| The Treatment of Relative Clauses in the Description of the Basilisk in Harry Potter (Book 2) |
One feature of the description of the Basilisk is the heavy use of relative clauses (clauses using 'which' or 'that'). If you look up grammar books, you'll find a lot about the grammatical functions of relative clauses. Apart from some basic stuff, in particular the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses (see below), these grammatical explanations are of limited use in analysing how relative clauses are used in writing. This passage by Rowling is a good example.
Relative clauses: the grammar
The best way to explain relative clauses is to through example. The clauses shown in italics below are relative clauses modifying 'wand':
The wand that was lying on the floor was broken.
The wand which was lying on the floor was broken.
Grammarians call these 'restrictive relative clauses' because they 'restrict' what 'the wand' refers to. In other words, we are not just talking about any old wand, but the particular wand that was lying on the floor. The restrictive relative clause is essential because it specifies the wand or type of wand being discussed. It cannot be left out. These kinds of restrictive clause are also known as 'integrated relative clauses' because they are integrated into the construction containing them, especially in terms of content.
There are certain kinds of integrated relative clauses that are not actually restrictive. For example:
- She has no monetary worries. She has two sons who support her financially.
- I go to Hanoi a lot. I have a brother who lives there.
The first sentence could mean that she has two sons who support her and another son who doesn't. This would be a restrictive meaning ('support her financially' specifies which of the sons are being discussed). But it is equally possible that she has only got two sons. In this sentence, 'who support her financially' is an integrated clause, but is not restrictive in its meaning.
Similarly for the second example, where 'who lives there' is not restrictive in meaning; it is an explanation as to why the speaker goes to Hanoi a lot. These two examples can't be classed as non-restrictive clauses (see below) because they can't be left out without changing the meaning.
Fo another example, see the High Inquisitor's Order Banning Teachers from Giving Students Extraneous Information.
There are also 'non-restrictive relative clauses'. An example is:
The wand, which was lying on the floor, was broken.
Notice how the clause is contained inside commas, which cordon it off from the rest of the sentence. In this case, the relative clause does not restrict the meaning of the word 'wand', it almost casually adds extra information, as if to say, 'oh, and by the way, the wand happened to be lying on the floor'. It could be left out without making much difference to the primary meaning of the sentence, namely, 'the wand was broken'. These are also known as 'supplementary relative clauses' as the information is not fully integrated into the structure containing the clause and is not needed to delimit the wand being referred to.
For information on relative clauses, see Edufind (several pages -- Edufind uses 'defining clause' in preference to 'restrictive clause'), Grammar Workshop, and Using English.
Relative clauses as a device in writing
The passage describing the Basilisk contains several relative clauses and we will look at them one by one. (There is one example, 'all who are fixed with the beam of its eye shall suffer instant death', which I will leave out of consideration. This instance has grammatical complexities which distinguish it from the others.)
Example 1: Integrated Relative Clause
The first sentence contains an integrated relative clause (in italics).
| Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land, there is none more curious or more deadly than the Basilisk... |
English in this case requires some clarification of what we are talking about. The moment we write 'the many beasts and monsters', we are obliged to indicate in some way which beasts and monsters are involved. Hence the use of a integrated relative clause to characterise the type of beasts and monsters under discussion. Note that this is not a restrictive relative clause. That is because Rowling isn't really restricting the passage to 'beasts and monsters that roam our land' as opposed to, say, 'beasts and monsters that live in our seas' or 'beasts and monsters that fly through the skies'. But the content of 'that roam our land' is very much integrated into the meaning of the passage.
In fact, the 'obligatory' relative clause is an occasion to add a dramatic flourish. If Rowling had written 'Of the many beasts and monsters that are hanging around the place' or whatever else came to mind, the impact would have been completely destroyed. The relative clause is of vital importance in imparting the alarming information that 'many beasts and monsters are roaming our land'. A point of grammar thus becomes a point of style.
Notice, moreover, how this section is placed right at the start of the sentence. 'Of the many beasts and monsters that roam our land' is not simply a phrase containing a restrictive relative clause, it provides a dramatic backdrop to the description of the Basilisk. See the difference between what Rowling writes and a more straightforward version:
| Straightforward version: | ||
| None | of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land | is more curious or deadly than the Basilisk |
| Rowling version: | ||
| Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land | there is none | more curious or deadly than the Basilisk |
In fact, this sentence must be seen in a wider context than that of the relative clause. What Rowling resorts to here is a ready-made literary device that follows the formula: 'Of the many x that...., perhaps the most y is the ...' The restrictive relative clause forms just one part of this pattern. The effect is as we have seen here, setting a grand background for what follows.
Keeping the above in mind, let's see how the translators handle this sentence.
Mainland version:
| 在我们国家，游荡着许多可怕的野兽和怪物，其中最离奇、最具有杀生力的莫过于蛇怪...。 Zài wǒmen guójiā, yóudàng-zhe xǔduō kěpà de yěshòu hé guàiwù, qízhōng zuì líqí, zuì jùyǒu shāshānglì de mòguòyú Shéguài.... |
| In our country are roaming many frightful wild beasts and monsters; of these, the most curious, the most lethal does not surpass the Basilisk... |
This version does not try to knit the whole together as in English. Instead the sentence is split in two.
The first sentence notes that many 'frightful beasts and monsters are roaming our land'. The dramatic opening gesture of the English is transformed into an independent sentence. The Basilisk is then identified as the most curious and lethal of those beasts and monsters.
| 在我们国家，游荡着许多可怕的野兽和怪物 | 其中最离奇、最具有杀生力的莫过于蛇怪 |
| zài wǒmen guójiā, yóudàng-zhe xǔduō kěpà de yěshòu hé guàiwù | qízhōng zuì líqí, zuì jùyǒu shāshānglì de mòguòyú Shéguài |
| In our country are roaming many frightful wild beasts and monsters | of these, the most curious, the most lethal does not surpass the Basilisk |
(Note on grammar: Normally the verb 游荡着 yóudàng-zhe 'are roaming' would come after the phrase 许多可怕的野兽和怪物 xǔduō kěpà de yěshòu hé guàiwù 'many frightful wild beasts and monsters'. By reversing the order, the translator is creating a 'sentence of existence' in Chinese. This kind of structure is used to tell us that 'something exists', equivalent to saying in English 'There are many frightful wild beasts and monsters roaming in our country'.)
While it does not follow the English grammatical structure exactly, this translation reflects the total effect quite accurately, i.e., the procession from 'fearsome beasts and monsters roaming the land' to 'the most curious and lethal is the Basilisk'.
The Taiwanese version follows the English much more closely:
| 在我們國土上漫遊的眾多可怕野獸與怪物裡面，其中最希罕，同時也是最危險的種類就是蛇妖...。 Zài wǒmen guótǔ-shàng mànyóu de zhòngduō kěpà yěshòu yǔ guàiwù lǐmiàn, qízhōng zuì xīhǎn, tóngshí yě shì zuì wēixiǎn de zhǒnglèi jiù shì shéyāo... |
| Among the many frightful wild beasts and monsters that roam in our country, of these the most curious and at the same time most dangerous type is the snake-monster... |
This can be analysed as follows:
| 在我們國土上漫遊的眾多可怕野獸與怪物裡面 | 其中最希罕，同時也是最危險的種類就是蛇妖 |
| zài wǒmen guótǔ-shàng mànyóu de zhòngduō kěpà yěshòu yǔ guàiwù lǐmiàn | qízhōng zuì xīhǎn, tóngshí yě shì zuì wēixiǎn de zhǒnglèi jiù shì shéyāo |
| Among the many frightful wild beasts and monsters that roam in our country | of these the most curious and at the same time most dangerous type is the snake-monster |
Unfortunately, trying to follow the English slavishly is faithful to the letter but not the spirit of the original.
The main problem is its structural clumsiness. The standard way of translating the English restrictive relative clause into Chinese is to use the connecting particle 的 de. Unlike English, the content of the clause is placed before the noun:
| English | |
| the many fearsome beasts and monsters | that roam our land |
| Chinese | |
| 我們國土上漫遊的 | 眾多可怕野獸與怪物 |
| wǒmen guótǔ-shàng mànyóu de | zhòngduō kěpà yěshòu yǔ guàiwù |
| on-our-land-roaming | many fearsome beasts and monsters |
This kind of relative clause was originally an uncommon construction in Chinese, but under the influence of English (or rather, poor translations from English) it has become extremely widespread, especially in certain styles of writing. This kind of construction can be ungainly and difficult-to-understand, especially if it gets too long. It is also a rather laboured device divorced from normal speech. There does not seem to be any reason for using it here.
A secondary problem arises in translating the structure 'Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land'. The translator ends up saying 'of the' twice, first as 在...裡面, then again as 其中. This is a direct result of trying to render the relative clause construction literally.
The only factor that can be cited in favour of this translation is the fact that it imitates the ponderous academic style that might be found in reference books describing the Basilisk.
Given that the main purpose of the opening words, 'Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land, ...', is to provide a dramatic start to the passage, one has to question the decision of the Taiwanese translator to follow the English so closely. All in all, the Mainland version is more natural.
Japanese version:
| 我らが世界を徘徊する多くの怪獣、怪物の中でも、最も珍しく、最も破壊的であるという点で、バジリスクの右に出るものはない。 Warera ga sekai o haikai suru ōku no kaijuu, kaibutsu no naka demo, mottomo mezurashiku, mottomo hakaiteki de aru to iu ten de, Bajirisuku no migi ni deru mono wa nai. |
| Even among the many frightful wild beasts and monsters that roam our world, in terms of being the rarest and most destructive, there is nothing to top the Basilisk. |
Unlike Chinese, Japanese has always used a structure like the relative clause, known in Japanese as rentai shushoku (連体修飾 rentai shūshoku). Very long rentai shushoku clauses can stand before a noun without strain. The whole thing is made easy by the fact that the Japanese verb comes at the end of the sentence, and thus also the modifying clause. The verb at the end of a rentai shushoku clause directly links to the following noun:
| English | |
| the many fearsome beasts and monsters | that roam our land |
| Japanese | |
| 我らが世界を徘徊する | 多くの怪獣、怪物 |
| Warera ga sekai o haikai suru | ōku no kaijū, kaibutsu |
| 'roam our world' | many beasts and monsters |
The verb in this case is 徘徊する haikai suru 'to roam', modifying the following 多くの怪獣、怪物 ōku no kaijū, kaibutsu 'many beasts and monsters'. Note that 徘徊する, like most verbs in rentai shushoku clauses, is in the plain, not the polite form.
The opening with 我らが世界を徘徊する多くの怪獣、怪物 is thus perfectly natural in Japanese and is a good reflection of the English. The expression 'Of the many beasts and monsters ...' is particularly well translated through the use of the particle も mo, meaning 'also' or 'even'. Whereas the English simply says 'Of the many beasts and monsters', the Japanese says 'Even amongst the many beasts and monsters', hinting that something even more terrifying is about to come.
In fact, the entire structure of the Japanese sentence is somewhat different from the English original because the second half is broken up into 'in terms of being the rarest and most destructive' and 'there is nothing to top the Basilisk'.
| 我らが世界を徘徊する多くの怪獣、怪物の中でも、 | 最も珍しく、最も破壊的であるという点で、 | バジリスクの右に出るものはない |
| warera ga sekai o haikai suru ōku no kaijuu, kaibutsu no naka demo | mottomo mezurashiku, mottomo hakaiteki de aru to iu ten de | Bajirisuku no migi ni deru mono wa nai |
| even among the many frightful wild beasts and monsters that roam our world | in terms of being the rarest and most destructive | there is nothing to top the Basilisk |
Vietnamese version:
| Trong số những ác thú và quái vật đáng sợ đi lang thang trên mảnh đất của chúng ta, không có con nào lạ lùng hơn và nguy hiểm hơn Basilisk. |
| Among the terrible wild beasts and monsters that wander though our land, there is none that is stranger or more dangerous than the Basilisk. |
The Vietnamese follows the English closest of all. This is primarily because Vietnamese relative clauses, like those in English, follow the noun. Vietnamese grammar therefore allows the translator to follow the English without any strain.
In this case, the relative clause is connected to the noun without the use of a relative pronoun corresponding to English 'that'.
The Vietnamese runs:
| số những ác thú và quái vật | đáng sợ đi lang thang trên mảnh đất của chúng ta |
| The many fearsome beasts and monsters | [that] roam our land |
The Vietnamese is a good reflection of the English.
The rest of the relative clauses in the passage are supplementary, which, as I said above, add extra information almost incidentally. But once again, the relative clauses that Rowling uses are not simply grammatical devices, they have informational functions that are much more important.
Example 2: Supplementary Relative Clause
The first is a textbook example of additional information being casually tacked on.
| ...the Basilisk | (which is) known also as the King of Serpents |
I treat this as a case where 'which is' has been omitted. In full, this would be '...the Basilisk, which is known also as the King of Serpents'.
This straightforward usage is reflected in the four translations:
Mainland version:
| ...蛇怪，又被称为蛇王。 ...Shéguài, yòu bèi chēng wéi Shéwáng. |
| ...the Snake-monster, (this) is also known as the Snake King. |
In keeping with the nature of the English, 又被称为蛇王 yòu bèi chēng wéi Shéwáng is an additional mini-sentence in the Chinese providing extra information about the Basilisk.
The Taiwanese version:
| ...蛇妖，亦稱為萬蛇之王。 ...Shéyāo, yì chēng wéi Wàn-shé-zhī-wáng. |
| ...the Snake-monster, (this) is also known as the King of the Snakes. |
The treatment is almost identical to the Mainland version.
Japanese version:
| ...バジリスクの右に出るものはない。『毒蛇の王』とも呼ばれる。 Bajirisuku no migi ni deru mono wa nai. "Dokuhebi no Ō" to mo yobareru. |
| ...there is nothing to top the Basilisk. It is also known as the 'King of venomous snakes'. |
Unlike the Chinese, the Japanese separates this fragment into a clearly independent sentence.
Vietnamese version:
| ...Basilisk, còn được gọi là Tử Xà. |
| the Basilisk, also known as the Death Snake. |
Like the other translations, this forms an additional simple sentence.
Example 3: Supplementary Relative Clause
The next example is:
| This snake | which may reach gigantic size, and live many hundreds of years | is born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad |
This looks like the classic case of a supplementary relative clause tacking on additional information, but this could not be further from the truth. In fact, the information that 'the Basilisk may reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years' is no less important than the information that it is 'born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad'. The two could be reversed with very little difference:
| This snake | which is born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad | may reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years |
The use of a supplementary clause here has one purpose: to add stylistic variety to the sentence. It is a more interesting alternative to the straightforward and monotonous:
This snake may reach gigantic size, and live many hundreds of years. It is born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad.
| This snake | may reach gigantic size, and live many hundreds of years | It | is born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad |
In translating this sentence it is important to grasp the stylistic function, not merely the grammatical.
How do the translators fare?
Mainland version:
| 这种蛇的体积可以变得十分巨大，通常能活好几百年。它是从一只公鸡蛋里、由一只癞蛤蟆孵出的。 Zhè zhǒng shé de tǐjī kěyǐ biàn de shífēn jùdà, tōngcháng néng huó hǎo jǐ bǎi nián. Tā shì cóng yīzhī gōngjīdàn lǐ, yóu yīzhī lái hámá fūchū de. |
| The dimensions of this kind of snake can become quite huge; frequently it can live for hundreds of years. It is born from a rooster's egg, hatched by a toad. |
The Mainland version virtually follows the 'boring' English version given above. Boring though it may be in English, this is very well suited to Chinese, which traditionally has a preference for short sentences with parallelism of function. The single sentence is broken into two separate sentences.
Part 1
| 这种蛇的体积 | 可以变得十分巨大 | (这种蛇) | 通常能活好几百年 |
| Zhè zhǒng shé de tǐjī | kěyǐ biàn de shífēn jùdà | (zhè zhǒng shé) | tōngcháng néng huó hǎo jǐ bǎi nián |
| This kind of snake's dimensions | can become quite large | (this kind of snake) | frequently can live many hundred years |
| Part 2 | |||
| 它是 | 从一只公鸡蛋里、由一只癞蛤蟆孵出 | 的 | |
| Tā shì | cóng yīzhī gōngjīdàn lǐ, yóu yīzhī lái hámá fūchū | de | |
| It | is born from a rooster's egg, hatched by a toad | (grammatical particle) | |
The Taiwanese version:
| 此種可以成長到驚人尺寸，並擁有數百年壽命的蛇類，是由蟾蜍孵育雞蛋所生。 Cǐ zhǒng kěyǐ chéngzhǎng dào jīngrén chǐcùn, bìng yōngyǒu shùbǎi nián shòumìng de shélèi, shì yóu chánchú fūyù jīdàn suǒ shēng. |
| This kind of snake, which may grow to amazing dimensions and has a life span of several hundred years, is hatched by a toad from a chicken's egg. |
Again, the Taiwanese version slavishly follows the relative clause structure of the English:
| 此種 | 可以成長到驚人尺寸，並擁有數百年壽命的 | 蛇類... |
| Cǐ zhǒng | kěyǐ chéngzhǎng dào jīngrén chǐcùn, bìng yōngyǒu shùbǎi nián shòumìng de | shélèi... |
| This kind of | can grow to an amazing size and have a life span of several hundered years | snake-type... |
This results in a long and clumsy pre-modification to the noun 蛇類 'type of snake'. While perhaps common in certain kinds of Chinese prose, this is not a suitable place to use this kind of structure. The whole intent of using a relative clause in English was to add a variety to the sentence structure, which it did in a natural way. By using the equivalent structure the translator only makes the sentence clumsy and hard-to-understand. The 'boring' structure above would have been preferable.
Japanese version:
| この蛇は巨大に成長することがあり、何百年も生き長らえることがある。鶏の卵から生まれ、ヒキガエルの腹の下で孵化される。 Kono hebi wa kyodai ni seichō suru koto ga ari, nanbyakunen mo ikinagaraeru koto ga aru. Niwatori no tamago kara umare, hikigaeru no hara no shita de fuka sareru. |
| This snake may grow to huge size and live hundreds of years. It is born from a chicken's egg and hatched underneath the belly of a toad. |
Although Japanese prose of all kinds abounds in relative-clause-like rentai shushoku, which could quite easily be used here, the translator has wisely refrained from doing so. Like the Mainland translator, she separates the content into independent sentences. Each sentence consists of two sentences joined by the verb-form known as ren'yokei. The ren'yokei is an 'incomplete' form that suspends the sentence, awaiting a further clause to carry on. The second and final verb completes the sentence:
| あり (ren'yokei), ari, 'be', |
...ある (sentence-ending form)。 ...aru. ...'be'. |
| 生まれ (ren'yokei) umare, 'be born', |
...孵化される (sentence-ending form)。 ...fuka sareru. ...'be hatched'. |
This is perfectly natural in terms of the structure of Japanese and reflects the true function of the English.
Vietnamese version:
| Con rắn này có thể sống đến nhiều trăm năm, và đạt tới kích thước lớn kinh hồn. Nó được phôi thai trong một cái trứng gà, nhưng được một con cóc ấp nở ra. |
| This snake can live for hundreds of years, and reach amazingly large dimensions. It is conceived in a hen's egg but is hatched by a toad. |
Like the Japanese and Mainland translations, this separates the whole into two sentences. The first sentence consists of two parts, with và ('and') providing a transition in the first. In the second, the two halves are connected by a comma. This accurately reflects the intent of the English structure.
Part 1
| Con rắn này có thể sống đến nhiều trăm năm | và đạt tới kích thước lớn kinh hồn |
| This snake can live for hundreds of years | and reach amazingly large dimensions |
| Part 2 | |
| Nó được phôi thai trong một cái trứng gà | nhưng được một con cóc ấp nở ra |
| It is conceived in a hen's egg | but is hatched by a toad |
Example 4: Supplementary Relative Clause
The third supplementary relative clause is perhaps the most interesting of the lot.
| Spiders flee before the Basilisk | for it is their mortal enemy | and the Basilisk flees only from the crowing of the rooster | which is fatal to it |
Although it takes the form of a relative clause, almost casually attached to the end, the final clause 'which is fatal to it' performs a similar function to the clause 'for it is their mortal enemy' earlier in the sentence (For a note on this see also the treatment of 'for'). The information is an explanation for the behaviour of the Basilisk, not a casual observation. The author could just as well have written:
| Spiders flee before the Basilisk | for it is their mortal enemy | and the Basilisk flees only from the crowing of the rooster | for this is fatal to it |
This is a good example of how writers use grammatical structures in ways that transcend the purely grammatical.
As we will see below, the four translations have used different, sometimes roundabout ways to translate this seemingly innocent relative clause.
Mainland Version:
| 蜘蛛看到蛇怪就会逃跑，因为蛇怪是蜘蛛的死敌，而蛇怪只有听见公鸡的叫声才会仓皇逃命，因为公鸡的叫声对它来说也是致命的。 Zhīzhū kàn dào Shéguài jiù hùi táopǎo, yīnwei shéguài shì zhīzhū de sǐdì, ér Shéguài zhǐyǒu tīngjiàn gōngjī de jiàoshēng cái huì cānghuáng táomìng, yīnwei gōngjī de jiàoshēng duì tā lái shuō yě shì zhìmìng de. |
| Spiders will flee if they see the snake-monster, because the snake-monster is the mortal enemy of spiders, but the snake-monster just has to hear the cry of the rooster before it will flee in confusion, because the crowing of the rooster is lethal to it. |
The translator correctly interprets the intent of the English. This is probably the simplest version, making explicit the causal connection by using 因为 yīnwèi 'because'.
1st part
| 蜘蛛看到蛇怪就会逃跑 | 因为蛇怪是蜘蛛的死敌 |
| zhīzhū kàn dào Shéguài jiù hùi táopǎo | yīnwei shéguài shì zhīzhū de sǐdì |
| Spiders will flee if they see the snake-monster | because the snake-monster is the mortal enemy of spiders |
2nd part
| 而蛇怪只有听见公鸡的叫声才会仓皇逃命 | 因为公鸡的叫声对它来说也是致命的 |
| ér Shéguài zhǐyǒu tīngjiàn gōngjī de jiàoshēng cái huì cānghuáng táomìng | yīnwei gōngjī de jiàoshēng duì tā lái shuō yě shì zhìmìng de |
| but the snake-monster just has to hear the cry of the rooster before it will flee in confusion | because the crowing of the rooster is lethal to it |
The Taiwanese version:
| 蜘蛛見到蛇妖就會落荒而逃，因為牠是牠們的天敵，但蛇妖唯一忌憚的卻是雄雞的啼叫，那對牠來說是奪命的魔音。 Zhīzhū jiàndào Shéyāo jiù huì luòhuāng ér tào, yīnwèi tā shì tāmen de tiāndì, dàn Shéyāo wéiyī jìdàn de què shì xióngjī de tíjiào, nà duì tā lái shuō shì duó mìng de móyīn. |
| Spiders will flee in panic if they see the snake-monster because it is their mortal enemy, but the only thing that the snake-monster fears is the crowing of the rooster; this is a lethal magic sound to it. |
The Taiwanese version is closer to the English in that it does not explicitly use a word meaning 'because'. The translator simply splits off the relative clause as a separate sentence. Fortunately, she does not use a relative clause -- if she had, it would have resulted in the ungainly and almost incomprehensible 蛇妖唯一忌憚的卻是 對牠來說奪命的 雄雞的啼叫 Shéyāo wéiyī jìdàn de què shì duì tā lái shuō shì duó mìng de xióngjī de tíjiào.
1st part
| 蜘蛛見到蛇妖就會落荒而逃 | 因為牠是牠們的天敵 |
| zhīzhū jiàndào Shéyāo jiù huì luòhuāng ér tào | yīnwèi tā shì tāmen de tiāndì |
| Spiders will flee in panic if they see the snake-monster | because it is their mortal enemy |
2nd part
| 但蛇妖唯一忌憚的卻是雄雞的啼叫 | 那對牠來說是奪命的魔音 |
| dàn Shéyāo wéiyī jìdàn de què shì xióngjī de tíjiào | nà duì tā lái shuō shì duó mìng de móyīn |
| but the snake-monster just has to hear the cry of the rooster before it will flee in confusion | this is a lethal magic sound to it |
Because 那對牠來說是奪命的 nà duì tā lái shuō shì duó mìng de ('this is lethal to it') sounds incomplete, the translator is forced to fill the sentence out a little by describing the crowing of the rooster as a 魔音 móyīn'magic/demonic sound', which is not in the original.
Japanese version:
| 蜘蛛が逃げ出すのはバジリスクが来る前触れである。なぜならバジリスクは蜘蛛の宿命の天敵だからである。バジリスクにとって致命的なのは雄鶏が時をつくる声で、唯一それからは逃げ出す。 Kumo ga nigedasu no wa Bajirisuku ga kuru maebure de aru. Naze nara Bajirisuku wa kumo no shukumei no tenteki da kara de aru. Bajirisuku ni totte chimeiteki na no wa ondori ga toki o tsukuru koe de, yui-itsu sore kara wa nigedasu. |
| The escaping of the spiders is a harbinger of the coming of the Basilisk, because the Basilisk is the mortal enemy of spiders. What is lethal to the Basilisk is the crowing of the rooster at dawn; (therefore) it flees only from this. |
The Japanese looks rather different from the English in structure, due to three features:
Because Japanese uses two different causal constructions (one なぜなら naze nara 'because', the other で de), the order of the clauses is the same in the first part but reversed in the second.
Within the second part, the first clause has been transformed into a structure meaning 'What is lethal to the Basilisk is the crowing of the rooster at dawn'. This change is not related to the relative clause. The intent is to contrast with what comes before. ('The Basilisk is lethal to spiders. So what is lethal to the Basilisk?')
The second feature is the link between the lethality of the crowing of the rooster and the fact that the Basilisk flees from the rooster. The Japanese expresses this by using で de, which is the ren'yokei or sentence-linking form of the verb です/である desu / de aru ('to be'). This can be interpreted simply as two independent statements ('The crowing of the rooster is lethal to the Basilisk. It flees only from this') but often carries the implication of a causal connection ('Because what is lethal to the Basilisk is the crowing of the rooster, it flees only from this').
The Japanese thus conveys the concept of a causal relationship between the two without making this too explicit.
1st part
| 蜘蛛が逃げ出すのはバジリスクが来る前触れである | なぜならバジリスクは蜘蛛の宿命の天敵だからである |
| kumo ga nigedasu no wa Bajirisuku ga kuru maebure de aru | naze nara Bajirisuku wa kumo no shukumei no tenteki da kara de aru |
| The escaping of the spiders is a harbinger of the coming of the Basilisk | (that is) because the Basilisk is the mortal enemy of spiders |
2nd part
| バジリスクにとって致命的なのは雄鶏が時をつくる声で | 唯一それからは逃げ出す |
| Bajirisuku ni totte chimeiteki na no wa ondori ga toki o tsukuru koe de | yui-itsu sore kara wa nigedasu |
| but the snake-monster just has to hear the cry of the rooster before it will flee in confusion and (therefore) | it flees only from this |
Vietnamese version:
| Nhền nhện thường trốn chạy trước khi Tử Xà xuất hiện, bởi vì ̣đó là kẻ tử thù của chúng. Và Tử Xà thì chỉ bỏ chạy khi nghe tiếng gáy của gà trống, tiếng gà trống gáy là tai họa chí tử đối với Tử Xà. |
| Spiders often flee before the Death Snake appears because it is their deadly enemy. And the Death Snake will only flee when it hears the crowing of the rooster. The sound of the rooster crowing is a fatal calamity for the Death Snake. |
The Vietnamese goes furthest towards separating the relative clause 'which is lethal to it' into a separate sentence. The final sentence is a very clear explanation of what goes before, even though the word 'because' is not used.
1st part
| Nhền nhện thường trốn chạy trước khi Tử Xà xuất hiện | bởi vì ̣đó là kẻ tử thù của chúng |
| Spiders often flee before the Death Snake appears | because it is their deadly enemy |
2nd part
| và Tử Xà thì chỉ bỏ chạy khi nghe tiếng gáy của gà trống | tiếng gà trống gáy là tai họa chí tử đối với Tử Xà. |
| and the Death Snake will only flee when it hears the crowing of the rooster. | The sound of the rooster crowing is a fatal calamity for the Death Snake. |
Summing up
The four instances of relative clauses found in this passage (one integrated, three supplementary) each exemplify the crucial difference between 'grammatical function' and 'stylistic function'. The first relative clause adds to the dramatic introduction to the Basilisk. The second is a textbook example of tacking on information almost parenthetically. The third is a stylistic device used to add variety to what would otherwise be a straightforward string of sentences. The fourth is used to give a reason or cause for the preceding statement.
In translating it is essential to grasp the difference between the relative clause as a grammatical device and what it is being used for. A purely literal transposition of the English device into the target language will not necessarily achieve the same effect as the original.
Of the four translations, it is clear that the Mainland Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese translators have grasped the function of the relative clause in the context and reflected it in their translations in one way or another.
The Taiwanese translator has failed to do this, using a knee-jerk translation process, which results in awkwardness in all but the second example. The Taiwanese translation is quite inferior to the Mainland translation in this regard.
 |