Scheiermacher and Deuscher readings

The Schleiermacher reading made a lot of interesting claims, some which I agree with and some with which I do not. Scheiermacher's claim that translators have a goal to bridge the gap between reader and author; however, his following claim that their are only two ways to translate, translating how it sounds in the original language or translating how it would sound if written in the mother tongue. I certainly see the author's point and would mostly agree, but I feel that a balance can be met, it is just uncommon. We discuss in class all the time how we want to approach style and how this choice depends largely on the genre and target audience and whether or not we need to turn Japanese concepts in to Western or leave them as is. I do not feel, however, that a strick adherence has been or needs to be kept to one or the other, especially if the target audience is not one that is completely unfamiliar nor completely familiar with. For example, if a story is set in Japan and this setting is important, I would not first think to turn it in to an American equivalent. At the same time, I would likely change some of the super specific Japanese terms with more familiar ones. 

I also disagree with Scheiermacher's claim that someone who has a greater familiarity and education in their second language can never hope to be a good translator. I find this completely ridiculous, as many translators exist whom do not translation to or from their native language. Sometimes, someone's native language may not have any literature they would want to translate. Regardless, whether or not a language is someone's first (what is a first language really? who gets to decide?) does not determine their proficiency, understanding, or education in that language.  

The one thing I do really agree with Scheiermacher on is that fact that each language paints a slightly different picture. I have ready the article by Guy Deutscher multiple times before -- it is actually the reason I decided to switch my major to linguistics freshman year -- and while it does support the idea that each language has a nuanced impact on the speaker, especially a native speakers. While some things are near impossible to learn beyond acquisition age, such as developing an internal compass, but in most instances these things can be learned, even if an accent comes along with it. I agree with both Deutscher and Scheiermacher in the belief that languages affect thoughts; however, I would argue that his justification for his claim that one cannot translated without their native language involved. This just sounds like exclusionism to me. Deuscher's article does, regardless, explain why translation is so difficult, but I feel these difficulties only prove the need for translator's more, especially those with varying perspectives.