Translating "but": contrast and topics

The translation of contrastive/adversative conjunctions—such as ‘but’ in English—can pose problems for translators into languages that either have no obvious conjunction of that type, or where the conjunction does not work in all the contexts that a contrastive/adversative conjunction is used in national language translations.

In this talk I will first outline the range of similar but distinguishable uses of adversative and contrastive markers (following Malchukov 2004): Adversative, contrastive, correction, and mirative.

I then provide a brief summary of the original language constructions that are often translated using ‘but’ in English: in Hebrew, ‘but’ most often translates kî ʾ(im) after negation (‘corrective’), topic-fronted constructions, and simple waw-continued clauses. In Greek, ‘but’ translates the ἀλλὰ and εἰ μὴ (‘corrective’), and also the topic-continuity particle de (which in itself is neither contrastive nor adversative).

I conclude by focusing on the observation that many contrastive clauses often have contrasting topics (the “theme” part of the clause; see, e.g., Umbach 2005), as in “Abel was a herder of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground” (Gen. 4:2, where Cain is topic-fronted). In cases like these, the translator can often use topic-contrast particles rather than a conjunction, resulting in a natural receptor-language structure that reflects the information structure of the original. This section will be illustrated with data from Jarai (Austronesian, Cambodia), the language the author works with as a translation advisor.