The reason is that one is the French name, and the other the English name, of a particular film effect. Thus, it's actually a more literal translation (i.e., a fully idiomatic one) than the word-for-word transliteration would have been.
("Transliteration", merely substituting one word for its equivalent, is not "translation", which is transforming from one language to another on the basis of overall meaning and style/readibility/not-horrible-sounding dialog.)
An example of more or less literal translation of the above, courtesy of AltaVista's "BabelFish" (http://babelfish.altavista.com/):
La raison est qu'on est le nom français, et l'autre le nom anglais, d'un effet particulier de film. Ainsi, c'est réellement une traduction plus littérale (c.-à-d., entièrement idiomatique) que la transcription mot-à-mot aurait été.
(la "transcription", substituant simplement un mot à son équivalent, n'est pas l'"traduction", qui transforme d'une langue à l'autre sur la base de la signification globale et du dialogue de style/readibility/not-horrible-sounding.)
And that text run twice more through Babelfish {French-to-Dutch, and then Dutch-to-English), to exaggerate the effect:
The reason is that one the French name, and the other English name are, of a particular consequence of film. Thus it really littérale translation (this means, entirely idiomatic) that litteral transferring will have been be
("transferring", which replaces simply a word, by its equivalent, is "the translation", which changes of a language to the other on the basis of the overall meaning and the dialogue of style/readibility/not horrible sounding.)
Note that the last paragraph's meaning has been reversed by the omission of the "not" from the original phrase "is not translation".
reply
share