Footy fever is about to grip TWT...

Mack&Mack

Senior Member
Korea & Korean
Hello,

I am wondering how you would translate the sentence below.

Footy fever is about to grip TWT(The Weekly Times) Territory as the National Rugby League 2009 season kicks off this weekend.

What makes me stop and think for a moment is the conjunction as. One of the meanings that I was taught to translate it into was ~함에 따라 or ~하게 되면서. Is there any possibility that it needs to be translated it into because (~하기 때문에)?

If not, my version would be:

이번 주에 전국 럭비 리그 2009 시즌이 시작함에 따라 럭비 열풍이 TWT 지면을 곧 장식할 것입니다.

My Korean has been influenced by English for quite some time, so would someone confirm it for me? Many thanks to you all in advance.
 
  • 조금만

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Preamble: when I wrote and first posted the reply which follows, the title of this thread was "How would you translate 'as' in the sentence below?". That was the question I am sure the poster intended to raise, and it is the one I have tried to answer in what follows.

    However, after I had posted that reply, the title of the thread was changed (I imagine by a moderator) to the one it now bears. That alters the focus of the posting, making it now appear to invite observations on the translation of the entire sentence. I hope that anyone who thinks my reply is strangely fixated on one two-letter word and ignores all the lexical issues apparently raised by the new title will bear that in mind.



    I think we have to distinguish here between the semantics of what "as" actually means in this and similar constructions on the one hand, and the pragmatics of how a Korean writer (I say 'writer' rather than 'speaker' for reasons that will become plain in a moment) would express the same meaning in a cognate context. I can expand on the former, but I don't have enough experience of a broad range of Korean print news media to offer anything useful on the latter.

    The main point is that this is a distinctly journalistic usage of "as". It is (very commonly) used in this specific way in headlines and in introductory sentences in news reports in a way that apparently echoes, but in fact significantly differs from, its use in other areas of language.

    Everywhere else, "as" is either temporal or causal, but hardly ever both.

    a) As I left the house, it started to rain. [Unequivocally temporal]

    b) As I had left my umbrella at home, I borrowed one from my workmate [Unequivocally causal/explanatory]

    Plainly, these two usages require two different approaches in Korean: or rather three, because Korean distinguishes between co-temporal events which have the same grammatical subject, and those that involve two distinct subjects performing different actions or being in different states at the same time.

    [A side point, though. The temporal usage in (a) is quite commonly found in both speech and writing, though in speech it tends to occur in a (possibly informal but nonetheless structured) narrative context. But the causal usage in (b) has a distinctly "bookish" air to it. It would be unremarkable in writing, but sound stilted or affected in speech. If I said "Would you mind if I borrowed your umbrella, because I've left mine at home" that would be perfectly normal. But if I said the same sentence, but substituting "as" for "because" it would strike people as wooden and possibly pretentious if spoken by a native in familiar discourse.]

    The distinctive feature of what I'll call the JHA (for journalistic headline 'as') is that it combines, and sometimes muddles, both causal and temporal senses. It is well known that for reasons of typesetting and copy fitting, journalists prefer short words to common longer ones, even when the former are either rare or hardly used at all in other speech areas ('quiz' over 'interrogate', 'feud' over 'dispute', 'probe' over 'investigate' etc.) So 'as' has a head start over 'because' in the word-choice stakes. But the attractions of the JHA are much increased by the fact that it allows both temporal simultaneity and causal sequence to be (more or less vaguely) asserted, with the added bonus that the writer doesn't have to think too clearly and commit him/herself to either meanins in particular.

    So your sample headline (maybe sub-headline or lead-in sentence) asserts BOTH that two events are about to occur simultaneously AND that one is the cause of the other. The problem for someone given the unenviable task of translating this usage into Korean is that Korean syntax requires its speakers and writers to commit themselves to one or the other of those claims of connectedness between the two events. So, once the semantics are clear, as I hope they now are, you are still left with the unenviable pragmatic task of expressing a typically English fudging of the issues in a language which places a higher value on conceptual rigour.

    I think your first judgement is right. Even though there is a causal/explanatory claim of sorts here, my hunch is that to express it via ~때문에 would foreground, indeed assert, that causality to a degree simply not present in the English. On the other hand, my (highly underinformed and unreliable) sense of Korean meanings suggests to me that your 함에 따라 version leaves less room for the an implied causal co-sense than the original English. However, I would say that it is the line to take, if only because the unequivocally causal alternative is so far from the semantics of the English.

    One other possibility strikes me, however. I don't have enough experience reading corresponding Korean texts, so this may be a completely unfeasible. But how about surpressing the explicit conjunctor altogether and using the characteristically Korean device of encapsulation (which allows one proposition to be expressed as dependent on another without necessarily specifying what kind of dependency is involved).

    I won't dare to try to construct an actual Korean sentence in full public gaze , but the syntactic pattern I have in mind, literally translated back into English, would take the form:

    National Rugby League 2009 about-to-start-this-weekend season will enfever TWT territory.

    If you see what I mean...

    On another note, I was surprised to see Rugby League referred to as "footy". I have never ever encountered this myself (nor could some admittedly hasty Googling just now come up with an example). Is this a US or maybe Australian source? Because in the UK, "footy" always refers to football [= soccer], never to either Rugby Union or Rugby League, even though the official name of both varieties of Rugby is "Rugby Football".
     
    Last edited:

    Mack&Mack

    Senior Member
    Korea & Korean
    Thanks 조그만 a lot, indeed.

    I have been snowed under with a lot work as the semester getting towards the end. I will try to come back to this in no time. By the way, your explanation is brilliant. I have never thought about it in the way you explained.

    Thank you again. I really appreciate your help.

    P.S. I was reading an Australian article. My apologies. I should have mentioned the source.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top