If translatability is such a problem and complete equivalence is an impossibility, how have we understood important texts that have influenced us profoundly? Jesus Christ spoke in Aramaic and the Bible was originally in Hebrew. Most believers know Him and His Word only in their own language versions which are not heretical beliefs. Most of us have read world classics like War and Peace, Don Quixote and Les Miserables only in translation. This does not seem to have affected our appreciation and deep regard for these works. So the notion of breakdown of communication in translation activity is not borne out practically.

The problems that are identified theoretically can have pragmatic solutions. This is why Jiri Levy advises translators to fall back on intuition when faced with problems in translation: “Translation theory tends to be normative, to instruct translators on the OPTIMAL solution; actual translation work, however, is pragmatic; the translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. That is to say, he intuitively resolves for the so-called MINIMAX STRATEGY” (“Translation as a Decision Process”, Venuti 156). Translation for him is at once an interpretation and creation.

The old debate whether translation is secondary and derivative does not seem very relevant today precisely because of these insights that we have into the process. Bassnett has identified a diagrammatic representation of the process of translation thus:

Author   –   Text   –   Receiver = Translator   –   Text   –   Receiver (Bassnett 38).