooth out the linguistic idiosyncrasies of the original to make the text easily digestible for the target audience. By substituting familiar, domestic idioms for alien metaphors, these translators erase the cultural specificities that gave the original its distinct identity and historical weight. When we read poetry from another culture, we should be visiting a new world, not forcing that world to conform to our own familiar landscape. Poetry is fundamentally and inextricably bound to the formal properties of its native language—the specific tensions between its diction, its syntax, and its meter are not merely decorative elements that can be swapped out at will, but are constitutive of the poem's actual meaning. Consequently, translating poetry should be an act of rigorous fidelity, preserving the strangeness and the linguistic friction of the original even when it actively challenges the target language reader. While it is undeniable that an absolute, frictionless correspondence between two different languages is a linguistic impossibility due to inherent structural divergences, the translator’s ethical obligation is nonetheless to strive toward maximal literal and formal accuracy. The resulting translation may be difficult, and it may force the reader to confront awkward phrasing, but it rightly places the burden of comprehension on the reader.

Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses a view held by the authors of both passages regarding the translation of poetry?