Yes, that would be how I imagine it..Yes for "his eyes, nose and mouth seemed to be concentrated towards the center os his face", but I don't think it also means "what would make his face look larger."
貼紙の角のめくれたところ makes sense?そこのところに「階段の昇降は静粛にすべし。司法室」と書いた貼紙が、角のめくれたところに塵をかぶってはりつけられている
Yes.what would the meaning of ひとも我も be? "The others and me as well"?
Thank you and sorry for the former post, I hadn't noticed that I posted it, but yes, I had already figured out that it meant "the creased/wrinkled corners of the paper"貼紙の角のめくれたところ makes sense?
Yes
Hm, so I think that it means that she put her bedspread in there when it was her turn to/before going to wash her face.I think 巡ぐり is an adverb じゅんぐり(に), meaning "in order/rotation", not an adjective, there. The kanji 順 is usually used for this meaning, and 巡 is more likely a misuse, though.
In fact, this essay is the only one result of 巡ぐり戸棚 in google searching, and she used just 戸棚 previously when describing a scene where they are taking futon from the shelf.
廊下についている戸棚から各監房へ布団を運び入れるところをみていると
Ok, what about the distribution of the futon, I suppose that it happened the same way, right? Each going to get them in turn before sleep time.That's not wrong, but I think 巡ぐり戸棚に布団をしまい、洗顔にとりかかる。 would be a description about the inmates, not only about her, i.e., they did that in tern.
Yes, i've noticed it. It is not so easy to follow all the historical present passages to a T when I translate without it soundig weird in my language. She goes from past to historical present many times in the same paragraph. In Japanese, it sounds more natural (or my Japanese is lacking). Most of the times, it sounds more natural do just use the gerund with a verb in the past to give the ideia that it is something that is happening/going on and bring it closer to the reader. I don't know very well how to explain...Well, unlike a spoken word 行くもんで! 話して来ないもん, present forms are not always a habit in narrative parts. It's often narrative/historical present.
I feel divided about it because my preference would also be to use the past forms in Portuguese because it really sounds more natural, but at the same time, I would like to be closer to the original text... It is easier to use the past tenses though. But in the case of Miyamoto, I feel that it gives a different nuance to her texts...Well, I think there is no problem to use past forms for historical present in English translation if it's natural in English.
But wouldn't it be closer to the original if the beginning was translated in the present? Sorry to keep asking questions about it, but i want to know if my grasp of the language is too off, it could just be my grasp of the English language that isn't that good though.
Perfectly said!Sorry for jumping into the conversation midway through, but as someone who does translation for a living, this is a rather interesting topic for me. (Apologies in advance if what I'm about to say is a bit "meta".)
Well...not necessarily.
Most professional translators will agree that the ideal translation is one that evokes the same feelings/imagery in the target language as the original work did in the source language, not necessarily one that strictly adheres closest to the literal wording or structure of the original. (As a translator, perhaps you already agree with this.)
So what does that mean in this case? In my experience, Japanese tends to play a bit more free and loose with tense than English does, and this includes this sort of use of the "historical present." It's not impossible to narrate past events in the present in English, and you see it sometimes, but generally it will be for an extended passage (like a story within a story) or a stylistic choice carried out for the entire work. Jumping from past to present tense for a sentence or two is something you see a lot more in Japanese than in English. (Sorry, these are the only two languages I'm qualified to comment on, given my nonexistent ability in all others.)
This means that if one were to strictly preserve tense here in an English translation, there's a chance that it would come out as far more disjointed and jarring than the author originally intended (and by extension, than native Japanese speakers would feel when reading the original work). As the translator, you have to make a judgment call for yourself whether translating a given sentence or sentences in the present would serve to better allowing your readers in to hear the author's original voice, or whether they would actually hinder the reader's experience by introducing something that may feel natural in Japanese, but come off as disjointed and unusual in Portuguese.
Unfortunately, translation isn't an exact science, so there's not really one "right" answer. Then again, that's also what can make translation an interesting and rewarding craft. (At least, I think it is.)