Translating a charter metaphor: 'shoulders' and the ancestors
A bilingual school charter is being revised. The English sentence reads: 'We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.' The draft Māori translation is: 'Ka tū mātou i runga i ngā pakihiwi o te hunga i mua i a mātou.' The charter will be read by Ministry of Education officials, whānau, and students. The school identifies strongly with Ngāti Kahungunu. The board wants the Māori to be formal enough for a legal document but natural enough that whānau will not stumble over it. A kuia on the board says the draft 'sounds like a dictionary, not a whakataukī'. A recent graduate says it is fine because it is grammatically correct. You have been asked to advise on whether to keep, revise, or replace the sentence. The final document is due in three weeks.
1. Explain the main weakness of the draft translation and why grammatical correctness alone is not enough here.
Read the worked answer
The draft is grammatically correct but semantically literal. 'Pakihiwi' is a body part, and the English metaphor of standing on someone's shoulders is not a conventional Māori image for inherited legacy. A fluent reader may understand it, but it sounds translated-the kuia's 'dictionary, not a whakataukī' is accurate feedback. Grammatical correctness only tells you that the sentence is well formed; it does not tell you that the image works, that the register suits a charter, or that whānau will hear it as Māori rather than as English in Māori clothing. The draft also uses a heavy relative clause, 'te hunga i mua i a mātou', where a simpler possessive or genitive construction would be more natural. The judgement is whether to keep the metaphor and domesticate it, or replace it with a Māori image such as 'ngā mahi a ngā tūpuna'.
2. Propose two alternative renderings and recommend one for the charter, considering the three audiences.
Read the worked answer
Two alternatives: (A) 'Ka tū mātou i runga i ngā mahi a ngā tūpuna.' (B) 'Ko ngā mahi a ngā tūpuna te tūāpapa o ā mātou mahi.' Both replace the body-part metaphor with metonymy-ancestral work as the foundation. A keeps the standing image and is concise, so it reads well aloud to whānau and students; it is formal enough for the Ministry because 'ngā mahi a ngā tūpuna' is a recognised phrase. B is more explicit and legal in tone: 'tūāpapa' signals foundation, which suits a charter's purpose, but it loses the vividness of standing. Recommendation: use A in the main charter text and B in the accompanying explanatory section if the board wants a glossary. That way the document is readable for whānau and precise for officials, and the kuia's concern is addressed without overcorrecting.
3. The graduate argues that changing the draft is 'overthinking it'. How would you respond in one paragraph?
Read the worked answer
Grammatical correctness is necessary but not sufficient. A charter is not an exercise; it is a text that whānau will read and judge as a statement of identity. The kuia's reaction is data: the image did not land. That does not mean the graduate is wrong about grammar; it means grammar is the floor, not the ceiling. Changing one metaphor is not overthinking-it is audience design. I would keep the structure and replace 'ngā pakihiwi o te hunga i mua i a mātou' with 'ngā mahi a ngā tūpuna', then read the sentence aloud to the board. If the board wants the original, record the rationale. The cost of a small revision is low; the cost of a charter that whānau find stiff is higher.