Advanced English: the narrative tense

[Shikijin]

I translate in English on this site despite not being a native English speaker. There is something that has been bothering me, and I opened this thread to improve my quality as a translator.

In Japanese there is a peculiar way to use tenses. They freely mix together the present and the past. In English though it appears the main narrative tense should be the past. The problem is the consecutio temporum. I see on wikipedia that there are two main views:
The natural sequense of tenses, where "Batman said he needs a special key for the Batmobile".
The attracted sequense of tenses, where "Batman said he needed a special key for the Batmobile".

Which one would be better for a translation? (I read that in choice English it's the attracted)

Wikipedia says also this about the attracted sequense: "If the main verb of a sentence is in the past tense, then other verbs must also express a past viewpoint, except when a general truth is being expressed". Is this part about general truths true even for the natural sequense?

And what is it meant by general truth? Is it a factoid, like "Nuuk is the capital of Greenland"? What about opinions, things like "people tend to do this and that"? When I use verbs like think and guess not with the meaning of "at that point in time what happened made me think that", but with the meaning of "this is what I believe, at least", should I put them in the past tense or in the present tense?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

[YoakeNoHikari]

Try not to mix tenses in English. It's possible in Japanese because of the inflexibility in the timeframe references of the past and present, including the progressives. This allows for the ability to talk about the present in the context of the past.

As for the batman thing, it's reported speech, so both sentences work. I agree that the attracted sequence works better.

Factoids aren't necessarily considered as a general truth, because they lean closer to normative statements. 'Nuuk is the capital of Greenland' isn't a factoid, it's a fact. It is a measurable and verifiable statement held true by general consensus.

At the end of the day, it's usually best to go with what feels best rather than nitpicking grammar. For reference, a statement of general truth in the past tense would be something like.

'I thought the sun always rises."

[Shikijin]

By the way, can I use in the past tense "must" and "let's"?

[YoakeNoHikari]

No.

[Shikijin]

Uhmm. For must I can use "had to". I was wondering what I could use for "let's".

Using as a reference Zaregoto by Del Rei, I found this:

"It was [...]. If I were to compare it to something, let's see, yeah, okay. Gruber Norbter's painting The River. The same sort of [...] ran through [...]"

Between two describing sentences in the past tense the translator put a "let's" in a sentence that was about the narrator's thoughts. Maybe it's not pretty, but I guess something like that could fly.

[YoakeNoHikari]

The past tense of have to is had to. The past tense of must is...nothing.

He must want it. =/= p.t. He had to want it.

That usage of 'let's' in that sentence is more of a colloquialism than proper grammar.

[rpapo]

FWIW, almost all narrative in English is written in the past tense. If a story is written in the present tense, it is because you are following the point of view of a specific character. Some books employ multiple such characters, and you get the chance to see into their thoughts. A good example of this is what you see going on in the Frank Herbert's Dune books.

The other normal method of narrative is that of a storyteller who already knows what has happened, and is recounting the story to the reader. In this case, the story is generally told in the past tense. There are unobtrusive narrators, who don't insert their opinion or observations into what is told, and there are truly obnoxious narrators (as J.R.R. Tolkien himself was in the opening chapters of The Hobbit), who comment on everything and sometimes give away spoiler information as they go.

In the story I am working on, Golden Time, Banri's Ghost functions as a sort of intrusive narrator at times, though most of the time he is simply quietly in the background.

[Shikijin]

FWIW, almost all narrative in English is written in the past tense. If a story is written in the present tense, it is because you are following the point of view of a specific character.

The story I am translating is indeed a first person narration, but I guessed it was still all right to go with the past tense. The problem is just that the narrator often speak to the reader, and even to other characters in the narrative part (ie: outside dialogue lines). In fact, even the other characters often speak outside the quotation marks thanks to the quoting particle, which doesn't exist in English. I guess I could exploit the difference between the past and the present to make clear whether it's an action or something spoken/thought, so in the end some colloqualism here and there could still be acceptable.

By the way, do expressions like "that is", "how come", "be it X or Y" or "if need be" change when used in the past? I think they don't, but I'm not sure.

[rpapo]

"that is", "how come", "be it X or Y" or "if need be"

These expressions need to be resolved on a case by case basis, since they may have multiple uses depending on the context.

"That is" could be それだ or ていうか, depending on the context. The translation could be "that was", "I meant", or "Or rather", depending on the situation.

"How come" is equivalent to "Why?" or "For what reason". The tense, present, past or future, depends on other words.

"Be it X or Y" would become "were it X or Y". This is speaking of possibilities, which are a subjunctive construction.

"If need be" would become "If it needed to be".

Translation is an art. You need to understand the science, but in the end you have to use your imagination to complete the job and get it right. I'm still working on that . . .

[名無し]

Sorry for hijacking this thread.

Regarding narrative tense, I find the Japanese approach towards it be equally confusing. This is highlighted by Shikijin's comment in the first post. I would certainly like to be enlightened on this issue as well.

@Shikijin
>In Japanese there is a peculiar way to use tenses. They freely mix together the present and the past.

Here is an example from Denpa teki na Kanojo

> そう言って、美夜はいつの間にかジュウの弁当から取り上げたタクアンをポリポリと齧った。
> こいつも、雨とは別の意味でわけのわからん奴だ、とジュウは思う。

Notice that although it is a past narrative, the first line ends with the past tense of "bite" while the immediate succeeding line ends with the present tense of "think". Examples like this are ubiquitous. What I would like to know is if there is any rule behind this "peculiar" way of usage to determine when to use which tense for a past narrative.

Many thanks! :)

[rpapo]

While I will agree that the Japanese usage of the narrative tense sometimes inconsistent to our point of view, they probably see a different sort of consistency there. I just don't entirely understand it yet...

[KuroiHikari]

I had the assumption that Japanese narrative occurred "live" as the narrator proceeds.

[rpapo]

I had the assumption that Japanese narrative occurred "live" as the narrator proceeds.

That is what I generally see, though I seem to remember encountering other forms over the past several years. Or it may simply have been me misunderstanding.

[名無し]

[quote="rpapo"][quote="KuroiHikari"]I had the assumption that Japanese narrative occurred "live" as the narrator proceeds.[/quote]
That is what I generally see, though I seem to remember encountering other forms over the past several years. Or it may simply have been me misunderstanding.[/quote]

Indeed. Although I agree that the use of present tense provides a feeling of continuous motion, if it was simply a "live narration", it would simply require a status indicator at the start of the paragraph (eg. それは、３日前の話だった。) and have present tense of every succeeding verb, or outright eliminate the use of past tense either as in the case of Chinese languages.

Going back to my example:

> そう言って、美夜はいつの間にかジュウの弁当から取り上げたタクアンをポリポリと齧った。
> こいつも、雨とは別の意味でわけのわからん奴だ、とジュウは思う。

What I am interested in what makes "bite" to be appropriate in past tense while "think" be in present. (No the thought was not continuing till the present in the context). What is the difference between this and an alternate version with everything in past tense? Also, Would it be grammatically correct to have "bite" in present tense and "think" in past tense, and what will the impact to the meaning in such case?

Although this appears like a discussion on Japanese linguistics, this is certainly material to the delivery of an accurate translation if there are underlying implications behind the respective use of present and past tense for particular verbs in a past narrative.


P.S. Not sure if this is still appropriate in the current thread. I'd appreciate if the mods can make a new thread on this and move the relevant replies there since I have no right to do so. (Nah don't tell me to register an account :p)

[YoakeNoHikari]

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nakaii/20110222/1298351173