Thread: retched

What does the word "retched" (as an ajective) mean? Judging by the context, it must be something like "rotten, perverted, maniac" but I'm not sure.

I only get the definitions of the verb "retch" (vomit, strain to vomit) in various dictionaries.

Or maybe there is some similarly sounding word with different spelling?
The stupid subtitles, you know

wretched?

Retched = past tense of Retch = vomit, or try to vomit.

Wretched (adj.) =

In a deplorable state of distress or misfortune; miserable: “the wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages” (George Orwell).
Characterized by or attended with misery or woe: a wretched life.
Of a poor or mean character; dismal: a wretched building.
Contemptible; despicable: wretched treatment of the patients.
Of very inferior quality: wretched prose.

You can have the noun "A wretch". E.g. in the song Amazing Grace: "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like meeeeeeeeeeee".

The W is silent, but Retched and Wretched are not pronounced the same though.

Retched is pronounced like Retch. It only has one sylable (like in most words ending -ed, the E is silent or a schwa).

Wretched has two sylables. It sounds something like Retchid (with stress on first sylable).

Originally Posted by Vadim84

Or maybe there is some similarly sounding word with different spelling?
The stupid subtitles, you know

You mean to say that the subtitles wrote 'retched' when it was supposed to be 'wretched'???

Ha-ha-ha... Proved to be so simple.

Guys, thank you.

TATY, you didn't have to give so many details. Look at pragmatic Adoc I could find the meaning of "wretched" in dictionaries myself.

You mean to say that the subtitles wrote 'retched' when it was supposed to be 'wretched'???

Is it surprising for you, kalinka?
Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet
Then what will you say about the following thing?

In the movie they say:
stretching the corpses on the alley floor and going through their pockets
The f*cking subtitles say:
stretching the corpses on the alley floor and checking their pockets

And that's only one example which I can bring up at once. There were tens of mistakes in the subtitles for Sin City. There were different kinds of mistakes - not only such type of cr@p I showed you, but also lots of stupid typos. Of course, I'm counting only those mistakes that I could notice. A native English speaker could've found two times more blunders (maybe a hundred) I suppose

Originally Posted by Vadim84

What does the word "retched" (as an ajective) mean? Judging by the context, it must be something like "rotten, perverted, maniac" but I'm not sure.

I only get the definitions of the verb "retch" (vomit, strain to vomit) in various dictionaries.

Or maybe there is some similarly sounding word with different spelling?
The stupid subtitles, you know

What was in subtitles with 'retched'?

Originally Posted by Vadim84

Then what will you say about the following thing?

In the movie they say:
stretching the corpses on the alley floor and going through their pockets
The f*cking subtitles say:
stretching the corpses on the alley floor and checking their pockets

"Going Through" is an idiom for "checking", this much is true but it is also less words to read when you are supposed to be watching a movie.....don't you think?

*LOL* @ "retched" - that's definitely a mistake!


As for substituting long words/parts of sentences with another word: this is very common practice in subtitling. The reason is very simple: the subtitler only has a specific amount of space (usually two lines, except if the subtitling is bilingual, then he only gets one!) to fit in an translation, and also a specific time slot (the time it takes for the actor to say the line, AND for the viewer to read the subtitle - films by the Marx bros, f.ex., are notoriously impossible to subtitle).
It's also a rule of thumb never to split a word, never to split a sentence over two screen shots if you can help it, and if you can't, both parts of the split sentence have to make sense on their own.

Subtitle translators have a pretty hard job, actually
Translations for dubbing are even worse, as the rhythm of speech should stay the same, and, preferably, the actor's mouth positions and movements should be taken into account.

What was in subtitles with 'retched'?

The word shows up two times:

1) And soon, you and all your retched kind will serve him as well

2) I tell them I'm a twisted, retched child molester

"Going Through" is an idiom for "checking", this much is true but it is also less words to read when you are supposed to be watching a movie.....don't you think?

I need to know exactly what they are saying in the movie, don't you think? I don't need equivalents. I think I'm supposed to improve my listening skills by watching movies. And subtitles are supposed to help me, not to hinder me

As for substituting long words/parts of sentences with another word: this is very common practice in subtitling.

And this is a very faulty practice.

The reason is very simple: the subtitler only has a specific amount of space (usually two lines, except if the subtitling is bilingual, then he only gets one!) to fit in an translation, and also a specific time slot (the time it takes for the actor to say the line, AND for the viewer to read the subtitle - films by the Marx bros, f.ex., are notoriously impossible to subtitle).

What's the problem? Simultaneous bilingual subtitling is nonsense, there should be the possibility to switch between subtitles in different languages. And you can always find the necessary space if you want - just use smaller font size. As for the time to read subtitles - you can just press the "pause" button

Subtitle translators have a pretty hard job, actually

Nah, they make it seem harder than it is

Translations for dubbing are even worse, as the rhythm of speech should stay the same, and, preferably, the actor's mouth positions and movements should be taken into account.

I deem dubbing as nonsense. The quality of translation is always sacrificed in dubbing. I assure you Hollywood movies become cr@p (if they haven't been cr@p until this moment ) when they've been dubbed into Russian and shown on TV.

P.S. Dubbing suxxx, Леонид Володарский (the one and only soviet legend in the craft of translation, with a nasal voice) rulezzz.

P.P.S. Subtitles are intended for non-native English speakers (and deaf people), don't you think, guys? Native English speakers don't usually need subtitles, do they?
Maybe it doesn't matter for a native English speaker whether the subtitles read "going through" or "checking", but it DOES matter for a non-native speaker.

P.P.P.S. The moral of all this is:
Guys who make subtitles are lazy as*holes

Originally Posted by Vadim84

"Going Through" is an idiom for "checking", this much is true but it is also less words to read when you are supposed to be watching a movie.....don't you think?

I need to know exactly what they are saying in the movie, don't you think? I don't need equivalents. I think I'm supposed to improve my listening skills by watching movies. And subtitles are supposed to help me, not to hinder me

[quote:a3qu6iw4]As for substituting long words/parts of sentences with another word: this is very common practice in subtitling.

And this is a very faulty practice.

The reason is very simple: the subtitler only has a specific amount of space (usually two lines, except if the subtitling is bilingual, then he only gets one!) to fit in an translation, and also a specific time slot (the time it takes for the actor to say the line, AND for the viewer to read the subtitle - films by the Marx bros, f.ex., are notoriously impossible to subtitle).

What's the problem? Simultaneous bilingual subtitling is nonsense, there should be the possibility to switch between subtitles in different languages. And you can always find the necessary space if you want - just use smaller font size. As for the time to read subtitles - you can just press the "pause" button

Subtitle translators have a pretty hard job, actually

Nah, they make it seem harder than it is

Translations for dubbing are even worse, as the rhythm of speech should stay the same, and, preferably, the actor's mouth positions and movements should be taken into account.

I deem dubbing as nonsense. The quality of translation is always sacrificed in dubbing. I assure you Hollywood movies become cr@p (if they haven't been cr@p until this moment ) when they've been dubbed into Russian and shown on TV.

P.S. Dubbing suxxx, Леонид Володарский (the one and only soviet legend in the craft of translation, with a nasal voice) rulezzz.

P.P.S. Subtitles are intended for non-native English speakers (and deaf people), don't you think, guys? Native English speakers don't usually need subtitles, do they?
Maybe it doesn't matter for a native English speaker whether the subtitles read "going through" or "checking", but it DOES matter for a non-native speaker.

P.P.P.S. The moral of all this is:
Guys who make subtitles are lazy as*holes[/quote:a3qu6iw4]

Hey, hey, hey, calm down there buddy!

Subtitles were NOT invented for foreigners to know the spelling of every single word coming out of the actor's mouth. Subtitles are there for you, whoever you may be, to understand what the actor said.

I am sure there are special movies that have subtitles geared to the English LEARNER. The hearing impaired or the average movie watcher is not on a mission to know every single syllable in the movie, they just want to watch the damn thing and understand it!

Furthermore, consider WHO makes the subtitles. The ones you are watching are obviously cr@p made by some Ivan with only one ear. Normally, subtitles are made by some big subtitle company (correct me if I am wrong) and are geared towards the movie for cinemas. In other words, to watch the movie in your favorite country with the subtitles in your favorite language (be it the original). You can NOT stop the movie just because you don't have time to read 500 lines of text. People do not bring their dictionaries during the movie, well most of us don't...

Using differnt fonts throughout the movie is a silly idea for any subtitler, it just looks messy.

The problem is that you think subtitling is only for people who want to improve their listening skills, when that is probably the last reason why they put it there...

Besides, now you know that 'checking' and 'going through' are synonyms. That is the greatest lesson of all this!

Hey, hey, hey, calm down there buddy!

*breathing out* Probably you are right. But human needs to get rid of negative emotions somehow.

The ones you are watching are obviously cr@p made by some Ivan with only one ear. Normally, subtitles are made by some big subtitle company (correct me if I am wrong) and are geared towards the movie for cinemas.

Yeah, I was a bit harsh. I should've said it was those guys that made those particular subtitles for Sin City who were damn morons. I downloaded the subtitles from some subtitle site.

The problem is that you think subtitling is only for people who want to improve their listening skills, when that is probably the last reason why they put it there...

But why the last reason? Don't you think you are exaggerating a bit? Anyway, subtitles are not for the native speakers (excluding the deaf) primarily.

Besides, now you know that 'checking' and 'going through' are synonyms. That is the greatest lesson of all this!

Yeah, at least something.

Well, maybe I was exaggerating a little. But I don't think subtitles are really there specifically to help you learn English. Actually, I am pretty sure about it. They are there so that you understand what they say. Period!

Double subtitles are sometimes necessary - eg on planes.

And the moral of this story is: Never offer to create subtitles for Vadim!