• Acasa
• Scop şi obiective
• Acces şi indexare
• Colectiv editorial
• Ghiduri
• Recenzare
• Arhiva
• Trimite articol
• Contact
• U.C.B.

This article focuses on the well-known opposition in translation: gain vs. loss. The starting point is the comparison of two Romanian translations of the same American novel: J. D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye.” The reason for choosing these particular cases of translation and re-translation is represented by the extensive use of euphemisms in the Romanian translation to avoid the explicit use of taboo words as written by Salinger. I have also mentioned the issue of infidelity in translation. An important aim of this article was the focus on the problem of the translator’s visibility or invisibility in the target text (TT). The translator’s visibility refers to his / her presence in the TT through notes, footnotes or comments in brackets. To support this idea I have provided some examples in point referring to the use of “explanatory circumlocutions” or footnotes in the first Romanian version of Salinger’s novel, representing the lack of transparency in this version. Nevertheless, the question of whether to use such explanatory sequences in a translation or not is a highly debatable one; some critics being in favour, same against its use.

My aim in this article was that of analysing and providing examples of cases of linguistic untraslatability and the use of footnotes to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding in the TT. This can be regarded as either a loss or a gain, depending on which critical theory one adopts. I believe that the excessive use of such footnotes can be detrimental to the TT, but they can be used moderately, only when imperatively necessary. The main difference between the two Romanian versions of Salinger’s novel is that the first one used such explanatory footnotes abundantly in the TT, while the second version never did.