Eusinha com calcinha fio dental azul linda Bernoussi EFUKT Thick England teen Shannon twerking live Pocket pussy rage Amateur Busty babe gets a Hardcore Raw Anal Fuck like no other Cowboys Cheerleader Has Her Perfect Body Fucked Hard In Leaked Sex Tape Skinny Brandi Edwards riding on hard cock to get facial Young Natalie Brooks picked up to get fucked in the bang bus Amilia Onyx taste and titfuck Officer Marcus cock at the back office Young horny student play with dildo in ass and fuck by students and teacher at college

@kapilbalharanebsarai #kapilbalhara #kapilbaharanebsarai #abscission #abscond #absolve #absolution #abstain #abstemious #abstruse #abut #abysmal #abyss (at Kushagra Institute For Ssc) https://www.instagram.com/p/CiW5RJhpphN/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

(replying to this post)

That’s a good example of the perils of domesticating translations! It seems obvious that if you try to adapt an ongoing series by changing a main character’s hometown so it’s more local, at some point you’re going to run into problems, like a whole book where they visit their hometown, which will need an in-depth rewrite so it stays coherent.

The France-French translations of Baby-Sitters Club were still set in the US, so the characters had names that were slightly domesticated so as not to frighten French children, but not so much that it wouldn’t make sense for these girls to be American—e.g. Mary Ann became Mary-Anne vs. Anne-Marie in Québec French, and Dawn and Stacey became Carla and Lucy, which still sounds American to a French kid, but not as unconscionably American as their original names. (Part of it is finding names that won’t be difficult to pronounce—but the Famous Five kids had easily-pronounced names like Julian and Dick, and they still ended up heavily Frenchified, into François and Michel. And the books were set in Brittany in the French translations, instead of England, even though French kids could have handled reading a story that was set five metres to the left.)

I remember feeling puzzled about Nancy Drew at one point, because she’s such a household name in anglo literature and I’d never ever heard of her, so I was like, we’ve translated every other popular anglo series, why have I never seen a Nancy Drew book in a French library? And then I discovered that Alice Roy from the “Alice” book series in French was, in fact, Nancy Drew. It blew my mind—Nancy Drew is Alice!! omg, I did know her this whole time. I read somewhere that the French translation re-named her because French kids would have no idea how to pronounce “Drew” and because they would be more likely to associate “Nancy” with the French city of the same name, so it wouldn’t feel anglo enough. So, amusingly, it was a mix of domesticating and foreignising. 

One type of domestication that’s regrettably popular in children’s literature is “temporal” domestication—when you re-translate older books to modernise the language and remove references that would “confuse” today’s kids (not talking about changing aspects of the books that wouldn’t fly with today’s sensibilities, that’s another discussion.) In revised editions of the Famous Five books in the UK, “shall / shan’t” were changed to “will / won’t”, dated words like “horrid” became “horrible”, “trunks” -> “suitcases”, etc. It’s a form of domesticating translation—from 1950s English to modern English. Personally I’m not a fan of it, because in a lot of instances, “modernising” prose for children is synonymous with pruning it and dumbing it down.

In French children’s literature spatial domesticating is losing steam while this kind of temporal domesticating is on the rise—we now feel like French kids can handle reading about an English boy named Julian who lives in England, rather than making the story about François in Brittany, but apparently kids can’t handle reading about a boy who lives in the 1950s and speaks accordingly. In recent re-translations of the Famous Five books they changed the passé simple conjugations to the less complex present, and the “nous” to “on” in the kids’ dialogue among other things, to make the text less formal, more modern—and simpler. The Spanish revised editions have examples of both trends—George calls her father “Padre” in the original translation and “Papá” in the modern one (temporal domesticating—the UK reprints do the same thing, changing “Father” to “Dad”); the kids having tea was initially translated as “tomar el té”, while the new translation changed it to “merendar” (spatial domesticating—and sure, it’s a similar enough concept, but it erases cultural differences. If you’re reading about English kids you can accept that they refer to their snack time as la hora del té rather than la merienda...)

Idk, I think kids who enjoy reading can handle books about fictional children that don’t live and talk just as they do; identifying with people who are quite different from you is part of the fun of reading. I remember reading as a kid the Comtesse de Ségur children’s books which were written under Napoléon III, and the 19th century language was a delightful aspect of them—the fact that little kids my age used imperfect subjunctive in casual conversation was hilarious to me. I was saying in my previous post that domesticating your translation too much evinces a lack of respect for your reader’s ability to handle unfamiliar concepts, and I think we should try to have a little more respect for children in that regard.

the only actual political issue in the history of the human race is land tenure

Drawings from a bit ago. These are gonna be the last ones for a while, as I’mma disappear for a bit. Cya later :]

Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

Good evening and welcome to another episode of What's That Stupid Asshole Retweeting Now? Let's take a look.

Anonymous very real physician from "major children's hospital" in "blue city" USA coming in hot with the covid denialism! What else?

Trans affirming doctors enacting ritual destruction of innocence because they've rejected Jesus! Ooh, can we top it????

I clipped this from the section on puberty blockers "shutting down" the hypothalamus, the physical seat of the human soul, and turning trans kids into sexless zombies that can't even appreciate sunsets (yes, the doc goes there) because vestigial.

Vestigial. More than that, most vestigial?

Anyway, this needs to go in the clip reel with that time Rowling claimed that males and females are so biologically incompatible, our donated blood poisons each other.

it's good to know that whenever i am at my lowest. my nadir. my psychologically weakest. i will inevitably get roasted by a fortune cookie

yakumo yukari is the peter macari to lafcadio hearn's rod serling

Abstruse Interference

Artist: Igor Kieryluk TCG Player Link Scryfall Link EDHREC Link

This was a secret santa gift as part of an exchange in my rp group 🐇🌕🌌

cw: blood, man-eating implies

Dokuro Yuke. 5y. Formerly human, now Chimera-Wendigo. One of Mina’s adopted children.

redrawing severed eden song jacket art everyday until my bday (FEB 9THHHHH): days 11 and 12!

your tag system is a very pleasant mystery to me

thank u so much oh my god. it DOES exist it DOES have a system i DO make extremely regular and specific use of it as anybody who has been in a discord groupchat with me for five minutes can attest and in fact there is even an index file, which only doesn't include descriptions of what they are all for because there is like fifty of them and i worry it would take me like minimum three paragraphs per to really get into it. which it is not to say i wouldnt still totally do that if anybody asked

Miscellaneous

I’ve been playing Orzmic lately .<.

I'm not that anon and I don't care about the discourse, but what the heck is "the descriptive kind of chaser" as opposed to "the normative kind"?

when dealing with derogatory "identities", there's often a bait-and-switch that people often pull -- see "incel". on the one hand, it could simply refer to any sexually unsuccessful young male channer. on the other hand, to some people, it apparently means "virulent white supremacist neo-nazi who thinks women only exist as sexual objects". so if you were to go around a few years ago and say "incels aren't all as terrible as people make them up to be!" while referring to the first, people would assume you meant the second, and would attack you as though you had obviously meant the second.

similarly with chasers. on the one hand, it could mean "person who's attracted to trans women, as opposed to other people, at a disproportionate rate". on the other hand, it could be taken to mean by some as "creepy guy who harasses trans women for nudes and other sexual favors".

that's what i meant by "descriptive" vs. "normative".