Latin-based terms: True or false friends?

Karen Korning Zethsen
Århus School of Business, Denmark
Abstract

The concept of complete equivalence is highly questionable, yet it is still relied on, for all practical purposes, in connection with the translation of Latin-based medical terms. This practice is potentially harmful, a case in point being the translation of medical texts for laymen from English into Danish. Contrary to Danish (and German and other Scandinavian languages), everyday English (and French) avails itself of numerous Latin-based medical terms, as no non-specialized alternative exists. When these terms are directly transferred under the assumption of complete equivalence, the level of formality is drastically raised. Increased awareness of the potential danger to communication posed by Latin-based terms in texts meant for lay audiences in Scandinavia and Germany is therefore desirable.

Keywords:
Table of contents

Of such deep learning little had he need, Ne yet of Latin, ne of Greek that breed Doubts ’mongst Divines, and difference of texts.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Askehave, Inger
2002 “Drug information for laymen—good or bad medicine?”. Christopher N. Candlin, ed. Research & practice in professional discourse. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press 2002 Ch. 10.Google Scholar
Askehave, Inger and Karen Korning Zethsen
2000a “Inter-generic and Inter-linguistic translation of patient package inserts”. Felix Mayer, ed. Language for special purposes: Perspectives for the new millennium 2. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 2000 882–887.Google Scholar
2000b The patient package insert of the future. Report for the Danish Ministry of Health (Danish and English version). Århus: Århus School of Business.Google Scholar
2000c “Medical texts made simple: Dream or reality?”. Hermes 25. 63–74.Google Scholar
[ p. 141 ]
2002 “Translating for the layman”. Perspectives 10:1. 15–29.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Communication barriers in public discourse: The patient package insert”. Document design 4:1. 23–41.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Richard W.
1996 Nineteenth-century English. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and technology. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1993 233–250.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Roger T.
1991 Translation and translating. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Brüel, Sven
1979 Gyldendals Fremmedordbog. Nordisk Forlag A/S.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934 Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer 1965.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
ed. 1989 Readings in translation theory. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992—article 8.
Fawcett, Peter
1997 Translation and language: Linguistic theories explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
1997 “The concept of equivalence in Translation Studies: Much ado about something”. Target 9:2. 207–233.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirkness, Alan
1997 “Eurolatin and English today”. English today 49, 13:1. 3–8.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner
1989 “Equivalence in translation theory”. Chesterman 1989 : 99–104. [A translation of a German chapter from 1979.]Google Scholar
1995 “The concept of equivalence and the object of Translation Studies”. Target 7:2. 191–222.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman dictionary of contemporary English
1983 1995 Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1995 Linguistic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lægemiddelstyrelsen
1998 Danske Lægemiddelstandarder 1999. Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964 Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1997 Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Politikens Retskrivnings- og Betydningsordbog
1999 Politikens Forlag A/S.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan, David Dungworth and Peter F. McDonald
1980 English special languages: Principles and practice in science and technology. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter Verlag.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988 Translation Studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam-Phila: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spenser, Edmund
1591 Prosopopoia or Mother Hubbard’s tale.Google Scholar
Swales, John M.
1990 Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J.
1989 “Skopos and commission in translational action”. Chesterman 1989 : 173–187.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet
1958 Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Zethsen, Karen Korning
1997 Expressivity in technical texts: From a translation theoretical perspective. Århus: Århus School of Business.[ p. 142 ]Google Scholar