My hobby is finding translation mistakes in movie subtitles. I'm a native English speaker and I also speak Japanese.
Essentially every show on Netflix seems to have some lines which are translating 100% incorrectly. They're not just issues of interpretation, they are full blown mistakes. Let me give a few of examples:
The West Country (an area in England) was translated as "America" in the subtitles.
"Boogie board"(a small surfboard-like toy) was translated as "electronic memo pad"(there is an electronic memo pad with the brand name "Boogie Board").
"Middle of the road" (not good and not bad) was translated literally.
Most of the mistakes I see seem to stem from the fact that the translator didn't understand the original content. I assume they are an individual Japanese native speaker, or a team with no English native speakers.
The article also mentions Trump's tweets, one of which triggered a very strange phenomenon in Japan. The famous "grab her by the pussy" tweet was deemed "untranslatable" by professional translators and the news repeated as such. It won't surprise you to learn that Japanese has plenty of words to describe genitals, both vulgar and not. The translators were essentially lying. There is a huge gulf between "can't" and "won't".
Subtitling is really hard even at the best of times, especially when working off only a script without seeing the program. (This is, incredibly, apparently common practice, because it's faster.) Not only do you need to translate faithfully, but you need to mercilessly crunch it down into a few words that will be understandable if flashes onto the screen for a few seconds.
There's a famous blooper in the Finnish translation of Star Wars where the phrase "Maybe it's another drill" is rendered as the type of drill that cuts holes (pora), not drill as in exercise (harjoitus).
The translation blooper that has stood out most to me is also from Finland. Once I was watching a DVD of The Royal Tenenbaums with Finnish subtitles. As a character points to a beaten-up old car and talks about the dents in it, the Finnish translation repeatedly shows hammaslääkari, ‘dentist’.
Pulp Fiction is probably also a good example for this.
The famous joke
>"Three tomatoes are walking down the street -- a poppa tomato, a momma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and squishes him... and says, 'Catch up.' "
Instead of "Catch up", they translated "Ketchup".
But as "Ketchup" doesn't sound like the German "Catch up", it sounded like an anti-joke.
Yeah this joke didn't make any sense in German. The problem I see with this kind of jokes is that they can't be translated to German.
e.g. another joke like this
Did you hear about the country with the fastest growing capital? It's Ireland - every day it's Dublin.
I can't think of any way how to translate this joke so it would be funny in German.
But I have a feeling that these word play jokes aren't used much in German speaking countries anyways. Most of the humor is about people acting different or surprising.
As a fellow German: I don't think puns are very popular in German (except for intentionally cheesy dad jokes).
The closest equivalent I can think of are sentences where the joke lies in using a different word at the end than the (likely, extremely crass) one the audience expects. These tend to work better in German than in English because of the sentence structure, I think.
EDIT: Example of a dad joke pun: "Was sagt ein Sachse auf dem Weihnachtsmarkt in New York? Ä Tännschen, please." -- "What does a man from Saxony say at the Christmas market in New York? A fir, please."
The joke is that "ein Tännchen", "a (small) fir", when pronounced with a Saxony accent, sounds a bit like the English word "attention". The joke works because most Germans know the phrase "attention, please" from movies, vacations and/or multilingual announcements. I believe this particular joke was invented some time in the 60s or 70s and ceased being funny about two seconds after, but that wouldn't stop "your dad" from using it.
Reading Nietzsche translations recently, German does seem to have a considerable capacity for allusion and double meanings that are very hard to translate. Perhaps not in modern or common usage, or nearly as much as English.
Yes it does - but it's not as prevalent in humor as it is in the US.
I'd say that most of these double meanings are hard to translate. At least if you compare German and English (the two languages I am "proficient" in).
If you want this in a more modern context I would be completely unable to translate Dendemann lyrics to English so it would still be lyrical or funny.
I think the standard approach to this problem is that good translators come up with jokes that are similar in spirit even if they're not direct translations.
If I recall correctly, the works of Edgar Allen Poe are famous for having liberal but high quality translations in German. Song writers also sometimes do this when "translating" a song to another language.
Oh, I think you cannot watch a single movie or show in my country without encountering some translation errors. Idioms seem to be the most common source of mistakes, together with some missed cultural references and misunderstood slang.
I guess you get what you pay for.
I remember about 20 years back when I was studying for my MS in astrophysics we got a call from the translator who wanted to make sure that he got some trivial thing right. As you can tell I was so impressed with his attitude to remember that two decades later. That makes it even more baffling today, when translators do not even try despite having Google and Wikipedia always available.
The problem is that doing research on Google and Wikipedia takes time, and your client is only paying you so much money. I think that the translators who are most likely to get obscure idioms or references right are those who are fortunate to be married to a bookish speaker of the source language, who can very quickly advise on these issues without the translator having to go off on a long search of the web.
In fairness to subtitlers (and speaking as a translator myself, though in a much more forgiving field), they have one of the hardest jobs in our profession. The range of topics is infinite, the required vocabulary is also infinite, there's no repetition between jobs, there's hardly any context clues, the turnarounds are fast, the pay sucks, and their work will be scrutinized over and over for all eternity by fans (who never pay attention to all the lines that are done well).
In a perfect world it's easy to see how a team of two experienced translators could work on a movie for a few weeks and get it just so, but in the world we live in it's a small miracle that any of it ever gets done right. Hats off to them.
As a fellow translator, I disagree on the difficulty or low pay of doing subtitles. I get paid the same rate for subtitles that I would on any other text, but I can also bill the client for the time spent watching the video first. Turnarounds are not so fast; I often work pretty leisurely. Granted, what I normally translate are films, not television, which might be more stressful.
The people I really feel sorry for are the workers on either end of me: the transcriber, and then the person who takes my translated text and has to sync it up with the film. Both of those strikes me as more monotonous and tiresome than my own role.
>As a fellow translator, I disagree on the difficulty or low pay of doing subtitles. I get paid the same rate for subtitles that I would on any other text, but I can also bill the client for the time spent watching the video first. Turnarounds are not so fast; I often work pretty leisurely.
> Most of the mistakes I see seem to stem from the fact that the translator didn't understand the original content. I assume they are an individual Japanese native speaker, or a team with no English native speakers.
I'd rather assume that people are doing the translation without having seen the film at all. I've noticed that by watching wrong translations that don't come from cultural misunderstandings, but plainly not matching what is seen on the screen (maybe by using the wrong gender of people, or misidentifying who's doing the talking, or having words with two meanings using the one which doesn't match the current scene at all).
The economics of subtitle translation (either commercial or fan-made) favor uploading as many films or episodes as soon as possible, so it's likely that some people are just downloading the original text dump, run it through an automated translator, and editing it by hand to make it sound natural. I assume people who get regular commissions from established platforms will behave a bit better, but sometimes it still makes you wonder...
It tends to be even worse in the opposite direction. I speak and understand Japanese, and have seen many Japanese movies with French subtitles in my home country, and while I understand Japanese, I have this problem that my eyes just want to go and read those subtitles I don't need[1].
Anyways, I don't have exact examples in mind, but one that stood out (and again, I don't remember the exact details), was the subtitles saying the exact opposite of what they were actually saying.
1. it's ridiculous, and it also happens in the opposite direction, when I end up reading the Japanese subtitles to Hollywood movies.
I have roughly the same experience with subtitled shows on discovery channel (back in the day when it was still good) where they'd manage to mistranslate numbers with alarming frequency.
The translator's job is particularly difficult when they are meant to translate something that is misinterpreted in the original culture. A comment about this would seem political.
It clearly says "When you're famous, women [you don't have a relationship with] will consent to [aggressively] grabbing their vagina". I added the brackets based on the context, but I didn't add the word consent: in the original the word consent is the word "let". A perfect synonymn. If you say "I let him do that" in the past means exactly "I consented to his doing that." It's the exsct meaning.
(We know that "they" refers to the women and not the media (i.e. they'll let you means the women will consent, not, the media will let you get away with it) because immediately before, Trump set the topic of what women will and won't consent to.)
Immediately before, he mentioned how he was rejected:
"I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it."
(After a followup)
"I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. "
This is hard to translate and must be done with care. As a translator I would look at some of the context, the whole context. This is as follows:
Trump: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.
Unknown: Whoa.
Trump: I did try and fuck her. She was married.
Unknown: That’s huge news.
Trump: No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.
She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —
I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married.
---
I would be 80% confident that the correct translation is: "I made an advance on her, but she rejected me and I stopped." (It is hard for me to know what "moved on her like a bitch" means. I am puzzled.)
But the parts I have given clear, unambiguous black and white translations for is that, in the context of being famous, usually women will consent to very aggressive sexual advances.
That's the meaning of the words.
Not the meaning of the words: "You should just grab women by the vagina without asking."
The English-language culture (on both sides of the aisle) is not used to interpreting someone.
So to bring things full circle, I would translate the excerpt:
And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
(Man) Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
--
"Even grab them intimately, they will allow even that."
----
That is the correct translation, because the translator's loyalty is to the speaker, not to the media, politics, etc.
You're definitely demonstrating why translation is hard.
"Let" is definitely not a perfect synonym for consent. It often means, "not prevent or forbid."
Consent is always active, not passive - permission is given.
So let's jump into a possible pussy grabbing scenario. Someone could be shocked in the moment and not physically stop the pussy grabbing. And then after, they might not run screaming to the police, because it's his word vs hers and he is a very powerful man. Technically, she "let" him to do it, in that she didn't prevent it. But it's certainly not consent.
That is simply not the meaning of the word "let" in this context.
Just to let you know I know what you mean, here's an expression using "let" in both senses:
1. How could you let him do that?
2. I didn't "let" him do that. How was I supposed to know he would do that? He never asked me.
Here 1 uses your meaning and 2 uses mine. Donald Trump's transcript uses 2, not 1. (Another usage of 1 is whenever someone says 'how could you let this happen'? That never means allow.)
Another example is one someone says: "I can't believe I let this happen." They don't mean "allow" then. However, in Trump's transcript he means the allow meaning.
You can be quite certain, because he set the context clearly.
Basically, quoting "grab them by the pussy" is leaving out the meaning as uttered.
It's a nice scary quote. As a translator you have to kind of mistranslate it so it is shocking but also grammatically kind of still matches the imperative.
We're going to have to seriously disagree here. The people who have accused him of sexual assault (their stories written down before the video came out) described the experience in the way I defined it. Trump shocking them by kissing them in the mouth out of nowhere, grabbing them, etc.
The people you quote would say "no" to the question "Did you let Trump do that?" (No.)
Knowing that women don't let him do that might might be a good reason to put words in Trump's mouth and remove "they'll let you" from his sentence, but it is not a faithful translation.
What he said was that they let you do that. It's not true that the women let him do that, but that's what was uttered. As a translator, you don't get to change what someone said, to instead match the truth that you learn from somewhere else.
For an example, a famous lie is that Nixon said "I am not a crook." We know he was a criminal who resigned due to his criminal activities. So can I change that line from "I am not a crook" to, "Nixon called himself a crook"? After all the reason for his statement or the use of the word crook was the fact that he was a crook, and making a public address on this subject.
Of course not. And likewise it's wrong to change "they let you grab 'em by the pussy" to "grab 'em by the pussy" by misquoting the sentence. It's there in black and white, you just have to read it.
If you say "I let him do that" in the past means exactly "I consented to his doing that."
I disagree. "Letting" someone do something is a passive affirmation at best, and could also be out of fear for consequences. "Consenting" is active affirmation.
I tend to turn on subtitles when they're available, because I wouldn't understand all the speech in a film, unless the film only features middle-class characters speaking standard British English, which, to be honest, might make a rather boring film... Even a British film needs some Glaswegian psychos...
It's interesting to see how much the subtitles diverge from what's spoken. Sometimes you can see they've apparently just simplified it a bit, not losing anything important, but sometimes the differences seem gratuitous, or somewhat creative. Do the subtitles come from the original script, perhaps, while the lines were adapted by the actors on set without anyone updating the (tran)script?
As a German who sometimes watches German dubs, one mistranslation from English I notice very frequently is "eventually" becoming "eventuell" ("possibly").
The pair is one of the most well-known "false friends" between the two languages, but somehow translators sometimes still get them wrong from time to time. The last time I noticed it was in a Star Trek TNG episode where the monologue didn't make any sense because of it. I constantly second-guess the translation when hearing the word.
If you want to see really bad subtitles of Japanese media try watching anything on Crunchyroll. Their subs are all written in <24 hours by people working off a script dump without actually seeing the show for really bad pay. Netflix is amazingly high quality in comparison.
"Мы вас похороним" definitely does not sound benign. The problem here is not mistranslation but choice of Russian words, deliberate or not. Maybe he did refer to Marx but then again, who cares when being told he's getting a burial?
Yeah, as a native Russian speaker, the translation "we will bury you" seems correct ("We will be at your funeral" is a more literal translation). "We will outlast you" would be "Мы вас переживём".
As a native English speaker living in France, I notice a lot of translations from English into French as being less-than-accurate. It's most obvious when journalists are trying to translate live.
The recently concluded Tour de France was a standout example of this as journalists with responsable English sought to translate what English-speaking supporters/fans and riders had said. Sometimes it is close enough, but some commentators and journalists get it really, really wrong - on in particular (who seems to be rolled out for any sport where the winners are likely to speak English) is famously bad, sometimes inventing what he WISHED the person speaking had said rather than something close to what the person actually said. Good for a chuckle when its not consequential, but potentially disastrous for more serious matters.
A documentary I saw years and years ago would say that this article is not being honest about the Japan memo.
The documentary said that Japan used a super-obscure word, and that there was a team of translators digging through books who eventually told the president that Japan it means that Japan is both responding and not responding. They're giving a "NULL" answer.
In other words it wasn't the words that were mistranslated, but that Japan was using something that doesn't fully translate culturally.
E.g. apparently in Japan if you do something unusual while on the train then you may find that everyone around you is suddenly "asleep". They're so embarrassed for you for violating a minor cultural norm that the easiest way to make this better is to pretend to be asleep and that they didn't see it. (I guess I never made such mistakes while there)
If you've worked with people from other countries you may know similar things. Like in some countries they say yes to everything. They can't deliver some of the things, but it would be rude to say no.
Back on topic: In the end Japan did not answer in time, and "surrender or get bombed, we will end this war now" ultimatum doesn't give room for "No comment. We need more time".
Japan didn't say "we surrender". They didn't say "we don't surrender". Not literally. It's more comparable to "Yeah we definitely should hang out some time!". It's not the words that matter there. It's the meaning. And the meaning was unclear. And that was, to the US, unacceptable while people were dying every day.
>Japan didn't say "we surrender". They didn't say "we don't surrender". Not literally. It's more comparable to "Yeah we definitely should hang out some time!". It's not the words that matter there. It's the meaning. And the meaning was unclear. And that was, to the US, unacceptable while people were dying every day.
And that was, to the US, unacceptable while the USSR was closing in on Japan from the other side, and they had two perfectly good bombs they wanted to test and send a clear, post-WWII-era message.
I wouldn't call dropping two nuclear bombs on civilians (men, women, and children) a concern for the human toll. Not even conventional bombing (which had gone on for a while) was needed at that point, Japan was giving up the ghost and just wanted to save some face.
Considering how the USSR carved up eastern Europe and how they treated the local Germans in the east as the war wound down, I think one of the considerations was to not want parts or whole parts of Japan fall to the SU. In other words we didn’t want an eastern iron curtain. There is no way were going to allow the SU a major invasion force on Japanese soil.
That was one of the main motivating factors behind the US decicing to invest heavily in rebuilding Japan's infrastructure after the war... to have a strong and stable capitalist influence in the area.
>and how they treated the local Germans in the east as the war wound down
You mean by showing massive amounts of restraint?
Nobody would have asked "why" if the Russians had burned most villages and murdered a good chunk of the German civilian population. More than a few people were surprised when the soviets didn't do that. Likewise nobody would have asked why if the US didn't stop at two bombs.
Sure a few people would have complained had the Soviets burned east Germany to the ground or the US had continued to atom bomb what was left of Japan but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any serious backlash.
The world had seen a lot of death and destruction between 1939 and 1945 (and a decade of depression before that). A couple million more of the people who started the mess likely wouldn't have moved the needle on most people's give-a-shit meter. People care about avenging the deaths of people they know and preventing more people they know from dying far more than they care about civilian casualties of the enemy.
Yes I know this is probably uncomfortable to read from your air conditioned office but when your drive to the front takes you through a burnt out village where some of your distant relatives once lived revenge starts looking better and when every page in your high-school yearbook has a couple people who won't ever be showing up to a reunion turning an island into a smoldering rock in order to not have to invade it looks like a really good option.
>Wow, so when soviets kill civilians in the aftermath it’s “restraint” but when the US bombed an active enemy it's unreasonable use of force???
Well, close to 20 million Soviets died by the war, and they didn't have done anything to provoke it.
The US didn't have any of that excuse. And even Pearl Harbor (which was a tiny blip compared to the Russian death toll, and on an annexed island far away from the mainland US) happened after months of purposefully provoking the Japanese to attack so that the US government could convince Americans to enter the war.
They didn’t show any restraint. They killed anyone who looked at them sideways, raped any woman they fancied the look of and ethnically cleansed more or less every German east of the Oder without regard for who died.
The Russians could have done worse, they could have had an actual policy of genocide.
Based on all the historians I have seen talking about that time period, the Russians captured and sent every German they could get their hands to labor camps during the later part of world war 2. An approximate two to three million German prisoners was captured during those years and about 1 million died in the camps.
The documentary The World at War postulated that the only reason why its not higher is that when the Germans had lost and started retreating most of the east German population fled in mass to the west because they know the USSR would treat them very similar to how the Nazi treated Russians during the occupation. About 10 million USSR civilians died and about 26 millions in total so the USSR had a lot of reasons. I have not heard any historian that claimed that USSR did not pursue revenge. I have heard however that the only reason Berlin was not razed to the ground was because allied troops rushed there hastily during the siege in order to be able to claim half of it after the war.
>And that was, to the US, unacceptable while the USSR was closing in on Japan from the other side, and they had two perfectly good bombs they wanted to test and send a clear, post-WWII-era message.
The final stages of the Manhattan project hummed along without much political involvement. Dropping nukes to show the USSR who's boss really wasn't on the radar of the military (they were preoccupied with the war). Politicians outside the executive branch were mostly in the dark and Truman wasn't exactly keeping a close eye on things.
Remember, the alternative in 1945 was more firebombing and an invasion several months down the line. The Soviets just finished mopping up the problems in central Europe. They couldn't be counted on to commit their armed forces to the far east in meaningful quantities. "But the civilians" isn't really a valid concern when there's a Japanese army running around China committing war crimes and enemy civilians will commit suicide (or be murdered by their army) rather than surrender at all. In 1945 you can't justify the alternative courses of (in)action.
> "But the civilians" isn't really a valid concern when there's a Japanese army running around China committing war crimes and enemy civilians will commit suicide (or be murdered by their army) rather than surrender at all.
When I read people in the 21st century wagging their fingers at people's immoral behavior in the past, I often wonder to myself if they've read any history (or even better in this case, browsed some photos), look at the world through a lens so different than mine that I can't even fathom what the world might look like through their eyes, or with the overwhelming number of conveniences and hyper-optimized processes that power the bubbles we live in, maybe they simply can't see the amount of complexity and uncertainty there is in the world.
And the US casualty estimates for that invasion were staggering. In fact, if a US soldier gets shot in Afghanistan today, the Purple Heart they receive was created for the invasion of Japan. After Korea. After Vietnam. After Grenada, and Panama, and Serbia, and Kuwait, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, we're still using Purple Hearts that were made in 1945 to cover the expected casualties from the invasion of Japan.
About the USSR: The deal was that they were supposed to attack Japan three months after the surrender of Germany. They did so to the day, on August 8, 1945 - two days after Hiroshima.
You can interpret this two ways. One is that the US wanted to send a message to the USSR. The other is that the US wasn't sure that the USSR would do what they said, or wasn't sure that it would be enough if they did. And in fact, there was a mutiny in Japan to disobey the emperor and keep fighting - even after both atomic bombs and the USSR attack.
So saying "that was just politics, sending a warning to the USSR" is very much not warranted, given the situation at the time.
>And the US casualty estimates for that invasion were staggering. In fact, if a US soldier gets shot in Afghanistan today, the Purple Heart they receive was created for the invasion of Japan. After Korea. After Vietnam. After Grenada, and Panama, and Serbia, and Kuwait, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, we're still using Purple Hearts that were made in 1945 to cover the expected casualties from the invasion of Japan.
>About the USSR: The deal was that they were supposed to attack Japan three months after the surrender of Germany. They did so to the day, on August 8, 1945 - two days after Hiroshima.
Citation? Both of those sounds believable but I want to read it somewhere other than a pseudonymous online comment.
>So saying "that was just politics, sending a warning to the USSR" is very much not warranted, given the situation at the time.
That's what I'm saying. The political situation with the USSR wasn't even on the radar of the people managing the bomb program.
Turns out the first quote was a bit off. https://www.stripes.com/blogs-archive/the-rumor-doctor/the-r... says that there have been some new Purple Hearts ordered, but there are still Purple Hearts from WWII in stock, and they are still being given out.
>The final stages of the Manhattan project hummed along without much political involvement. Dropping nukes to show the USSR who's boss really wasn't on the radar of the military
When Japan's emperor recently announced his future resignation, he didn't say "I resign", he talked about his age and deteriorating health. In all likelihood straight out saying "we surrender" would have been inconceivable, especially if the surrender is supposed to be unconditional, potentially with a Nuremberg treatment of the god-emperor.
You can blame the culture for not using communication efficiently, but saying a "null" answer to the demands of surrender was sufficient reason to one-up the violence by becoming the first and only country to use nuclear weapons and the first and only country to use nuclear weapons specifically against civilians, is absurd.
(To be clear: what I'm saying is that even with a gun to his head, the emperor probably wouldn't have simply said "okay, we surrender", at least no publicly)
>(To be clear: what I'm saying is that even with a gun to his head, the emperor probably wouldn't have simply said "okay, we surrender", at least no publicly)
But that's what actually happened. The military was afraid the emperor would surrender and launched a coup on the palace, and the record containing the announcement of Japan's surrender had to be snuck out in a pile of laundry.
And to be fair, Japan's current emperor can't legally resign or even ask to resign because of restrictions on imperial political influence imposed by postwar law, since abdication would require changing the constitution.
> You can blame the culture for not using communication efficiently, but saying a "null" answer to the demands of surrender was sufficient reason to one-up the violence by becoming the first and only country to use nuclear weapons and the first and only country to use nuclear weapons specifically against civilians, is absurd.
I have trouble understanding why killing a few hundred thousand civilians in a nuclear attack is in some way qualitatively different in a moral sense from killing a few hundred thousand civilians in firebombings. The only difference was tactical: now we can and will kill you with even less effort and risk. The US had bombed out most Japanese cities and countless civilians had died in the bombings. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed as many as many as 200k, easily the same scale as the nuclear bombings.
I think the intense focus on the nuclear bombings is misleading. There was no "one-upping" or escalation. The same level of violence was perpetrated by a new method.
I think that comes ftom people who want to examine war from a moral/amoral and aggressiveness PoV who minimize the threat as we saw it from the SU gaining a foothold in East Asia as well as a desire to not protract a war on Japanese soil where the local pop was more or less trained as militias. It’s a bit of wishful thinking, good intent, but still wishful.
Your POV only works if you assume that Soviet Union invading Japan is an undesirable outcome for the Allies.
Japan had good reasons to want to avoid a Soviet occupation because they had only just recovered territory they had previously lost to Russia.
Was it in the US's best interests to escalate the use of force? Sure. But I'm not American and this isn't the 1940s so I see no reason to judge the decision on those terms.
Paramount to achieving what exactly? And in whose best interest?
This sounds a lot like post-hoc rationalization. Are you trying to argue that a Japanese SSR would have tipped the scales so significantly the Soviets could have succeeded (and then done what exactly? start a nuclear war?)? Or that Japan itself would have been worse off (if so, why do you care if you're not Japanese?)?
You'd think legitimizing such an unprecedented, traumatizing, unspeakable act like using nuclear weapons would require something more plausible than "well, we really didn't want them to be annexed by the Soviets".
> I have trouble understanding why killing a few hundred thousand civilians in a nuclear attack is in some way qualitatively different in a moral sense from killing a few hundred thousand civilians in firebombings.
There was an evacuation of civilians, during the Vietnam war I believe[1], where the evacuees had to walk a narrow bridge to a boat. One man panicked and started pushing his way through, pushing people into the water.
A military official walked up to the man and shot him in the head.
There were no more paniced pushes by anyone, and everyone was saved.
This doesn't mean that an innocent person panicking is worthy of the death penalty. Would there even have been a mass panic? We'll never know. Would arresting the man have been enough to prevent it? We'll never know.
> The only difference was tactical: now we can and will kill you with even less effort and risk. The US had bombed out most Japanese cities and countless civilians had died in the bombings. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed as many as many as 200k, easily the same scale as the nuclear bombings.
Exactly. And this is the difference morally as well. The firebombing of Tokyo did not cause surrender. It wasn't until two bombs showed just how effortlessly the US could from now on wage the war that reality could immediately not be denied.
Yes, the main reason for the US to use the bombs instead of many planes with firebombing were to reduce their own military casualties and to show the Soviets what the new world order will be. But in another analogy: A criminal may fight one police officer, but it takes a special kind of criminal to choose to fight an armed SWAT team with only fists.
If I wanted to make excuses for the US I could add that in a total war there are no civilians. Japan's cultural expectation here was that every man, woman, and child would die before surrendering. A wake-up call can effectively shorten the war for both sides. Firebombings were evidently not enough of one.
As someone who does fan translation of Japanese stuff, I've come to the conclusion that all non trivial translations are inadequate. Even my own.
There's so much nuance and implied connotation that simply cannot be expressed across different languages, even if you're lucky enough to have the surface meanings fit.
Translators can't really win. They can either stick to the literal of the original work and betray its meaning, or convert the meaning and lose the literalness.
The second one yields the best translations, but is akin to writing the work yourself and may not be acceptable for either the original author, the fans, or the publisher.
Some of Terry Pratchett's translators (like the recently deceased Jan Kantůrek) won awards for their work because they had to use the second option, the first one would have made the translation completely pointless.
The problem is that there is never a phrase-by-phrase exact match when translating. Everything is ambiguous and in order to translate from one language into another you need to resolve that ambiguity while you're also adding new ambiguity.
The "I will bury you" example is entirely plausible: it might have been a fitting translation if the intent was merely to say "We will still exist when you are long gone" but the connotation is "We will kill you before you can kill us", which might have been completely lost on the translator (or even worse: it might be a misunderstanding of the original phrase's intentions resulting in an intentionally hostile translation).
Really the only way to avoid this problem is to use extremely specific registers in both languages, but that's rarely feasible outside of legal or technical documents. And even then the two languages might have slightly different meanings to some seemingly shared vocabulary translators need to be aware of.
Japanese writing is especially fond of intentional ambiguity, and it's really hard to decide how much to localize away. Keep the ambiguity and it sounds unnatural, but if you want it to sound natural you need to cut away the ambiguity.
But depending on context, multiple connotations are possible for every euphemism. That's part of their charm in a literary context. But in politics it's the responsibility of the speaker not to be euphemistic, because deliberately trying to be being misunderstood is always a stupid tactic.
"We will bury you" can mean either a) that we will kill you or b) we will outlast you. But either way, we will be alive after your death and present at your burial.
Regardless of which meaning was intended, Khrushchev's decision to bring up the topic of the death of the entire "first world" at the UN was deliberately provocative, so it's hardly a mistranslation to conclude that the US and NATO have just been threatened, no matter how obliquely.
My point was that a phrase that might have meanings {A,B,C} when translated might end up having meanings {A,D,E} (keeping its primary intended meaning A but also gaining unintended meanings D and E while losing B and C) or, at best, {A,B} (merely losing the nuance of also meaning C).
There's still a difference between mere provocation ("I will live longer than you...") and a direct threat ("...because I will kill you first"). The former could still merely be a statement of confidence (i.e. "our form of government is more stable and resilient than yours, whereas you're overextending yourselves and will deplete your resources").
One of the better anime subtitles I've seen (can't remember the anime - I think Genshiken? Because of the sheer density of cultural references) included "footnotes" above the subtitles to indicate those nuances and connotations and cultural references.
In the fansubbing world, footnotes are kinda reviled, such as the infamous Death Note "Just as keikaku. (Keikaku means plan)" translation.
But for things that make cultural references, like Gintama, even someone who knows the language itself won't know every cultural reference, so they can be useful.
Nikita Khrushchev’s infamous statement in 1956 — “We will bury you” — ushered in one of the Cold War’s most dangerous phases, one rife with paranoia and conviction that both sides were out to destroy the other. But it turns out that’s not what he said, not in Russian, anyway. Khrushchev’s actual declaration was “We will outlast you” — prematurely boastful, perhaps, but not quite the declaration of hostilities most Americans heard, thanks to HIS interpreter’s mistake.
The response of Kantaro Suzuki, prime minister of Japan, to an Allied ultimatum in July 1945 — just days before Hiroshima — was conveyed to Harry Truman as “silent contempt” (“mokusatsu”), when it was actually intended as “No comment. We need more time.” Japan was not given any.
Whenever I see interpreters on footage of trials or negotiations, I have the impression the interpreter is a native to the target language, and is there on authority of his government, i.e. A Soviet interpreter working for Kruchev translates from english to russian, and a US translator working for USA translates from russian to english. I could be wrong though, but I always thought the responsibility of correct translation was placed at the receiver of information (otherwise, the non-elected interpreter would have the final word on phrasing a comment!)
The 2 examples of Kruchev, and the failed pre-Hiroshima bomb are phrased in a way that insinuates the problem to have been at the foreign side!
73 comments
[ 15.4 ms ] story [ 404 ms ] threadEssentially every show on Netflix seems to have some lines which are translating 100% incorrectly. They're not just issues of interpretation, they are full blown mistakes. Let me give a few of examples:
The West Country (an area in England) was translated as "America" in the subtitles.
"Boogie board"(a small surfboard-like toy) was translated as "electronic memo pad"(there is an electronic memo pad with the brand name "Boogie Board").
"Middle of the road" (not good and not bad) was translated literally.
Most of the mistakes I see seem to stem from the fact that the translator didn't understand the original content. I assume they are an individual Japanese native speaker, or a team with no English native speakers.
The article also mentions Trump's tweets, one of which triggered a very strange phenomenon in Japan. The famous "grab her by the pussy" tweet was deemed "untranslatable" by professional translators and the news repeated as such. It won't surprise you to learn that Japanese has plenty of words to describe genitals, both vulgar and not. The translators were essentially lying. There is a huge gulf between "can't" and "won't".
There's a famous blooper in the Finnish translation of Star Wars where the phrase "Maybe it's another drill" is rendered as the type of drill that cuts holes (pora), not drill as in exercise (harjoitus).
https://archive.is/3Lyem/bcd9c7ef4efb3ff594bb5dba1d515dc0182...
The English word wear can mean (among other things) something that you have on you or that something is worn down from usage.
Guess which interpretation google used in the play store when translating Google Wear to Swedish?
Automated translations in UI:s, just don't. You will without question make a fool out of yourself and seem incompetent.
The famous joke
>"Three tomatoes are walking down the street -- a poppa tomato, a momma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and squishes him... and says, 'Catch up.' "
Instead of "Catch up", they translated "Ketchup".
But as "Ketchup" doesn't sound like the German "Catch up", it sounded like an anti-joke.
e.g. another joke like this Did you hear about the country with the fastest growing capital? It's Ireland - every day it's Dublin.
I can't think of any way how to translate this joke so it would be funny in German. But I have a feeling that these word play jokes aren't used much in German speaking countries anyways. Most of the humor is about people acting different or surprising.
The closest equivalent I can think of are sentences where the joke lies in using a different word at the end than the (likely, extremely crass) one the audience expects. These tend to work better in German than in English because of the sentence structure, I think.
EDIT: Example of a dad joke pun: "Was sagt ein Sachse auf dem Weihnachtsmarkt in New York? Ä Tännschen, please." -- "What does a man from Saxony say at the Christmas market in New York? A fir, please."
The joke is that "ein Tännchen", "a (small) fir", when pronounced with a Saxony accent, sounds a bit like the English word "attention". The joke works because most Germans know the phrase "attention, please" from movies, vacations and/or multilingual announcements. I believe this particular joke was invented some time in the 60s or 70s and ceased being funny about two seconds after, but that wouldn't stop "your dad" from using it.
I'd say that most of these double meanings are hard to translate. At least if you compare German and English (the two languages I am "proficient" in). If you want this in a more modern context I would be completely unable to translate Dendemann lyrics to English so it would still be lyrical or funny.
If I recall correctly, the works of Edgar Allen Poe are famous for having liberal but high quality translations in German. Song writers also sometimes do this when "translating" a song to another language.
In a perfect world it's easy to see how a team of two experienced translators could work on a movie for a few weeks and get it just so, but in the world we live in it's a small miracle that any of it ever gets done right. Hats off to them.
The people I really feel sorry for are the workers on either end of me: the transcriber, and then the person who takes my translated text and has to sync it up with the film. Both of those strikes me as more monotonous and tiresome than my own role.
That's not the case in many parts of the world...
I'd rather assume that people are doing the translation without having seen the film at all. I've noticed that by watching wrong translations that don't come from cultural misunderstandings, but plainly not matching what is seen on the screen (maybe by using the wrong gender of people, or misidentifying who's doing the talking, or having words with two meanings using the one which doesn't match the current scene at all).
The economics of subtitle translation (either commercial or fan-made) favor uploading as many films or episodes as soon as possible, so it's likely that some people are just downloading the original text dump, run it through an automated translator, and editing it by hand to make it sound natural. I assume people who get regular commissions from established platforms will behave a bit better, but sometimes it still makes you wonder...
Anyways, I don't have exact examples in mind, but one that stood out (and again, I don't remember the exact details), was the subtitles saying the exact opposite of what they were actually saying.
1. it's ridiculous, and it also happens in the opposite direction, when I end up reading the Japanese subtitles to Hollywood movies.
For example, in this transcript:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-tran...
It clearly says "When you're famous, women [you don't have a relationship with] will consent to [aggressively] grabbing their vagina". I added the brackets based on the context, but I didn't add the word consent: in the original the word consent is the word "let". A perfect synonymn. If you say "I let him do that" in the past means exactly "I consented to his doing that." It's the exsct meaning.
(We know that "they" refers to the women and not the media (i.e. they'll let you means the women will consent, not, the media will let you get away with it) because immediately before, Trump set the topic of what women will and won't consent to.)
Immediately before, he mentioned how he was rejected:
"I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it."
(After a followup)
"I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. "
This is hard to translate and must be done with care. As a translator I would look at some of the context, the whole context. This is as follows:
---I would be 80% confident that the correct translation is: "I made an advance on her, but she rejected me and I stopped." (It is hard for me to know what "moved on her like a bitch" means. I am puzzled.)
But the parts I have given clear, unambiguous black and white translations for is that, in the context of being famous, usually women will consent to very aggressive sexual advances.
That's the meaning of the words.
Not the meaning of the words: "You should just grab women by the vagina without asking."
The English-language culture (on both sides of the aisle) is not used to interpreting someone.
So to bring things full circle, I would translate the excerpt:
--"Even grab them intimately, they will allow even that."
----
That is the correct translation, because the translator's loyalty is to the speaker, not to the media, politics, etc.
"Let" is definitely not a perfect synonym for consent. It often means, "not prevent or forbid."
Consent is always active, not passive - permission is given.
So let's jump into a possible pussy grabbing scenario. Someone could be shocked in the moment and not physically stop the pussy grabbing. And then after, they might not run screaming to the police, because it's his word vs hers and he is a very powerful man. Technically, she "let" him to do it, in that she didn't prevent it. But it's certainly not consent.
Just to let you know I know what you mean, here's an expression using "let" in both senses:
1. How could you let him do that?
2. I didn't "let" him do that. How was I supposed to know he would do that? He never asked me.
Here 1 uses your meaning and 2 uses mine. Donald Trump's transcript uses 2, not 1. (Another usage of 1 is whenever someone says 'how could you let this happen'? That never means allow.)
Another example is one someone says: "I can't believe I let this happen." They don't mean "allow" then. However, in Trump's transcript he means the allow meaning.
You can be quite certain, because he set the context clearly.
Basically, quoting "grab them by the pussy" is leaving out the meaning as uttered.
It's a nice scary quote. As a translator you have to kind of mistranslate it so it is shocking but also grammatically kind of still matches the imperative.
But that's not what was said.
Knowing that women don't let him do that might might be a good reason to put words in Trump's mouth and remove "they'll let you" from his sentence, but it is not a faithful translation.
What he said was that they let you do that. It's not true that the women let him do that, but that's what was uttered. As a translator, you don't get to change what someone said, to instead match the truth that you learn from somewhere else.
For an example, a famous lie is that Nixon said "I am not a crook." We know he was a criminal who resigned due to his criminal activities. So can I change that line from "I am not a crook" to, "Nixon called himself a crook"? After all the reason for his statement or the use of the word crook was the fact that he was a crook, and making a public address on this subject.
Of course not. And likewise it's wrong to change "they let you grab 'em by the pussy" to "grab 'em by the pussy" by misquoting the sentence. It's there in black and white, you just have to read it.
I disagree. "Letting" someone do something is a passive affirmation at best, and could also be out of fear for consequences. "Consenting" is active affirmation.
It's interesting to see how much the subtitles diverge from what's spoken. Sometimes you can see they've apparently just simplified it a bit, not losing anything important, but sometimes the differences seem gratuitous, or somewhat creative. Do the subtitles come from the original script, perhaps, while the lines were adapted by the actors on set without anyone updating the (tran)script?
The subs either work or don't (e.g. machine translated garbage).
A handful of times there's a discrepancy e.g. T2 Trainspotting.
This is "official" subs from BluRay or Itunes.
The pair is one of the most well-known "false friends" between the two languages, but somehow translators sometimes still get them wrong from time to time. The last time I noticed it was in a Star Trek TNG episode where the monologue didn't make any sense because of it. I constantly second-guess the translation when hearing the word.
The recently concluded Tour de France was a standout example of this as journalists with responsable English sought to translate what English-speaking supporters/fans and riders had said. Sometimes it is close enough, but some commentators and journalists get it really, really wrong - on in particular (who seems to be rolled out for any sport where the winners are likely to speak English) is famously bad, sometimes inventing what he WISHED the person speaking had said rather than something close to what the person actually said. Good for a chuckle when its not consequential, but potentially disastrous for more serious matters.
The documentary said that Japan used a super-obscure word, and that there was a team of translators digging through books who eventually told the president that Japan it means that Japan is both responding and not responding. They're giving a "NULL" answer.
In other words it wasn't the words that were mistranslated, but that Japan was using something that doesn't fully translate culturally.
E.g. apparently in Japan if you do something unusual while on the train then you may find that everyone around you is suddenly "asleep". They're so embarrassed for you for violating a minor cultural norm that the easiest way to make this better is to pretend to be asleep and that they didn't see it. (I guess I never made such mistakes while there)
If you've worked with people from other countries you may know similar things. Like in some countries they say yes to everything. They can't deliver some of the things, but it would be rude to say no.
Back on topic: In the end Japan did not answer in time, and "surrender or get bombed, we will end this war now" ultimatum doesn't give room for "No comment. We need more time".
Japan didn't say "we surrender". They didn't say "we don't surrender". Not literally. It's more comparable to "Yeah we definitely should hang out some time!". It's not the words that matter there. It's the meaning. And the meaning was unclear. And that was, to the US, unacceptable while people were dying every day.
And that was, to the US, unacceptable while the USSR was closing in on Japan from the other side, and they had two perfectly good bombs they wanted to test and send a clear, post-WWII-era message.
I wouldn't call dropping two nuclear bombs on civilians (men, women, and children) a concern for the human toll. Not even conventional bombing (which had gone on for a while) was needed at that point, Japan was giving up the ghost and just wanted to save some face.
You mean by showing massive amounts of restraint?
Nobody would have asked "why" if the Russians had burned most villages and murdered a good chunk of the German civilian population. More than a few people were surprised when the soviets didn't do that. Likewise nobody would have asked why if the US didn't stop at two bombs.
Sure a few people would have complained had the Soviets burned east Germany to the ground or the US had continued to atom bomb what was left of Japan but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any serious backlash.
The world had seen a lot of death and destruction between 1939 and 1945 (and a decade of depression before that). A couple million more of the people who started the mess likely wouldn't have moved the needle on most people's give-a-shit meter. People care about avenging the deaths of people they know and preventing more people they know from dying far more than they care about civilian casualties of the enemy.
Yes I know this is probably uncomfortable to read from your air conditioned office but when your drive to the front takes you through a burnt out village where some of your distant relatives once lived revenge starts looking better and when every page in your high-school yearbook has a couple people who won't ever be showing up to a reunion turning an island into a smoldering rock in order to not have to invade it looks like a really good option.
I can only imagine what the soviets would have waged on Japan had they landed an invading occupying force.
Well, close to 20 million Soviets died by the war, and they didn't have done anything to provoke it.
The US didn't have any of that excuse. And even Pearl Harbor (which was a tiny blip compared to the Russian death toll, and on an annexed island far away from the mainland US) happened after months of purposefully provoking the Japanese to attack so that the US government could convince Americans to enter the war.
The Russians could have done worse, they could have had an actual policy of genocide.
The documentary The World at War postulated that the only reason why its not higher is that when the Germans had lost and started retreating most of the east German population fled in mass to the west because they know the USSR would treat them very similar to how the Nazi treated Russians during the occupation. About 10 million USSR civilians died and about 26 millions in total so the USSR had a lot of reasons. I have not heard any historian that claimed that USSR did not pursue revenge. I have heard however that the only reason Berlin was not razed to the ground was because allied troops rushed there hastily during the siege in order to be able to claim half of it after the war.
The final stages of the Manhattan project hummed along without much political involvement. Dropping nukes to show the USSR who's boss really wasn't on the radar of the military (they were preoccupied with the war). Politicians outside the executive branch were mostly in the dark and Truman wasn't exactly keeping a close eye on things.
Remember, the alternative in 1945 was more firebombing and an invasion several months down the line. The Soviets just finished mopping up the problems in central Europe. They couldn't be counted on to commit their armed forces to the far east in meaningful quantities. "But the civilians" isn't really a valid concern when there's a Japanese army running around China committing war crimes and enemy civilians will commit suicide (or be murdered by their army) rather than surrender at all. In 1945 you can't justify the alternative courses of (in)action.
When I read people in the 21st century wagging their fingers at people's immoral behavior in the past, I often wonder to myself if they've read any history (or even better in this case, browsed some photos), look at the world through a lens so different than mine that I can't even fathom what the world might look like through their eyes, or with the overwhelming number of conveniences and hyper-optimized processes that power the bubbles we live in, maybe they simply can't see the amount of complexity and uncertainty there is in the world.
About the USSR: The deal was that they were supposed to attack Japan three months after the surrender of Germany. They did so to the day, on August 8, 1945 - two days after Hiroshima.
You can interpret this two ways. One is that the US wanted to send a message to the USSR. The other is that the US wasn't sure that the USSR would do what they said, or wasn't sure that it would be enough if they did. And in fact, there was a mutiny in Japan to disobey the emperor and keep fighting - even after both atomic bombs and the USSR attack.
So saying "that was just politics, sending a warning to the USSR" is very much not warranted, given the situation at the time.
>About the USSR: The deal was that they were supposed to attack Japan three months after the surrender of Germany. They did so to the day, on August 8, 1945 - two days after Hiroshima.
Citation? Both of those sounds believable but I want to read it somewhere other than a pseudonymous online comment.
>So saying "that was just politics, sending a warning to the USSR" is very much not warranted, given the situation at the time.
That's what I'm saying. The political situation with the USSR wasn't even on the radar of the people managing the bomb program.
For the second quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War (first paragraph under "Summary").
Yes, it was on the radar of the government.
You can blame the culture for not using communication efficiently, but saying a "null" answer to the demands of surrender was sufficient reason to one-up the violence by becoming the first and only country to use nuclear weapons and the first and only country to use nuclear weapons specifically against civilians, is absurd.
(To be clear: what I'm saying is that even with a gun to his head, the emperor probably wouldn't have simply said "okay, we surrender", at least no publicly)
But that's what actually happened. The military was afraid the emperor would surrender and launched a coup on the palace, and the record containing the announcement of Japan's surrender had to be snuck out in a pile of laundry.
And to be fair, Japan's current emperor can't legally resign or even ask to resign because of restrictions on imperial political influence imposed by postwar law, since abdication would require changing the constitution.
I have trouble understanding why killing a few hundred thousand civilians in a nuclear attack is in some way qualitatively different in a moral sense from killing a few hundred thousand civilians in firebombings. The only difference was tactical: now we can and will kill you with even less effort and risk. The US had bombed out most Japanese cities and countless civilians had died in the bombings. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed as many as many as 200k, easily the same scale as the nuclear bombings.
I think the intense focus on the nuclear bombings is misleading. There was no "one-upping" or escalation. The same level of violence was perpetrated by a new method.
Japan had good reasons to want to avoid a Soviet occupation because they had only just recovered territory they had previously lost to Russia.
Was it in the US's best interests to escalate the use of force? Sure. But I'm not American and this isn't the 1940s so I see no reason to judge the decision on those terms.
This sounds a lot like post-hoc rationalization. Are you trying to argue that a Japanese SSR would have tipped the scales so significantly the Soviets could have succeeded (and then done what exactly? start a nuclear war?)? Or that Japan itself would have been worse off (if so, why do you care if you're not Japanese?)?
You'd think legitimizing such an unprecedented, traumatizing, unspeakable act like using nuclear weapons would require something more plausible than "well, we really didn't want them to be annexed by the Soviets".
There was an evacuation of civilians, during the Vietnam war I believe[1], where the evacuees had to walk a narrow bridge to a boat. One man panicked and started pushing his way through, pushing people into the water.
A military official walked up to the man and shot him in the head.
There were no more paniced pushes by anyone, and everyone was saved. This doesn't mean that an innocent person panicking is worthy of the death penalty. Would there even have been a mass panic? We'll never know. Would arresting the man have been enough to prevent it? We'll never know.
> The only difference was tactical: now we can and will kill you with even less effort and risk. The US had bombed out most Japanese cities and countless civilians had died in the bombings. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed as many as many as 200k, easily the same scale as the nuclear bombings.
Exactly. And this is the difference morally as well. The firebombing of Tokyo did not cause surrender. It wasn't until two bombs showed just how effortlessly the US could from now on wage the war that reality could immediately not be denied.
Yes, the main reason for the US to use the bombs instead of many planes with firebombing were to reduce their own military casualties and to show the Soviets what the new world order will be. But in another analogy: A criminal may fight one police officer, but it takes a special kind of criminal to choose to fight an armed SWAT team with only fists.
If I wanted to make excuses for the US I could add that in a total war there are no civilians. Japan's cultural expectation here was that every man, woman, and child would die before surrendering. A wake-up call can effectively shorten the war for both sides. Firebombings were evidently not enough of one.
Dan Carlin's currently talking about the Japanese side of WWII. I highly recommend his work. https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...
[1] this isn't about the morality of the war in Vietnam.
There's so much nuance and implied connotation that simply cannot be expressed across different languages, even if you're lucky enough to have the surface meanings fit.
The second one yields the best translations, but is akin to writing the work yourself and may not be acceptable for either the original author, the fans, or the publisher.
Some of Terry Pratchett's translators (like the recently deceased Jan Kantůrek) won awards for their work because they had to use the second option, the first one would have made the translation completely pointless.
The "I will bury you" example is entirely plausible: it might have been a fitting translation if the intent was merely to say "We will still exist when you are long gone" but the connotation is "We will kill you before you can kill us", which might have been completely lost on the translator (or even worse: it might be a misunderstanding of the original phrase's intentions resulting in an intentionally hostile translation).
Really the only way to avoid this problem is to use extremely specific registers in both languages, but that's rarely feasible outside of legal or technical documents. And even then the two languages might have slightly different meanings to some seemingly shared vocabulary translators need to be aware of.
Better yet would be to preserve the original ambiguity. Especially important for fine literature where sometimes the ambiguity is the whole point.
Japanese writing is especially fond of intentional ambiguity, and it's really hard to decide how much to localize away. Keep the ambiguity and it sounds unnatural, but if you want it to sound natural you need to cut away the ambiguity.
"We will bury you" can mean either a) that we will kill you or b) we will outlast you. But either way, we will be alive after your death and present at your burial.
Regardless of which meaning was intended, Khrushchev's decision to bring up the topic of the death of the entire "first world" at the UN was deliberately provocative, so it's hardly a mistranslation to conclude that the US and NATO have just been threatened, no matter how obliquely.
There's still a difference between mere provocation ("I will live longer than you...") and a direct threat ("...because I will kill you first"). The former could still merely be a statement of confidence (i.e. "our form of government is more stable and resilient than yours, whereas you're overextending yourselves and will deplete your resources").
But for things that make cultural references, like Gintama, even someone who knows the language itself won't know every cultural reference, so they can be useful.
Nikita Khrushchev’s infamous statement in 1956 — “We will bury you” — ushered in one of the Cold War’s most dangerous phases, one rife with paranoia and conviction that both sides were out to destroy the other. But it turns out that’s not what he said, not in Russian, anyway. Khrushchev’s actual declaration was “We will outlast you” — prematurely boastful, perhaps, but not quite the declaration of hostilities most Americans heard, thanks to HIS interpreter’s mistake.
The response of Kantaro Suzuki, prime minister of Japan, to an Allied ultimatum in July 1945 — just days before Hiroshima — was conveyed to Harry Truman as “silent contempt” (“mokusatsu”), when it was actually intended as “No comment. We need more time.” Japan was not given any.
Whenever I see interpreters on footage of trials or negotiations, I have the impression the interpreter is a native to the target language, and is there on authority of his government, i.e. A Soviet interpreter working for Kruchev translates from english to russian, and a US translator working for USA translates from russian to english. I could be wrong though, but I always thought the responsibility of correct translation was placed at the receiver of information (otherwise, the non-elected interpreter would have the final word on phrasing a comment!)
The 2 examples of Kruchev, and the failed pre-Hiroshima bomb are phrased in a way that insinuates the problem to have been at the foreign side!