elisa freschi

How to use parentheses and brackets in your translation? My tips

Specific attention needs to be dedicated to the use of parentheses and brackets in translations meant for a public who knows the language you are translating from (in this case, Sanskrit). I use parentheses:

• to indicate which Sanskrit word I am translating in specific cases (i.e., while introducing for the first time the translation of a technical term or whenever a term has to be understood in an unexpected way). In this case, the term in parentheses is not part of the syntax of the sentence and therefore does not need to be put in plural. E.g. “Prābhākara authors following Śālikanātha claim that not all words (pada) in a sentence can convey their meaning metaphorically”. Not: “Prābhākara authors following Śālikanātha claim that not all words (padas) in a sentence can convey their meaning metaphorically”.
• to insert short explanations which are strictly needed to understand a specific point of the text and cannot therefore be postponed in an explanatory footnote nor advanced in an introductory study.

As for brackets:

• I used them to insert words which were not present in the Sanskrit original and which could not be directly inferred on its basis. In other words, I would not put “I” in “I am going” within brackets if this translated gacchāmi, since the first-person subject is obviously present in the verb form. I also did not put within brackets obvious complements, such as “sacrifice” while translating sacrifice’s names such as darśapūrṇamāsau or citrā as `the full- and new-moon sacrifices’ and `the citrā sacrifice’.
• By contrast, I used brackets to highlight for the reader that a certain concept is not actually found in the text, so as to make them aware of the fact that I am suggesting an interpretation of it. For instance, vimuktipriya (within the opening verses of the SĀṬ) literally means `who is fond of liberation’. I rendered it as `He wants [people to achieve] liberation’.
• I also use brackets to introduce identifications of speakers, e.g.: “[Prābhākara:] How could secondary signification be so commonly used? [Bhāṭṭa:] You misunderstood my point.” In case I am unable to identify them, I will at least write something like: “[Objection:]” and “[Reply:]”. The more I read philosophy of the Indian subcontinent, the more I realise how easily it can be to misconstrue a position as the author’s own one, so that keeping track of who is speaking is needed both for me and for my readers.

What do you use (as author)? What do you like (as reader)?