Translating and Editing Text
ENGLISH 17
Schedule: Tuesday 8:00 – 11:00
Room : SFB 111
Prof: Lucy Garcia
TOPIC “Salita” laban sa “Diwa”
“Word” versus “Thought”
REPORTER Dominga Shynna Tiaba
Dapat bang piliting ang mga salita sa
isinasaling teksto ay matumbasan sa salin ng
singkahulugang mga salita o baka dapat na
ang isalin o tumbasan ay ang diwa at hindi
ang salita?
Kung iisipin , ang salita at diwa ay iisa
sapagkat ikinakarga lamang sa una ang huli.
Hindi ba’t kaya nagkaroon ng mga salita ay
upang kumatawan sa mga butil ng kaisipang
ibig nating ipahatid sa ating kapwa?
Samakatuwid ay walang dapat pagtalunan.
Subalit hindi sa ganitong napakababaw na
bagay nagkakaiba ng paniniwala ang mga
iskolar sa pagsasaling wika.
Pag- usapan natin ito. Ayon kay Savory, hindi
naman ang ibig sabihin sa literal na salin ay
ang literal na literal o isa-isang pagtutumbas
sa mga salita sa orihinal na teksto. Kalimitan
ay balangkas ng mga parirala o pangugusap
sa isinasaling teksto ang naililipat ng
nagsasalin sa kanyang pinagsasalinang wika.
Kahit noong mga dakong una, ang tinatawag
na literal na salin ay hindi naman ang
pagtatapat-tapat ng mga salita ng orihinal at
ang salin. May diwa ring nakukuha sa literal na
salin.
Kaya lang, hirap ang bumabasa sapagkat
hindi natural o idyomatiko ang paraan ng
pagpapahayag ng kaisipan.
Ito ang tinututulan ng ibang pangkat ng mga
tagapagsalin. Sila‘y naniniwalang hindi dapat
sa pagtutumbas ng mga salita ng isinasaling
teksto nakabuhos ang atensyon ng
tagapagsalin kundi sa ideya o mensahe ng
kanyang isinasalin. Kayat sa salita laban sa
ideya,ang angkop na tanong na dapat
Does the translation process of the text should
be derived from the word’s synonyms or
should it be derived from what it really means?
If we are going to think about if the word and
thoughts are similar, because the latter always
depends from the first one. Words came into
existence as representation of the thoughts
that we want to express, isn’t it? Therefore,
there should not be trouble about it. But the
scholars for translation or translating language
do not only differ as this shallow beliefs.
Let’s talk about this. According to Savory it
doesn’t necessarily mean that the translation
should be word by word. Most of the time, it is
through outline of phrases or sentences. Even
before the literal translation does not mean
translating it one by one for every word. There
is also a thought from the literal translation
But there is a difficulty for the reader because
the thought is not natural or idiomatic. This is
against the will of some speakers. They
believe that the focus of translation should not
be changing it word by word, rather for the
idea or message of the text. And the question
to tackle about the concept of word against
thought is this, “does the translation needs to
be literal or idiomatic?
talakayin ay ito: “Dapat bang maging literal o
idyomatiko ang salin?”
May mga tagapagsalin na matibay ang
paniniwala sa literal na paraan ng pagsasalita
sa paniniwalang ang gayon ay
nangangahulugan ng pagiging “matapat” sa
orihinal.
Tungkulin, anila, ng mga tagapagsalin lamang.
Alam nilang hindi sila ang awtor at ang
tekstong kanilang isinasalin ay hindi maaaring
maging kanila kailanman; na sila’y interprete
lamang o kaya’y tulay na nag-uugnay sa awtor
at sa mambabasa.
Subalit magkagayunman, salungat pa rinsa
literal na salin ang ibang tagapagsalin
sapagkat kung katapatan din lamang ang pag-
uusapan, hindi magiging “matapat”, anila, sa
orihinal ang tagapagsalin sa pamamagitan ng
pagiging literal.
Hindi maitatatwa anila, ang katotohanan na
may mga salita sa wikang isinasalin na hindi
natutumbasan ng isa ring kahulugang salita sa
wikang pinagsasalinan.
Bukod dito, may mga pagkakataon pa rin,
gaya ng natalakay na sa dakong una, na ang
isang kaisipan o ideya sa isang wika ay hindi
maipahayag nang maayos sa ibang wika dahil
sa magkalayong kultura ng mga taong
gumagamit sa dalawang wikang kasangkot sa
pagsasalin
Isa pa,ang literal na salin ay hindi nagiging
mabisa, lalo na kung ang kasangkot na
dalawang wika ay hindi magkaangkan.
Sapagkat hindi magkaangkan ang dalawang
wika, magkalayung- magkalayo ang mga ito
samga kakanyahan at mangyari pa’y sa mga
paraan ng pagpapahayag. Kaya nga’t kahit
ipagpilitan, anila, ng iba na ang saling literal ay
higit na matapat sa diwa ng orihinal, matibay
pa rin ang kanilang paniniwala na ang
kabaligtaran nito ang nangyayari.
There are translators who believe in a literal
way of speaking in the belief that it means
being "honest" in the original. It is the job, they
say, of translators only. They knew they were
not the author and that the text they were
translating could never be theirs; that they are
the only interpreter or bridge that connects the
author and the reader.
However, it is still contrary to the literal
translation of the other translators because if it
is also truthful, it will not be "honest", they said,
to the original by being literal.
They cannot be denied, the fact that there are
words in the translated language that cannot
be matched by the same word in the
translated language.
Furthermore, there are times, as discussed
earlier, that a thought or idea in one language
cannot be properly expressed in another
language because of the divergent culture of
people who use the two languages involved in
translation
In addition, literal translation does not become
effective, especially when the two languages
involved are inadequate. Because the two
languages are not mutually exclusive, they are
inextricably intertwined in essence and occur
in ways of expression. So even if others insist
that the literal translation is more true to the
original, they still believe that the opposite is
true.
Sa ibang salita, sa paghahangad ng
tagapagsalin na maging matapat sa orihinal sa
pamamagitan ng pagsasaling literal, sa
katotohanan, ay lalo lamang siyang nagiging
di matapat.
Kung sabagay, makatwiran ang literal na salin
kung ang dalawang wika- ang isinasalin at
ang pinagsasalinan – magkaangkan at ang
kultura ng mga taong gumagamit ng mga ito
ay hindi gaanong nagkakaiba.
Ang iba’t ibang katutubong wika sa Pilipinas
ay malaki ang pakakatulad-tulad sa maraming
bagay sapagkat ang mga ito, ayon sa
kasaysayan ,ay buhat sa iisang angkan – sa
angkang Malayo- Polinesyo.
Halibawa, sapagkat magkaangkan ang Filipino
at Cebuano, ang pagsasalin sa Filipino ng
isang literaturang Cebuano sa paraang literal
ay masasabing makatwiran sa maraming
pagkakataon. Karaniwan nang ang bawat
salita sa isang pangungusap sa Cebuano o
Ilocano ay maaaring tapatan ng katumbas na
mga salita sa Filipino.
Isa pa, ang balangkas o kayarian ng mga
pangungusap sa mga katutubong wika sa
Pilipinas ay halos magkatulad na magkatulad,
bukod pa sa cognates o mga salitang
magkakaugat. Ang ganito ay hindi nagaganap
kapag Ingles ang isinasalin.
Mababangit na ang laki o liit ng pagkakaiba ng
mga wika ay madaling maipaunawa sa
karaniwang tagagamit ng wika sa simpleng
paraan, tulad ng paghahambing sa sistema ng
pagbilang o sa pangalan ng mga bagay o
mga nangyayari sa kalikasan.
Halimbawa sa sistema ng pagbilang:
Example in System of Counting;
Ingles Filipino Cebuano
One Isa Usa
Two Dalawa Duwa
In other words, as the translator seeks to be
true to the original through literal translation, in
fact, he only becomes more disloyal. After all,
the literal translation makes sense if the two
languages - the translated and the translated -
are homogenous and the culture of the people
who use them is not so different.
The various indigenous languages of the
Philippines are very much alike - as in many
things because they are, historically, of the
same clan - of the Far-Polynesian lineage. Of
course, because both Filipino and Cebuano
are of a similar origin, translating Filipino into a
Cebuano literature in a literal way can be
considered reasonable in many cases. Usually
every word in a sentence in Cebuano or
Ilocano can be equivalent to Filipino words.
Moreover, the structure or structure of
sentences in the native languages of the
Philippines is almost identical, with the
exception of cognates or root words. This does
not happen when English is being translated.
Small or medium sized languages can be
easily understood by the average language
user in a simple way, such as comparing the
system of counting or the name of things or
things happening in nature.
Ilocano
Maysa
Duwa
 Three Tatlo Tulo
Four Apat Upat
Five Lima Lima
Six Anim Unum
Seven Pito Pito
Eight Walo Walo
Nine Siyam Siyam
ten Sampu Pulo
Pansinin na sapagkat magkakaangkan ang
Tagalog (Filipino), Cebuano at Ilocano,
maraming mga salitang ginagamit sa
pagbilang ang magkakatulad o magkakahawig
. Ang dahilan ay sapagkat ang mga ito’y
magkakaugat (cognates) ; na ang ibig sabihin
ay iisang ugat na salita ang pinagmulan.
Samantala, pansinin na ni isa ay walang
katulad o kahawig ang mga ito sa Ingles
sapagkat hindi ito kaangkan.
Pansinin na ang balangkas o kayarian ng mga
pangungusap sa mga katutubong wika sa
Pilipinas ay halos magkatulad na magkatulad.
Malimit na ang pagkakaiba lamang ay sa mga
salita at sa paraan ng paglalapi.
Sa kabilang dako, iba nang usapan kapag
isinasali sa Filipino ang isang akda sa Ingles
sa paraang literal. Alam ng sinumang
nakauunawa sa linggwistika na malaki ang
pagkakaiba sa mga katangian ng dalawang
wikang ito.
Isa pa, maraming magiging kahinaan, anila
ang pagsasaling literal sapagkat nagkakaroon
lamang ang isang salita ng higit na tiyak
nakahulugan kapag ito’y naging bahagi ng
isang pangungusap.
Ang salitang “soft” sa Ingles, halimbawa, ay
karaniwan nating tinutumbasan ng
“malambot”. Ngunit kapag ito’y ginamit sa
musika, iba na ang nagiging katumbas.
Mangyari pa, ang “Sing softly” ay hindi na
Tallo
Uppat
Lima
Innem
Pito
Walo
Siyam
Sangapulo
Note that because Tagalog (Filipino), Cebuano
and Ilocano are related, many words used in
counting are similar or identical. The reason is
because they are cognates; which means that
the root word is the same root. In the
meantime, one should note that they do not
have the same or similarity to English as they
are not descended
Note that the outline or structure of the
sentences in the native languages of the
Philippines is almost identical. Often the only
difference is in the words and the way they are
treated. On the other hand, it is quite different
when an English language is translated into
English in a literal way. Anyone who
understands linguistics knows that the
characteristics of these two languages differ
greatly.
Also, there will be many weaknesses, they say
literal translation because there is only one
word that makes more sense when it becomes
part of a sentence. The word "soft" in English,
for example, is commonly referred to as "soft".
But when it is used in music, something else
becomes equal. Of course, "Sing softly" is no
longer "Sing softly" but "Sing softly"
“Umawit nang malambot” kundi “Umawit nang
mahina”.
Sa bahaging ito’y naaalala ng awtor na ito ang
isang Americanong nagturo sa PNU noong
araw. Ang Americakong ito’y nagsisikap
matuto ng Filipino. Lagi siyang may dalang
munting diksyunaryo at doon niya tinitingnan
ang katumbas sa Filipino ng mga salita sa
Ingles.
Isang araw, siya’y na-late sa klase. Marahil,
habang siya’y nakasakay sa bus ay pinag-
aralan niya ang kanyang sasabihin sa klase.
At malamang n nakita niya sa kanyang
diksyunaryo na ang isa sa mga katumbas ng
“full” ay “busog”. Pagdating niya sa klase:
“Magandang Umaga sa inyong lahat!
(Palakpakan ang mga mag-aaral.) Nahuli ako
sapagkat ang mga bus ay busog.” (Umugong
ang tawanan. Namumulang nag-usisa ang
Kano kung bakit.)
Subalit sa halip na makinig ang mga
naniniwala sa literal na salin sa mga
paliwanag ng mga naniniwala sa malaya o
idyomatikong salin, iginigit pa rin nila ang
kanilang paniniwala sapagkat totoong
napakahirap ang pagsasaling literal, maraming
tagapagsalin ang umiiwas dito at ang
ginagamit na paraan ay ang mas madaling
paraan- ang pagsasaling malaya na ayon sa
kanila’y hindi kasintapat ng pagsasaling literal.
Anupat lumalabas na ang pinakatuon ng hindi
pagkakaunawa ng mga tagapagsalin ay ang
tungkol sa katapatan sa orihinal. Alin nga ba
ang nagiging mas matapat, ang tagapagsaling
sinisikap na matumbasan ang mga salita sa
orihinal o ang tagapagsalin na ang
pinagtutuunan ay ang ideya o mensahe at
hindi ang mga salita ng teksto? Iiwan nating
bukas ang tanong na ito matapos nating
mailahad ang pinanghahawakang mga
katwiran ng magkabilang panig
In this section this author remembers an
American who taught at PNU that day. This
American guy is trying to learn Filipino. He
always had a little dictionary and there he
looked at the Filipino equivalent of English
words
One day, he was late for class. Perhaps, as he
was getting on the bus, he studied what he
had to say in class. And he probably saw in his
dictionary that one of the equivalent of "full"
was “busog". When he came to class: “Good
morning everyone! (The students applaud.) I
was late because the buses was busog.
”(Laughter starts. American guy was
wondering why.)
But instead of listening to literal translations of
believers' interpretations of free or idiomatic
translations, they are still believing because
literal translation is so difficult, many
translators avoid it and the method used is to
an easier way - free translation that they feel is
less than literal translation.
It turns out that the focus of the translators'
misunderstandings is about honesty in the
original. Which makes it even more honest,
the translator trying to match the words to the
original or the translator whose focus is on the
idea or message and not the words of the
text? We will leave this question open after we
have presented the widely held justifications
“Himig- orihinal” laban sa “Himig-salin”
“Original” versus “Translation”
Ang isang salin ba ay dapat maging himig
orihinal o dapat maging himig salinkapag
binasa? Ang tanong na ito, kung sabagay, ay
waring katulad ng tanong sa #4.1 tungkol sa
literal na salin laban sa idyomatikong salin.
Kapag literal ang salin, humigit kumulang, ito’y
himig salin na rin. At kapag naman idyomatiko
ang salin, humigit – kumulang , itoy himig –
orihinal.
Nagiging himig salin ang isang salin sapagkat
karamihan ng mga salita ay halatang halata
katumbas ng mga nasa orihinal na teksto ;
gayundin, sapagkat literal ang salin, may mga
balangkas ng mga parirala at pangungusap sa
orihinal na makikitang nalipat sa wikang
pinagsalinan.
Kapag naman idyomatiko ang salin, nagiging
himig-orihinal na rin ito sapagkat hindi na
halos napapansin ng mga mambabasa na ang
kanyang binabasa ay una palang sinulat sa
ibang wika.
Higit na nakararami marahil ang mga
tagapagsalin na naniniwalang na ang isang
salin ay dapat maging natural at himig orihinal.
Sa ibang salita, sila’y naniniwala na kapag ang
isang pyesa ng literaturang Ingles ay isinalin
sa Filipino, ang salin ay dapat maging Filipino
at hindi Ingles din na tinagalog o isina-Filipino
lamang ang mga salita.
Ayon sa kanila, kailangang mabasa ito nang
maluwag at maayos ng mga mambabasa sa
Filipino sapagkat kung hindi gayon, hindi ito
babasahin. At kung hindi babasahin ay hindi
na sana dapat pinaghirapan pang isalin.
Sa kabilang dako, may mga tagapagsalin
naan na naniniwalang kung Ingles ang
orihinal, ang salin ay dapat magtaglay ng mga
Does a translation have to be original or
should it be read as read? This question, after
all, seems to be the same as the question in #
4.1 regarding literal versus anti-idiomatic
translations. If the translation is literal, more or
less, it is a translation too. And when the
translation is idiosyncratic, approximately, it's
the original tune.
A translation becomes a melody because most
words are remarkably similar to those in the
original text; Also, because the translation is
literal, there are outlines of phrases and
sentences in the original that appear to have
been translated into the translated language.
When the translation is idiomatic, it also
becomes original because the reader is hardly
aware that what he is reading is primarily
written in another language.
Most translators probably believe that a
translation should be natural and original. In
other words, they believe that when a piece of
English literature is translated into Filipino, the
translation must be Filipino and not English
spoken or Filipino-spoken.
According to them, Filipino readers need to
read it fluently and fluently because otherwise
it will not be read. And without reading it would
not have been so hard to translate.
On the other hand, there are translators who
believe that if the original is English, the
translation should contain the features of the
katangian ng wikang Ingles at hindi ng wikang
pinagsalinan. Subalit ang ganitong katwiran ay
hindi matanggap ng mga naniniwala na ang
salin ay dapat maging himig-orihinal.
Ayon sa kanila, walang maitutulong na
anuman sa mambabasa kung panatilihin man
sa salin ang mga kakanyahan ng wikang
Ingles. Karamihan daw ng mambabasa, kaya
bumabasa ng salin ay sapagkat hindi sila
gaanong marunong ng wikang Ingles.
Samakatuwid ay wala silang pakialam kung
anuman ang mga katangian ng wikang Ingles.
Ang totoo’y nakakaasiwa pa sa kanilang
pagbabasa ang pagpapanatili ng mga
katangian ng wikang Ingles sa wikang
Filipinona siya nilang higit na nauunawaan.
Samakatwid ay walang maitutulong na
anuman sa ganetong uri ng mga mambabasa
ang isang literal na salin sapagkat hindi
naman ang mga katangian ng wikang Ingles
ang kanilang gustong malaman kundi ang
nilalaman ng salin
Isa pa, malimit na ni wala silang hanggad
kamunti man na alamin kung sa anong wika
buhat ang kanilang binabasa. Ano ang
katuturan halimbawa, sa ganitong uri ng mga
mambabasa kung ang kanilang binabasa ay
orihinal na sinulat sa Pranses, sa Latin, sa
Kastila, o sa Ingles? Aang Biblia ay maibibigay
nating isang klasikal na halimbawa. Kapag
binabasa natin ang, Biblia, hindi na natin
itinatanong kung anu-ano na kayang wika ito
nagdaan bago nasalin sa Tagalog o saFilipino.
English language and not the translated
language. But such reasoning cannot be
accepted by those who believe that the
translation should be original.
According to them, it is of no help to the reader
whether to retain the translation of the English
language. Most readers, therefore, read the
translation because they are not proficient in
English. They therefore do not care about the
English language's characteristics
The fact that they still manage their reading is
to maintain the features of the English
language that they understand better. So no
literal translation of this kind of readers can
help a literal translation because it is not the
English language that they want to know but
the content of the translation
Moreover, they often do not have the time to
even know what language they are reading.
What does it mean for example, to this kind of
readers whether their reading is originally
written in French, in Latin, in Spanish, or in
English? The Bible gives us a classic example.
When we read, the Bible, we do not ask what
language it came from before it was translated
into Tagalog or Filipino.
Translating and Editing Text
ENGLISH 17
Schedule: Tuesday 8:00 – 11:00
Room : SFB 111
Prof: Lucy Garcia
TOPIC “Salita” laban sa “Diwa”
“Word” versus “Thought”

REPORTER Dominga Shynna Tiaba

Does the translation process of the text should be derived from the word’s synonyms or should it be derived from what it really
means?

If we are going to think about if the word and thoughts are similar, because the latter always depends from the first one. Words
came into existence as representation of the thoughts that we want to express, isn’t it? Therefore, there should not be trouble about
it. But the scholars for translation or translating language do not only differ as this shallow beliefs.

Let’s talk about this. According to Savory it doesn’t necessarily mean that the translation should be word by word. Most of the time, it
is through outline of phrases or sentences. Even before the literal translation does not mean translating it one by one for every word.
There is also a thought from the literal translation

But there is a difficulty for the reader because the thought is not natural or idiomatic. This is against the will of some speakers. They
believe that the focus of translation should not be changing it word by word, rather for the idea or message of the text. And the
question to tackle about the concept of word against thought is this, “does the translation needs to be literal or idiomatic?

There are translators who believe in a literal way of speaking in the belief that it means being "honest" in the original. It is the job,
they say, of translators only. They knew they were not the author and that the text they were translating could never be theirs; that
they are the only interpreter or bridge that connects the author and the reader.

However, it is still contrary to the literal translation of the other translators because if it is also truthful, it will not be "honest", they
said, to the original by being literal.

They cannot be denied, the fact that there are words in the translated language that cannot be matched by the same word in the
translated language.

Furthermore, there are times, as discussed earlier, that a thought or idea in one language cannot be properly expressed in another
language because of the divergent culture of people who use the two languages involved in translation

In addition, literal translation does not become effective, especially when the two languages involved are inadequate. Because the
two languages are not mutually exclusive, they are inextricably intertwined in essence and occur in ways of expression. So even if
others insist that the literal translation is more true to the original, they still believe that the opposite is true.

In other words, as the translator seeks to be true to the original through literal translation, in fact, he only becomes more disloyal.
After all, the literal translation makes sense if the two languages - the translated and the translated - are homogenous and the
culture of the people who use them is not so different.

The various indigenous languages of the Philippines are very much alike - as in many things because they are, historically, of the
same clan - of the Far-Polynesian lineage. Of course, because both Filipino and Cebuano are of a similar origin, translating Filipino
into a Cebuano literature in a literal way can be considered reasonable in many cases. Usually every word in a sentence in
Cebuano or Ilocano can be equivalent to Filipino words.

Moreover, the structure or structure of sentences in the native languages of the Philippines is almost identical, with the exception of
cognates or root words. This does not happen when English is being translated. Small or medium sized languages can be easily
understood by the average language user in a simple way, such as comparing the system of counting or the name of things or
things happening in nature.

Note that because Tagalog (Filipino), Cebuano and Ilocano are related, many words used in counting are similar or identical. The
reason is because they are cognates; which means that the root word is the same root. In the meantime, one should note that they
do not have the same or similarity to English as they are not descended

Note that the outline or structure of the sentences in the native languages of the Philippines is almost identical. Often the only
difference is in the words and the way they are treated. On the other hand, it is quite different when an English language is
translated into English in a literal way. Anyone who understands linguistics knows that the characteristics of these two languages
differ greatly.

Also, there will be many weaknesses, they say literal translation because there is only one word that makes more sense when it
becomes part of a sentence. The word "soft" in English, for example, is commonly referred to as "soft". But when it is used in music,
something else becomes equal. Of course, "Sing softly" is no longer "Sing softly" but "Sing softly"

In this section this author remembers an American who taught at PNU that day. This American guy is trying to learn Filipino. He
always had a little dictionary and there he looked at the Filipino equivalent of English words

One day, he was late for class. Perhaps, as he was getting on the bus, he studied what he had to say in class. And he probably saw
in his dictionary that one of the equivalent of "full" was “busog". When he came to class: “Good morning everyone! (The students
applaud.) I was late because the buses was busog. ”(Laughter starts. American guy was wondering why.)

But instead of listening to literal translations of believers' interpretations of free or idiomatic translations, they are still believing
because literal translation is so difficult, many translators avoid it and the method used is to an easier way - free translation that they
feel is less than literal translation.

It turns out that the focus of the translators' misunderstandings is about honesty in the original. Which makes it even more honest,
the translator trying to match the words to the original or the translator whose focus is on the idea or message and not the words of
the text? We will leave this question open after we have presented the widely held justifications

“Original” versus “Translation”

Does a translation have to be original or should it be read as read? This question, after all, seems to be the same as the question in
# 4.1 regarding literal versus anti-idiomatic translations. If the translation is literal, more or less, it is a translation too. And when the
translation is idiosyncratic, approximately, it's the original tune.

A translation becomes a melody because most words are remarkably similar to those in the original text; Also, because the
translation is literal, there are outlines of phrases and sentences in the original that appear to have been translated into the
translated language.

When the translation is idiomatic, it also becomes original because the reader is hardly aware that what he is reading is primarily
written in another language.

Most translators probably believe that a translation should be natural and original. In other words, they believe that when a piece of
English literature is translated into Filipino, the translation must be Filipino and not English spoken or Filipino-spoken.

According to them, Filipino readers need to read it fluently and fluently because otherwise it will not be read. And without reading it
would not have been so hard to translate.

On the other hand, there are translators who believe that if the original is English, the translation should contain the features of the
English language and not the translated language. But such reasoning cannot be accepted by those who believe that the translation
should be original.

According to them, it is of no help to the reader whether to retain the translation of the English language. Most readers, therefore,
read the translation because they are not proficient in English. They therefore do not care about the English language's
characteristics

The fact that they still manage their reading is to maintain the features of the English language that they understand better. So no
literal translation of this kind of readers can help a literal translation because it is not the English language that they want to know
but the content of the translation

Moreover, they often do not have the time to even know what language they are reading. What does it mean for example, to this
kind of readers whether their reading is originally written in French, in Latin, in Spanish, or in English? The Bible gives us a classic
example. When we read, the Bible, we do not ask what language it came from before it was translated into Tagalog or Filipino.