Quiet as it’s kept, the common belief that idiom should be palliated in translation is wrong.  They say it’s okay to make language sweet before translating it. I was never much for grinning up. Somebody tried to explain it to me once, but I paid him no mind. He believed that it was more important to convey the meaning than the context. The trouble is, that with idiom, meaning and context don’t always exist independently.

When you strip an idiom down in attempts to essentialize its meaning, you gut it. The shine is gone. The vivacity ebbs and the color is drained. Idiom is applied specifically for its tonality.

The basic meaning is always there, lingering. When you use an expression, or a slur, or a slang term, there is always a cleaner manner to say it. There’s even an easier way to say, “in layman’s terms.” “Shit” can be replaced with “crap,” and “Fly” can be replaced “good.” You chose the expression with intent. It is not the translator’s place to negate that. It is not the translator’s place to ignore the quickening.

What does it mean to just translate the meaning? Is there no feeling in significance? Not going to lie, I’m all about the feeling.

My favorite sermon as a child came from a visiting preacher, Pastor Meile. He opened the sermon by saying, “You preach a bloodless gospel. There is no life that pulsates in your words.” Ritualism without reason is a disservice to worship. Testimony without passion only distances a Christian from the blood of the lamb.

Duality is native to the English language. Many sophisticated Latinate words have soulful Germanic counterparts.  The language is navigated with polish and punch. There’s no use in pretending that the categories are mutually exclusive. Similar is the duality between modern formal speech and colloquial speech. They exist side by side in conversation. The speeches exist is conflict, not in separation. A choice is inevitable. Confusing opposing sides only suggests ignorance of an argument’s background, not understanding. Beyond this, providing a translation of a translation serves to erode and not to clarify.

In 1996, the Oakland school board declared Ebonics as a foreign language. The resolution separated African American Vernacular English from Standard American English, and even argued that AAVE could not be considered Indo-European. This was ultimately overturned. The linguists who researched the evidence behind the resolution found the following: since African Americans are not foreigners, regardless of their sociolect of preference, as natural born Americans are fluent in both.

Translating from euphemisms loses the regional and cultural ties that may be associated. Idiom is often bound to regional and cultural practice. This is possibly because language is a regional and cultural practice. George Steiner would remind us that the colors we recognize enough to name are based on the pigments in the fauna that surrounds us. The words associated with the participants of a wedding ceremony are based on the conventions of marriage in the pertinent culture. Language cannot escape its origin or application. We translate not to universalize but to share the particular truths of others.

Gospels should be quick not bloodless. It is not ethical to sanitize before translating. Segregational politics have no place here, especially when separating “real” and “authentic.” Some things just cannot be translated. It is not ethical to sanitize that either.