The zone of life

The discussion on the translation of the astrophysical term “habitable zone” we open the new section “False Friend of the Translator”, which will discuss the correctness and adequacy of the translation. Send examples of terms that, in your opinion, are incorrectly translated into Russian, explaining why the translation you proposed is better and more precisely than others.

Vladimir Surdin ,
cand. physical. Sciences, Associate Professor of the Physics and Fores of the Moscow State University, S.N.S. GAISH MSU, author, editor and compiler of many popular science books:

The introduction of new scientific terms is a responsible business. You use a sonorous word, without thinking, and then people will suffer for centuries. Ideally, for each new scientific concept, it would be advisable to come up with a new word that had not had a previously sustainable meaning. But this rarely happens. A good example is “quark” among physicists. Relative concepts are called one -rooted words, which is quite convenient (geology, geography, geomagnetic.). But often scientists act contrary to these traditions, giving the name on the principle of "what came to mind." An example from astronomy is “planetary nebula” that have nothing to do with planets, which each time has to explain to non -specialists.

The translation of English terms into native language should be considered no less carefully. This has always been a problem: for example, star cluster ( Star Cluster ) at the beginning of the twentieth century was called star heaps. I’m not even saying about the transliteration of the names of scientists: for example, the HN RUSSELL astronomer is presented in Russian -speaking literature in six versions - Russell, Russell, RESCEL, RESCELL, RESCEL and Russell. For modern search engines, these are different people.

In recent years, the problem of terminology has become aggravated for several reasons: illiterate journalists and unprofessional authors publish their translations on the Web, not bothering themselves with the existing Russian terminology, but simply transliterating English words. So, more and more often the word "transit" began to appear, meaning the passage of the planet against the background of the star of the star. In professional astronomers, the terms “passage”, “coating”, “eclipse” have their own specific meanings, which are not reflected in one word “transit”.

Unfortunately, in most network publications there is no scientific editing, and even paper publishers rarely allow themselves this “luxury”. It would seem that there is a “Wikipedia” in which the terminology should be specified with joint efforts. Sometimes this really succeeds, but still professionals prefer to invest in one common platform called Wikipedia, leaving the content of Wikipedia (Russian-speaking) on ​​the conscience of amateur enthusiasts.

When a new and, moreover, unsuccessful term begins to enter into circulation, there is time to consider the problem and democratically come to a common opinion. Therefore, as a pattern - I propose to discuss the translation of the English term “ Circumstellar Habitable Zone ”, or shorter “Habitable Zone ”, which has recently become very popular among researchers of exoplanetary systems.

We are talking about the range of distances from the star, within which the temperature on the surface of the planet lies in the range from 0 to 100 ° C. At normal pressure of the atmosphere, this opens up the possibility of the existence of liquid water, and hence life in its current understanding. In domestic publications on this subject, three options for the translation of the term “Habitable Zone” are now competing - a zone of life , a inhabited zone and a zone of inhabited . Let's try to figure it out.

Immediately obvious the complete unsuitability of the term inhabited zone indicating the presence of living beings in this zone and even hinting at the presence of man there. "Dictionary of the Russian Language" S.I. Ozhegova (1987) gives a definition: inhabited - inhabited by people, having a population; An example is a inhabited island.

Indeed, the “uninhabited island” does not mean at all that it is sterile; There are simply no people there.

The wider meaning gives the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” by S.I. Ozhegova and N.Yu. Shvedova (1992): inhabited - inhabited by people, having a population; In general, one where there are living creatures. Examples are inhabited land, we live the island with seagulls . In any case, the inhabitable means populated , and the “ inhabited zone ” is a populated area in which someone lives. In fact, we are talking about the presence of living conditions, and not at all about the presence of creatures in it. Obviously, the authors using the term inhabited zone are the least sensitive to the meanings of their native language.

And what is a zone of abode ? There is a word inhabitability in Russian. But what is it?

1. Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov: Inhabitation - the degree of population (about the area).

2. The naval historical reference book (A. Loparev, D. Loparev): the inhabitability of the vessel-a set of factors characterizing the conditions for the stay of people on the ship. Elements of inhabitability: dimensions of cabins, household premises, passages; composition, dimensions and location of cabinet equipment; Indicators of the pitching of the vessel, vibration, noise, the convenience of maintenance of ship equipment, devices, systems, etc.

3. Dictionary of the terms of the Ministry of Emergencies (2010): Inhabitation - a set of factors characterizing human life.

4. River Dictionary A.A. Lapina (2012): The inhabitability of the vessel is the duration of swimming without replenishment of stocks. Usually applies to tourist courts; It is calculated in day.

As you can see, the general denominator of these slightly different interpretations is the person whose presence is assumed.

A direct translation of Habitable by the dictionary gives the following options - inhabited, suitable for housing. We have already figured out the inhabitability, but suitability for housing, for life, accurately reflects the meaning of the term Habitable Zone . In general, in English - Able speaks of possibilities, and not about availability. The most adequate translation would be a long expression “zone suitable for life” or somewhat elaborate “life-based zone”. A more simple and short “zone of life”, in my opinion, accurately conveys the meaning of the English expression. The convenience of pronouncing plays an important role. Compare: a zone of life or a zone of abode. I am for the zone of life. And you?

Comments:

Dmitry Vibe,
doct. physical. sciences, head. Department of Physics and Evolution of Stars of the Institute of Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

In my practice, I use the option of “zone of abode”, although I undoubtedly recognize the correctness of Vladimir Surdin in the sense that this term does not give an adequate understanding of its essence. But the “life -free” zone in this regard is no better, if not worse!

After all, what is Habitable Zone ? This is some rather conditionally defined interval of distances, inside which the existence of liquid water is possible. Not life, but only water! It should be remembered that the possibility of water existing does not mean that water exists, and the presence of water does not guarantee life -proceedings.

In other words, in this case (as in many others), we are trying to describe a very complex concept in two words. It will not work adequately to do this, so it is quite acceptable to use the established translation. Moreover, all the same, it is almost always necessary to explain what it means.

In astronomy, this happens all the time, and the examples have no number. From the recent one, for example, one can recall “near -Earth asteroids”, which may not be near -Earth in the literal sense of the word. We also use another, slightly more accurate term - asteroids that come closer to the ground - but it is also not ideal in terms of transmitting meaning. There were attempts to introduce the correct term “asteroids that can get closer to the ground”-but try to put it into practice! A third lecture or report will go to pronounce it.

In general, in this regard, I adhere to a rather conformist position. When I say "planetary nebula", I do not worry that it is not related to planets. The main thing is that both I and my interlocutor understand what is meant.

There are two -thirds in astronomy of such controversial terms. Who can guess the meaning of the words "direct ascent"? Who will guess that the “metallicity” is very often called oxygen? And new and supernova stars?

See also:

Dmitry Vibe. The postman will go crazy. http://old.computerra.ru/own/wiebe/636113/

* * *

The editors of the Trv-hunger turned to Pavel Palazhchenko , to the translator M.S. Gorbacheva, now the head of the press service of the Gorbachev Fund, with a request to speak out on the topic of the correct translation of this term. We publish his answer:

In this matter, of course, Vladimir Surdin is right. The fact is that English in this case clearly shares the possibility of its implementation: Habitable - a place where you can live, inhabed - a place where they live. In most cases, the suffix - ABLE and the Russian suffix - are quite equivalent ( renewable - renewable), and in the case when there is a denial in the definition, are equivalent (since the possibility cannot be implemented: impenetrable - impenetrable, unsinkable - unstoppable, etc.)

But in the case of the word “uninhabited” in the Russian language, some “failure” occurred (which is quite normal in natural languages), and it means not “a place where you can’t live”, but “a place where they do not live”. In English-Uninhabed. Therefore, it is advisable to translate Habitable so that the meaning of the English suffix - Able is preserved and there is no possibility of incorrect interpretation. So the “zone suitable for life” or “zone of possible life” is correct in meaning and correctly in Russian. And the word “inhabitability” is artificial and unnecessary (although some artificial words may be needed, see “inventive” experience of Karamzin and his contemporaries).

* * *

Maxim Borisov,
Scientific journalist:

So far, in the Russian language there is no unambiguously rigidly fixed translation of the term for Habitable Zone . Yes, in fact, there is no English. They also use the “ Goldilocks Zone ” zone, which allows us to abstract from description, but our reader will be clearly incomprehensible (our analogue is a fairy tale about Masha and three bears). We have a lot of things used; The “zone of life” and the “zone of abode” are the most common and, in my opinion, never “erroneous”. The term is the term, it is not obliged to reinforce ideal from all points of view verbal structure. There are any worst cases, already rigidly fixed, say, the same “planetary nebula” ... Well, what to do - you have to live with it, do not arrange “holivars” every time ...

A similar discussion was in our journal "Science in Focus". In the end, they chose a “zone of habitability” with the opportunity to sometimes remember the “zone of life”. I was neutral. Let it be, although I do not mind and the “zone of life” with the corresponding explanation. No worse. The remaining options - “inhabited zone”, “habitat” - decided to exclude. “The zone where the existence of water in liquid form in open reservoirs is possible,” - of course, super -free, is possible only as an explanation once, and even then in the case when the reader is supposed to be completely ignorant ...

The option proposed by Pavel Palazhchenko (“zone of possible life”) is also bulky and not explaining everything, not to mention the prevalence (the term should be already widespread as much as possible, so as not to get into marginals with the old options, when it will finally be fully assigned).

In addition to bulky and not maximum prevalence of the “zone of possible life”, it is not good that creates only the illusion of correctness. Indeed, firstly, we are only talking about water, and secondly, about life in the forms known to us (theoretically, life can arise on a different basis ...).

Out of interest, I looked at what term we used before in the Trinity version. There is a complete defeat. Alexei Paevsky wrote about the “inhabited zone” and “zone of habitability” (less often)-http: //trv-scieence.ru/2013/04/23/tri-superzemli-v-obitaemojj-zone/ . Boris Stern-about the “habitat”-http: //trv-science.ru/2011/02/15/ekzoplanety-prryv-eshhe-prryv/ . Sergey Popov: “Earth-like planets in the zones of habitability”-http: //trv-science.ru/2008/12/23/smena-vekh/ . And only I used to write about the “zone of life” (but now in the journal I correct the “zone of habitability”)-http: //trv-scieence.ru/2009/04/28/otkryta-planeta-v-19-zemnoj-massy/ .

I forgot to say that instead of the “zone of life” you can write, after all, the “belt of life”, that is, according to the first word in this term, you can also argue with a taste for a long time and tastefully.