Read on Twitter
I want to talk about the importance of active vs passive sentences in Japanese to English translation. So here's a short thread on linguistics and translation.
(Thanks Jocelyne for the inspiration for this.)
(Thanks Jocelyne for the inspiration for this.)
I knew I should write in active voice for a long time, but I didn't know the difference between active and passive. I didn't understand what people meant by "the subject of a sentence performs the verb’s action".
So I'm going to explain it in a way that it was explained to me.
So I'm going to explain it in a way that it was explained to me.
Passive sentences are structured:
subject - action - actor
e.g "he was killed by a truck"
Active sentences are structured:
actor - action - subject
e.g "a truck killed him"
Normally if you have "is/was/have/will" etc. bloating the sentence, it's probably the passive voice.
subject - action - actor
e.g "he was killed by a truck"
Active sentences are structured:
actor - action - subject
e.g "a truck killed him"
Normally if you have "is/was/have/will" etc. bloating the sentence, it's probably the passive voice.
Passive voice isn't always bad but it tends to be wordier and harder to follow in English.
Active voice is good for a quick, naturally flowing read. It's impactful.
Passive voice can be good when the action is more important, or when you want to hide who did the action.
Active voice is good for a quick, naturally flowing read. It's impactful.
Passive voice can be good when the action is more important, or when you want to hide who did the action.
The reason this is an issue in Japanese - English translation is because Japanese uses passive form more than English, and because the subject comes at the front of the sentence.
Which means translators often fall for the trap of trying to maintain a similar sentence structure.
Which means translators often fall for the trap of trying to maintain a similar sentence structure.
Let's take this sentence: 彼はトラックに殺された
Our brains are tempted to maintain the sentence structure and translate this to "he was killed by a truck."
But this is wordier and doesn't flow as well as "a truck killed him." The active sentence also has more impact.
Our brains are tempted to maintain the sentence structure and translate this to "he was killed by a truck."
But this is wordier and doesn't flow as well as "a truck killed him." The active sentence also has more impact.
If the original 彼はトラックに殺された is a dramatic revelation, then creating that same impact in EN is incredibly important. A passive sentence would have less impactful.
This is why using the equivalent meaning is often more important than equivalent word/sentence structure.
This is why using the equivalent meaning is often more important than equivalent word/sentence structure.
Active voice is really important in games & manga translation where space is limited. You can normally convey the same meaning better with active voice.
It's also more natural for English speakers to use the active voice, so using it in dialogue makes it a more natural read.
It's also more natural for English speakers to use the active voice, so using it in dialogue makes it a more natural read.
So if you're translating and you find yourself writing a sentence with "is / have been / was being / will be / might have been" etc., then take a nanosecond to see if you can shave off a few words and if it would read better in the active voice.
