Headhunters: Stupid Don Bartlett!

[MillMaths]

The following is from Don Bartlett's English translation of Jo Nesbø's Hodejegerne:

A collision between two vehicles is basic physics. It all comes down to chance, but chance phenomena can be explained by the equation Energy × Time = Mass × difference in Velocity.

The equation is wrong! At first I thought it was Jo Nesbø's fault. Then I looked up the original Norwegian text online and this is what was originally written:

En kollisjon mellom to kjøretøyer er enkel fysikk. Alt er overlatt til tilfeldighetene, men alle tilfeldighetene kan forklares med ligningen kraft ganger tid er lik masse ganger endring i hastighet.

So it was actually Don Bartlett's fault: he mistranslated the Norwegian word kraft, which means "force", not "energy". The correct equation is Force × Time = Mass × difference in Velocity.

Stupid Don Bartlett!

[Aleco]

Making such a mistake is indeed a little strange.

[Raufoss]

What would be the correct English translation for "Atomkraft?"

[Reinder]

What would be the correct English translation for "Atomkraft?"

Isn't it just Nuclear power in English?

[Remis]

What would be the correct English translation for "Atomkraft?"

Isn't it just Nuclear power in English?

Correct.

[bluevelo]

I think you are being unduly harsh on Don Bartlett. He is an excellent translator of Jo Nesbø's novels, among others. To be more specific, you make a case that he has mistranslated the Norwegian word "kraft" as "energy", when, according to you it should translate as "force". Actually, there are many variations on how one might translate "kraft": power, force, strength AND energy are but a few. I personally think that "force" sounds ridiculous in this equation and that "energy" really does fit much better. And calling Bartlett stupid for making a choice that is slightly different from how you would have translated the word "kraft" is quite unkind and totally unnecessary. You are quite entitled to differ with his choice as to how to translate the word, but that in no way makes him stupid.

[linguoboy]

You are quite entitled to differ with his choice as to how to translate the word, but that in no way makes him stupid.

I don't think you can make a case for a simple difference of opinion here. One translated version of the equation is correct and all others are simply wrong. Bartlett is a translator, not a physicist; he (or his editor) should've checked with one to make sure his translation was correct before including it in the finished manuscript.

[bluevelo]

You are quite entitled to differ with his choice as to how to translate the word, but that in no way makes him stupid.

I don't think you can make a case for a simple difference of opinion here. One translated version of the equation is correct and all others are simply wrong. Bartlett is a translator, not a physicist; he (or his editor) should've checked with one to make sure his translation was correct before including it in the finished manuscript.

The case I was really trying to make was that Bartlett is a professional translator and we have no indication at all of Nehushtan's translation competence, and that especially to call Bartlett stupid is insulting, especially when "kraft" can indeed be translated as energy, just as "atomkraft" can be rendered either as atomic power or atomic energy. It may well be that "force" is used in physics for this particular formula, but I don't think that name calling has any place in an objective and intelligent discussion.

[mōdgethanc]

What would be the correct English translation for "Atomkraft?"

Isn't it just Nuclear power in English?

Which could also be translated nuclear energy, but not in that equation.

[linguoboy]

It may well be that "force" is used in physics for this particular formula, but I don't think that name calling has any place in an objective and intelligent discussion.

I don't need to know anything about Nehushtan's "translation competence". I just need to know the "most important equation in physics", namely ⃗F=m⃗a.

I would feel differently about the name-calling aspect is Barlett were actually a participant in the conversation.

[bluevelo]

Linguaboy wrote: "I would feel differently about the name-calling aspect if Barlett were actually a participant in the conversation."

I fail to see how that should make any difference about whether personal insults should be part of the discourse on this otherwise excellent forum. And, if you want a vicarious participation from Bartlett, I put the question of the translation of "kraft" to him directly in an email, and his response was:

"The translation went through a lot of edits and no one noticed, probably because the meaning is clear and we are not physics graduates."

[linguoboy]

"The translation went through a lot of edits and no one noticed, probably because the meaning is clear and we are not physics graduates."

I disagree that "the meaning is clear". The equation, as it appeared in the English version, is wrong. It's not a valid equation in physics and it does not accurate reflect the Norwegian text. Nehushtan can't be the only reader who was knocked out of the narrative when confronted with it. It's unfair to place all the blame for on Bartlett, but someone at Vintage/Random House should've caught this.

I'm not a "physics graduate" either. I didn't even take physics courses at university. I just know how to make proper use of reference sources.