hampden ha scritto:and now of course it is not English but American that we all speak
So awfully true! (to be read with an awfully British accent...)
hampden ha scritto:I have gone for 'First Watch' but have no argument with 'The First Watches'.
Indeed, the original Russian title "Первый Часовой" can be translated either way. Unfortunately, it is very difficult, and certainly beyond my reach, to render all the suggestive nuances of the original Russian title.
The Russian noun "час", singular, is unambiguously translated into English as "hour", or heure, hora, uhr, ora, all from the Latin "hora", as you correctly pointed out. Ambiguity starts when the term is used in its plural form "часов", or часы, часах, часам, and so on, according to declension, because it can be translated as "hours" or "timepiece" - whether the latter be wearable or not.
The adjective "часовой" means "relevant to hours", where "hours" retains the ambiguity between the time units and the instrument to measure them. So the well known term «часовой завод», usually translated as "watch factory" should be more accurately translated as "factory relevant to timekeeping" or something like that.
As to the book's title, however, it is self-evident that translating «Первый Часовой» as "First (things) relevant to timekeeping" would be totally out of the question
The author's name is not easier either. The Cyrillic transliteration 'Gershenzon' and the phonetic transcription 'Hershenson' are both equally good.
But as "Gershenzon – First Watch" sounds good to me, I am going to adopt your version
(please edit your topic's title accordingly if you don't mind. Thanks!)
However we name it, I enjoyed reading (perhaps the term "painfully deciphering" is more apt) the book. In the year-end meeting described in the first part the author gives some interesting facts and figures, like the intent to become independent of imports of watch hands, jewels and hairsprings within 1932. It is another piece in the puzzle, because we know how it went thanks to the report from Neifeld and Breytburt (see the link below).
The information contained in the book is technically correct for the most part. (Maybe with the exception of the parts a pocket watch is composed of, which the book reports as around 300. Apparently, they were not talking of the good old Type I, which is made of far less than two hundred parts.) Anyway, were it not for the very interesting photographs, the second part would have been boring. Manufacturing processes, equipment and tools are explained superficially, as any advertising brochure still does today, no matter the brand of the watches (OK, maybe today's ads lack that sort of "socialist tone" the whole book is spiced up with
) Anyone interested in the subject will find much more detailed information in Soviet horology books like Kann's, Breytburt's and Tarasov's. (all of them available for download here at cccp-forum.)
Little (but interesting) details are found even on the newspapers illustrated on the front and end pages. This one is dated May 1 1932 (1 мая 1932 года) and the title reads "1 мая - боевой смотр революционных сил международного пролетариата".
newspaper.jpg
According to the information provided on the last page, the book was submitted for production few weeks later, on July 10, and signed for printing on September 27. Eventually, as printed on the first card cover, the book was published in 1933.
bookinfo.jpg
I won't discuss the book any further, the summary you have made available on your blog is thorough and very well done. Thank you for your excellent work
I invite everyone to read the
Birth of Soviet Watchmaking for the summary, the report from Neifeld and Breytburt and lots of interesting information.
Non hai i permessi necessari per visualizzare i file allegati in questo messaggio.
)