From time to time people post questions on ProZ's KudoZ section to ask for the "official" translation of this or that bit of literature: a poem, a quote from a novel, or whatever.
I think that, as translators, we should be more careful how we use words: what these people are asking are probably "published", or even "previous" translations, not "official" ones: apart from such things as UE directives, International treaties, and some legal documents, I don't think there is such a thing as an "official" translation: the image that comes to mind is of some obscure office at the UN, UNESCO, or other suitably elephantine international red-tape factory, with someone wielding a big red stamp to be applied to "official translations": maybe something like
THIS TRANSLATION IS DEEMED OFFICIAL AND APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED NATIONS DIRECTORATE for EMERGING ALTERNATE DOCUMENTATION (the UNDEAD).
This is not so vague as you seem to say , it's just literary translators' lingo. And there may be reasons to say so: just imagine I want to quote Rilke's Herbsttag. If I look for a translation, I will find something like this: http://luxuslinguae.splinder.com/post/5589473
ReplyDeleteA translation by Pintor, one without any credits, one by an amateur, one by a blogger. Which one is the "official"? Pintor's, I would say (although I know there are is a more recent one, in a beautiful edition of Einaudi's Pleaide, and I would choose it as the official one, in primis because I know the translator, as she was my teacher at university and I know she spent something like 3 years on it). What has made it official: the translator's quality, the fact that it is published by a renowed publishing house, etc. At any rate, one shouldn't compare technical translation with literary translation, and not only because of remuneration. This is, of course, my humble opinion.