tatyana000 (asker) Feb 18, 2020:

Thank you! This was a most interesting discussion! I really wanted to award the points to The Misha, but he's not in it for the glory! In the end, I went with "during periods when salaries weren't paid."

Boris Shapiro Feb 9, 2020:

Firstly, by 'ugly 'Khrushchev-thingy'' (note the analogy) I was referring to the proposed transliteration which is, indeed, an ugly thing both to see on the page and to pronounce - a totally unwarranted tongue-twister to torture the reader with.

Secondly, no translator is under an obligation to 'render things as they are' (which is impossible, come to think of it).

As for 'describing the historical context as accurately as possible', that should not be the aim of a translator either, otherwise we would have period books festooned with uncalled-for parentheses and footnotes. You seem like a технический переводчик to me, imposing your particular mindset on the world of literary translation.

So, no, I do not recognise my profession what you're saying, not by a long shot.

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 9, 2020:

Calling "ugly" which was in the past (history), not rendering it as it is (change), and trying to be a pure speaker is an imitation. Describing as accurately as possible the context (about the history) is Translation.

Boris Shapiro Feb 9, 2020:

Define 'imitation' versus 'translation', otherwise it's just so much hot air.

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 9, 2020:

You should not imitate, you should translate!

Boris Shapiro Feb 9, 2020:

So, instead of the text flowing naturally you would rather have an ugly 'Khrushchev-thingy' with a parenthesis that is both out of place and misleading - and all because of an inconsequential period detail that has no direct bearing on the story?

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 9, 2020:

If I were you, I would just render it as: until there was khozraschet (self-financing or financial autonomy) transliterating as mrrafe suggested or before khozraschet (self-financing or financial autonomy) was introduced.
Nothing more. It would be correct.

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 9, 2020:

khozraschet My answer was just an example for the fact that "cost accounting" is a direct translation, but the meaning is correct. Per piece pay is worse, which is completely irrelevant here.
by Non-working business the author meant his own opinion and understanding about the planned economy of the Soviet Union. The reader should clearly understand that it is a khozraschet which belongs to the planned economy of the Soviets.
If you say, Boris and the Misha, per piece pay the reader will think that it was before the per piece pay system had been introduced which is confusing. It is not only misleading, but it would loose the sense of the context given.
The Asker should find something which describes the "cost accounting" and the planned economy of the Soviet Union. (not with financial and economic terms)
If you can't find anything, you may leave it as it is "khozraschet" that mrrafe suggested.
Using "cost accounting" is not a crazy thing, and it is better that other pure English suggestions. If you are looking pure English ones that pure English people speak, you can't find that as it belongs to the Soviet system.

Michael Korovkin Feb 9, 2020:

Actually, it's not a technical translation, and the Asker is right when she says she ain't crazy about "cost accounting"... Nor am I. Frankly, if it was my piece to translate, I'd put simply "...and when/whenever salaries became irrelevant...", for whatever the technical term may or may not be, that's what the bit essentially means.
As for "cashless economy", I'd be extra careful because nowadays the term is used mostly for the economy relying on electronic forms of payment, such as credit cards, etc. One risks being grossly misunderstood.

Boris Shapiro Feb 8, 2020:

What you're telling betrays a lack of basic sense. A cashless business is not 'a business that doesn't work' (read Республика ШКИД, for crissake! Мамочка ran a very lucrative, yet entirely cashless lending business).

You made zero effort to prove that the random fragment of a private letter your cited had any bearing on the subject at hand, besides its coming from the same general setting. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the whole concept of argument?

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 8, 2020:

If you really want to translate the word khozraschet, cost accounting is the one you are looking and it is better than per piece thing.

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 8, 2020:

Boris, This is called translaton. Not just reading or translating words.
Non-working business means the business that doesn't work, in other words a cashless economy situation.
Besides, the context is from a gulag memoir,
Do you think they use per piece pay or economy things?
You will use it in your academic papers.
For ex, in this kind of texts, you can use barter (when it is relevant), because there is a barter economy (ec. term) and barter can be used in our every day speech (general term). We should use the latter. I hope now it is clear for you if you are a translator.
If you are a pure English speaker, but not a translator, who tries to explain which is English, which is not, then machine is better than you.

tatyana000 (asker) Feb 7, 2020:

@The Misha LOL But if you post an answer you will also be helping future askers. Not everyone reads through the discussion entries.

tatyana000 (asker) Feb 7, 2020:

@Michael Korovkin Thanks for your very straightforward explanation! It makes perfect sense, but I'm just not crazy about cost accounting as a translation for хозрасчёт.

Boris Shapiro Feb 7, 2020:

Turdimurod, So, let me rephrase it for you:
The source speaks of two situations (time periods): before X and under X.
X is described as a cash economy situation.
Before X is described as a cashless economy situation.
You're citing a letter allegedly calling the latter (the cashless economy situation, the opposite of X) a 'non-working business' (a phrase, incidentally, described by a naturalised, if not native, speaker as having zero sense).
How in Middle-earth is that phrase relevant to the FORMER, the X, the хозрасчёт situation?

I sincerely thought formal logic transcended language barriers, but your case proves me wrong.

The Misha Feb 7, 2020:

Don't worry about it, Tatyana It's not about points, it's about helping out a sister-in-arms:) Cheers!

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 7, 2020:

Boris, the Misha, Good point. But if we read the context, it is bez khozrascheta, it doesn't matter if it means before khozraschet or when there was no or untill there was khozraschet, it definitely means the exact opposite. So it is relevant.
What the Misha suggested is not much different from the direct translation. He could not properly rephrase it. Per piece pay and cost accounting are almost the same thing.
There should be something else.

tatyana000 (asker) Feb 7, 2020:

@The Misha I'm becoming more and more convinced that rephrasing and not mentioning cost accounting is the way to go. I'd like to award the points to you, so could you please post your suggestion as an answer?

Michael Korovkin Feb 7, 2020:

it's quite straightforward, actually 1. Yes, salaries (no matter how symbolic) are paid in prison too, GULAG included.
2. When salaries are paid, there is a payroll and of corse cost accounting as far as the remuneration for the work done. Subsequently, the workers purchase theit bread and whatnot.
3. When the economy becomes money-less – usually in war time, three-figure-a-month inflation and other big calamities – there is no longer any cost accounting/payrolling, and the workers are no longer paid in cash but either in food vouchers or simply in kind. That is, they get their fixed share of bread directly.
I hope this helps the Asker, after all.

Boris Shapiro Feb 6, 2020:

You can read, can't you? The realities described in the letter, while indeed referring to Gulag, are related to the exact opposite of хозрасчёт, therefore completely irrelevant to your *argument*.

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 6, 2020:

Boris, Why do you think so? It is a letter from the GULAG. It is completely relevant. If it is hard for you to understand business, business could also mean delo, thing, stuff, etc.
They got bread in exchange of their work, and they used to exchange (barter) something for bread or bread for something.

Boris Shapiro Feb 6, 2020:

Turdimurod, The source you're citing is completely irrelevant to your premise as it specifically describes a non-хозрасчёт situation with in-kind payments (in bread).

Boris Shapiro Feb 6, 2020:

The Misha is spot-on, as usual.

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 6, 2020:

Letter 19; Non-working business.
https://books.google.kg/books?id=7VG7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=P...

The Misha Feb 6, 2020:

Contd. ... much - or as little - as they produced. So say that. "Back at the time when there was no per piece pay" or sth to that effect. That's English. That's understandable. "Cost accounting" outside of a purely accounting context is not.

Translate meanings, not words.

The Misha Feb 6, 2020:

This khozraschet thing is a purely Soviet schtick Although they tend to translate it as "cost accounting," it has as much to do with cost accounting as I with growing bananas or belly dancing. What it really means that an individual is paid based on how much he or she produces or that a business entity needs to makes at least enough to cover its costs. Well, duh, this is how business works everywhere. There is no need for a special "word" here - that's why there isn't any in English.

Now, ask yourself if you are translating a memoir - a piece of literature, really, that hopefully someone would want to read one day - or a profit and loss statement? You absolutely need to rephrase here - and you already did, in the additional context you provided. You said they used to be just given a ration, and then suddenly these folks started to get as

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 6, 2020:

Сюда лучше не использовать термины экономические или точные термины как allowance. Кто то рассказывает здесь об этом.
It should be rendered as simple as possible. If we leave it in RU as it is even with an expl. notes, I think we loose its simplicity. In the lang, everything could have its closest equivalent.

mrrafe Feb 6, 2020:

Thanks Tatiana So then it means they got the bread only until the хозрасчёт was established. But the way it's written, it sounds as if the хозрасчёт started as a stopgap in case the bread ran out. So maybe *бытность без* really means *until there was*, not "there being no"; and maybe *хозрасчёт* has no EN equivalent and could be left in RN with an explanatory footnote. Or else *cash living allowance* or "household allowance, household voucher".

Turdimurod Rakhmanov Feb 6, 2020:

Татьяна, в Вашем контексте говорится When they introduced "хозрасчёт", instead they paid inmates a "salary". В вопросе без хозрасчета, значит без salary. Поэтому здесь можно предположить что они получали хлеб или еще что то взамен сделанной (работы).

tatyana000 (asker) Feb 6, 2020:

More context The context is a labor camp at a textile factory. Most inmates worked as seamstresses, but others, such as in the sentence above, were office workers. When they introduced "хозрасчёт" in the camp, they stopped giving out meal vouchers and rations, and instead paid inmates a "salary" based on how productive they were. The office workers received a fixed salary, but the seamstresses got more or less depending on their output and whether they met the quota.

mrrafe Feb 6, 2020:

Thank you OK, now I see - this was not in the gulag. I also didn't understand how there could be a real salary in a prison.

Michael Korovkin Feb 6, 2020:

to mrrafe for example, during the WWII, the money in the USSR meant virtually nothing, ans so were the salaries. Actually, for a while both were abolised, and the voucher-system was introduced. The vouchers were directly for certain types of products (first-necessity). So, at the workplace, there was no longer any accounting nor even the payroll.

mrrafe Feb 6, 2020:

there being no household allowance/budget? I don't understand how the хозрасчёта relates to the bread. Maybe the bread supplements the office salary because there's no other allowance for household living expenses?