網路城邦
回本城市首頁 尋王之盟
市長:文俠隱  副市長: Chocola
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會國際萬象【尋王之盟】城市/討論區/
討論區政治時論 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
從Mental Floss的文章談兩種錯誤的翻譯觀念
 瀏覽11,195|回應81推薦5

Alex
等級:
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (5)

☆Princess蕾蕾☆
啥啊?
Rebec
Chocola
張爺

首先,那篇Mental Floss文章相當簡單,本不需要翻譯的,直接以美語的心去閱讀就夠了。這一陣子的「爭議」,其實是個non-controversy (問答題:這個字要怎麼翻譯?)。

原作者是美國人,他遠在天邊,不是近在眼前,用美語寫了一篇文章。我們不認識這位美國人,未曾與他有過面對面的交談,而且從頭到尾只有這一篇文章,沒有原作者其他文章可資參照。那麼我們應該以什麼方式去詮釋他所寫的文章才是合理?

先說一說不合理的翻譯觀念。

一、中英字典基本教義派法

用中英字典去解釋文章中特定的字或詞,忽略了文章的脈絡,而且專挑可能的或自己認定是「負面」字眼去判斷全文,是見樹不見林的作法。Gail等因此而出現了不少錯誤,而且錯誤的地方不只是unlikely的誤譯,也不只限於緊抓住keep dreaming不放的解釋。

過於偏重特定的字或詞,其實是長遠以來台灣學生學習英文閱讀一個不太好的習慣。在辦公室,我經常看到大學畢業沒多少年的年輕同仁,為了閱讀一篇英文文章而拼命查字典,而且用的是中英字典,還不是英英字典,這不是增進英文閱讀能力的適當方法,反而有害。

「This is the story of five unlikely leaders-a handful of women and men who inherited giant crises and had the courage to make difficult and unpopular decisions.

這是五位成功無望的領袖的故事--是繼承了巨大危機的男男女女裡的一小撮人,並且有勇氣做成困難且不得人心的決定。」

這句英文原文是全文的topic sentence它在英文寫作的功能是點出全文的主旨,不能有容易令讀者產生閱讀混淆的說法,而事實上原英句本就沒有問題

很不幸,Gail的翻譯卻將之改成意義難以前後連接的中文句子,而且還發生對英文文法理解上的錯誤,也沒有任何代表前後意義不同的連接詞連接。

這種翻法實在是很牽強,在美語中,unlikely leaders通常是正面的意義,從該句下文來看,這種領袖有勇氣做出困難與不受歡迎的決定,非大家之前一般預期。另外,有勇氣做出困難與不受歡迎的決定,其實是讚美,而捨棄通用的翻譯原則,卻故意翻成不得人心,也非翻譯之道。這句中文不只是unlikely這個字翻譯有誤而已,還有關係形容詞之前「繼承了巨大危機的男男女女裡的一小撮人」的翻法也有問題,對英文文法的理解明顯不足。

從「非凡的領袖」轉變成「成功無望的領袖」,如此一改,與緊接著unlikely leaders的後文正面語調意義難以連接,這是很不恰當的翻法。在此之前,翻譯成「非凡」也不正確,因為太過。這不是「我」決定要改還是不改,也不是其後以長篇大論去「協助」讀者「解讀」,就可以這樣過關的。

如果這就是所謂原作者的本意,我只能說原作者發瘋了,連topic sentence都不會寫了。

二、靈媒讀心術法

另外一種作法也不恰當,那就是讀心術式的解讀方法,彷彿說話者可以透視原作者的內在動機與心靈結構,但問題是,我們又不是靈媒,這裏也沒有任何一個人親身認識原作者,而且從頭到尾只有這一篇文章,沒有原作者其他文章可資參照,讀心術式的作法是很不妥當的。例如,將everything (anything) is possible 解釋成是原作者模糊的手法,以示客套。但我們怎麼知道他是如此?甚至乾脆順勢將之翻譯成「凡事都不無可能」,規避了「凡事都有可能」的簡潔優點。Anything is possible這幾個字在英文上沒有模糊之處,何以要刻意弄成不無可能的模糊用意?難道這就是原作者的「本意」?如何得知?

其後,又為了勉強解釋anything is possible是模糊用法,繼而將but的用法輕描淡寫,解釋為趣味性或只是轉折性用法,忽略but做為連接詞使前後意義不同或至少不相容的用法,但我們又怎麼知道原作者喜歡以but 這個字表示趣味或只是轉折的用法?我們是靈媒?套句英文,這一類靈媒讀心術式的「解釋」可以說是It leads no where。

合理的方法,是根據基本的英文閱讀與英翻中原則,配合應該有的文法意義,對特定字詞的前後文去合理且合邏輯地判斷原作者的意思,尤其是沒有在美國有長期居住的經驗,不太清楚許多當地約定俗成的用法,更要避免以自我偏好,加上過多的想像力,再以字典當擋箭牌硬擋,還出現長篇大論的自我解讀,這些都不會增進英文的閱讀能力的。
.
.
.
.
.
.
.





本文於 修改第 8 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3619350
引用者清單(1)
2009/09/20 12:49 【尋王之盟】 在"But"之前與之後,mental floss怎麼褒貶馬英九
 回應文章 頁/共9頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁
未必如此
    回應給: Gail(GAIL) 推薦0


shouminc
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

有時傳達出自己的意念,就會有人跑來回應或辯論。這本是「無可厚非」的事。

一旦有一方因理曲搞起「人身攻擊」,或做不實的栽贓抹黑,問題就來了。

網誌或部落格的對象是公眾而不僅僅是自己寫爽的,還有著自己品牌之建立的功能。當謂方做抹黑動作時,就是要打擊其抹黑對象的形象與品牌,若不予理會,往往就讓對手達成目的,也就讓網路風氣日益沉淪了!

至於這一篇關於馬的文章,倒有點想說是軟腳馬幾乎成了公眾對馬的標籤時,對於想造就成勇腳馬的馬集團成員而言是一個重在背上的刺,因此,這一篇文章的出現,才會被吹捧一番。當然對於反對者或對其不利的聲音,自然會要去之而後快了。






本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620949
主觀與客觀
    回應給: shouminc(shouminc) 推薦3


GAIL
等級:
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (3)

文俠隱
Chocola
shouminc

你今日與他人政治立場不同,辯論事實,在事實辯論裡當然穿插著人心,更何況政治。

也因此,自己比對手要更加更加反省--哪些是自己立場,自己願意選擇的「偏見」,哪些是--即便連他人都願意替自己背書的客觀事實--你可以兩者都陳述,也可以隱藏自我立場努力地傳達自己認為的客觀,但千萬千萬千萬不要忘了--風度。

因為你的對手,也有他自己的「客觀」--基於他自己的邏輯與經驗,以及「主觀」--自己的愛好憎惡。

當辯論雙方,事實辯論都以充足時,實在不需多說什麼,旁人自會判斷,此時若是自己輸,下台一鞠躬;此時若是自己贏,也切勿繼續挖苦嘲諷對手,包括自己的友人同伴。

但若在辯論之中,對手開始將他自己的「主觀」技巧性地帶入「客觀」,甚至加之以人身攻擊,意欲以此追回原先他失去的分數,這時,自己,並非也跟著有樣學樣,也以自己「主觀」帶入「客觀」,這樣反而中了對手的詭計,原本自己好不容易得來的那幾分,因為自己那一兩句的辱罵而全喪失掉。

而後續對手還可因此偷渡回這個「已經不存在客觀」的「看似客觀」的辯論場上,而,自己,則被迫在懊惱中持續與對手所構築出的主觀與客觀辛苦地奮戰………

若自己,反過來說,在「客觀」上輸了,而刻意模糊「主觀」與「客觀」,以卑鄙手法打擊對手,那麼就算成功將對手拖入泥水好了,自己所喪失的--為人的最根本,則是比對手輸得還要大--而他人並非看不見。

自己看到對手模糊了「主觀」與「客觀」時,最好方法是揭露對手哪些是「主觀」哪些是「客觀」,而自己的「主觀」與「客觀」不妨也揭露,讓世人看到所有的公正。

在清楚無誤的情況下,一場事實辯論,最後必然釐清事實,同時也帶給自己成長,糾正自己的偏見。
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620937
向天吐痰,痰只是回到自己臉上
    回應給: shouminc(shouminc) 推薦0


GAIL
等級:
留言加入好友

 
人要大肚、大量、大器。

自己遭受歪曲或者辱罵,不要太當回事。

向天吐痰,痰只是回到自己臉上。

不用太去在意。

真正要寫的,傳達了,不怕沒人知道。
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620932
開欄者的作為
    回應給: Gail(GAIL) 推薦0


shouminc
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
這個開欄的Alex若不是馬網軍,就不會跟我為了「馬英九違諾兼任黨主席」的議題上纏鬥不休,進而演變「人身攻擊」啦!


回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620925
「新聞」和「搞笑」
推薦0


張爺
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
心理牙線的大致上是走「新聞」和「搞笑」雙路線
先前故意問羅老師,你認為的幽默在哪裡?羅老師板請臉孔來就雜誌標題講解了一大堆,然而那是大家都已經知道的事~~~他就是不敢承認雜誌的「內容」也在搞笑~~那根本不是本正正經經的政經時勢分析
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620885
厚臉皮、唾面自乾也該有個限度。
推薦0


GAIL
等級:
留言加入好友

 
真的!拜託!不要那麼不要臉!至今還在臉上貼金!

厚臉皮、唾面自乾也該有個限度。

我並非生氣於自己的任何文字遭受批評或攻擊,而是對於這些如今還硬要說那本雜誌「完全是稱讚,對馬XX毫無諷刺」的這些「弄臣們」感到不可思議!!
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620857
Plebiscite under dictatorship.
    回應給: Alex(Alex) 推薦0


Lohengrin
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
I see.  Thank you for the reference.  From this article, I would say that the plebiscite was voted on with secret ballots, foreign journalists were allowed to observe and there was no wide spread cheating.

However it was a plebiscite under dictatorship.  Hitler already had dictatorial power for 4 years by the Enabling Act of 1933 which meant, as you have already pointed out, Germany was a one party state.  The state controlled the propaganda machine and organized oppositions were banned.  The population was bombarded with Nazi propaganda 24 hours a day with no one there to point out the opposing arguments.  A friend of mine who lived through the cultural revolution once commented that Mao could probably win a genuine plebiscite by a very high margin any time in the late 60s.

---------------

By the way, speaking of economy, what was Nazi's economic policy?  The Nazi society was highly organized around the government and it once had a "four year plan" typical of a planned economy and ran huge public work projects.  Did a (relatively) free market even exist?  If not, what was the difference between Nazism and communism if any?


本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620852
在一本鐵錚錚被證實諷刺為主調的雜誌裡,反對者說「unlikely leader」在此是「讚美」,那真是對於反對者自己最大的反諷!
推薦0


GAIL
等級:
留言加入好友

 
城市討論區: 這是本搞笑雜誌.
Lohengrin   政治社會/公共議題   青春鐵馬向前行   2009/09/07 13:30:19

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/sep/7/today-t1.htm

2009-9-7
美嘲諷雜誌:馬向中國求愛 有膽識

「心理牙線」 報導類似金酸莓

「心理牙線」(mental_floss)名稱的由來,是取「Dental floss」(牙線)的諧音,為二○○一年創刊的雙月刊雜誌。該刊網頁在「關於我們」做自我介紹時強調,該刊是給聰明人讀的,但也不能太聰明,因看完之後還得想一下,才會知道好笑的地方在那裡。該雜誌另一項財源收入,是販售印有搞笑諷刺標語的T恤。根據維基百科資料,該雜誌發行量約八千份。

--------------------------------------------------------------

該雜誌對自己的定調:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/magazine/whatismentalfloss.php

For the record: mental_floss magazine is an intelligent read, but not too intelligent. We're the sort of intelligent that you hang out with for a while, enjoy our company, laugh a little, smile a lot and then we part ways. Great times. And you only realize how much you learned from us after a little while. Like a couple days later when you're impressing your friends with all these intriguing facts and things you picked up from us, and they ask you how you know so much, and you think back on that great afternoon you spent with us and you smile.

And then you lie and say you read a lot.

Feed your Right Brain:

People are always dropping names in the arts. Whether it's a Ming vase or a furry tea cup, a Kubrick film or a seminal James Joyce book, there are certain artists, movements and masterpieces that have completely changed our world. But the fact is, the reasons why aren't always so obvious. Our RIGHT BRAIN section eases readers into the humanities by making art and literature accessible without needing to dumb it down. Want vivid descriptions? Want lush explanations? Want to know what makes The Thinker so great, and why Jackson Pollock isn't just some overrated paint-thrower? It's all right here: mental_floss experts are here to spill why that classic is a classic, and they're happy to give you every juicy detail and naughty back-story while they're at it.

Nurture your Left Brain:

Remember that time you were at that cocktail party and Stephen Hawking sidled up to you, and all he wanted to talk about was string theory? Or what about the time those irritating Watson and Crick characters kept asking you your thoughts on the Human Genome Project, and you had to stand by the celery tray all night long? Well, that's exactly why we created the LEFT BRAIN section. From the mysteries of black holes to paradigm-shifting discoveries, to how to conduct a heart transplant in 8 (not so easy) steps, mental_floss takes the most fascinating ideas and theories around, and delivers them in plain old, easy-to-understand English. Keeping up with eggheads has never been so easy.

--------------------------------------------------------------

該雜誌的維基解釋:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_floss

mental_floss is a bi-monthly American magazine, launched in 2001[1] in Birmingham, Alabama, that presents facts and trivia in a humorous way. It includes columns by A.J. Jacobs and Ken Jennings.

The magazine frequently publishes books and sells T-shirts with humorous sayings, such as "There's no right way to eat a Rhesus". In addition, there is a licensed trivia board game much like Trivial Pursuit. Most recently, the magazine began the In a Box series with Law School in a Box and Med School in a Box.

The magazine also offers a popular blog site that include pieces from the magazine and Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. It also includes new internet memes, news articles and weekly link round ups.

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620830
Damn!
    回應給: Lohengrin(lohengrin) 推薦0


transpen
等級:
留言加入好友

 
Damn M 是Damnatio memoriae 的縮寫

請勿做其他演繹

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620530
關於納粹歷史的一些說明
    回應給: Lohengrin(lohengrin) 推薦0


Alex
等級:
留言加入好友

 
稍微補充一下當年納粹下90%選票的內容,那次投票是個公投,決定是否應將總統與總理的權力合而為一,換句話說,德國人民是否同意希特勒可擁有更大與更多的權力。

以下是當年紐約時報的報導。至少在當年,觀察家認為那次投票沒有問題,投票的秘密性也獲得保障,連一些猶太區也出現贊成多於反對的結果。我想宣傳、甚至威嚇等等措施是有的,以影響投票方向,因為德國在1933年就成為一個政黨的國家(one-party state)。不過在此之前,納粹已經是德國第一大黨,即使排除不公正的因素與有名的國會大廈縱火案,納粹能拿到多數選票也是指日可待的事,主要原因還是整個大環境的影響。

Frederick T. Birchall, New York Times (19th August, 1934)

Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.

The German people were asked to vote whether they approved the consolidation of the offices of President and Chancellor in a single Leader-Chancellor personified by Adolf Hitler. By every appeal known to skillful politicians and with every argument to the contrary suppressed, they were asked to make their approval unanimous.

Nevertheless 10 per cent of the voters have admittedly braved possible consequences by answering "No" or made their answers, ineffective by spoiling the simplest of ballots. There was a plain short question and two circles, one labeled "Yes" and the other "No," in one of which the voter had to make a cross. Yet there were nearly 1,000,000 spoiled ballots.

The results given out by the Propaganda Ministry early this morning show that out of a total vote of 43,438,378, cast by a possible voting population of more than 45,000,000, there were 38,279,514 who answered "Yes," 4,287,808 who answered "No" and there were 871,056 defective ballots. Thus there is an affirmative vote of almost 90 per cent of the valid votes and a negative vote of nearly 10 per cent exclusive of the spoiled ballots which may or may not have been deliberately rendered defective.

The endorsement gives Chancellor Hitler, who four years ago was not even a German citizen, dictatorial powers unequaled in any other country, and probably unequaled in history since the days of Genghis Khan. He has more power than Joseph Stalin in Russia, who has a party machine to reckon with; more power than Premier Mussolini of Italy who shares his prerogative with the titular ruler; more than any American President ever dreamed of.

No other ruler has so widespread power nor so obedient and compliant subordinates. The question that interests the outside world now is what Chancellor Hitler will do with such unprecedented authority.

In the Communist districts protest votes with Communist inscriptions were rare. In Western Berlin they were more frequent. In one district five ballots had the name "Thaelmann" written in. (Ernst Thaelmann is an imprisoned Communist leader.) One ballot contained this inscription, "Since nothing has happened to me so far I vote 'Yes.'" It was signed "Non-Aryan."

Interesting also are the following results: the hospital of the Jewish community in one district cast 168 "Yes" votes, 92 "Noes," and 46 ballots were invalid. The Jewish Home for Aged People in another district cast 94 "Yes" votes, four "Noes" and three invalid ballots. This vote is explainable, of course, by the fear of reprisals if the results from these Jewish institutions had been otherwise. It is paralleled by other results outside Berlin.

In all Bavaria Chancellor Hitler received the largest vote in his favor in the concentration camp at Dachau where 1,554 persons voted "Yes" and only eight "No" and there were only ten spoiled ballots.

Hamburg, which only two days ago gave Herr Hitler the most enthusiastic reception he had ever received anywhere, led the country in the opposition vote. The official figures were: Total vote cast, 840,000; "Yes," 651,000; "No," 168,000; invalidated ballots, 21,000.

The "No" vote, in other words was 20 per cent of the total vote. Counting the invalid ballots as negative in intent, the total opposition votes exceeded 22 per cent. The percentage of the electorate voting was 92.4.

Hamburg is the home city of Ernst Thaelmann and on his triumphant entry into the city on Friday, Herr Hitler made it a point to drive past Thaelmann's former home.

As far as observers could ascertain, the election everywhere was conducted with perfect propriety, and secrecy of the ballot was safe-guarded. The ballots were marked in regular election booths and placed in envelopes and these were put in the ballot boxes. After the voting had ended the ballot box was emptied on a large table and the vote was counted publicly in the regular manner. Appraising of individual votes seemed impossible.

One check on possible non-voters, however, was exercised by instructions that the voting authorizations issued to those who for one reason or another planned to be outside their regular voting district on election day must be returned unless used. The number of such authorizations issued for this election exceeded anything known before.

Throughout the day Storm Troopers stood before each polling place with banners calling on the voters to vote "Yes." Otherwise voters remained unmolested. Inside the polling places uniforms and even party emblems had been forbidden, but the execution of this order was lax. In some apparently doubtful districts brown uniforms dominated the scene as a warning to would-be opponents.
.
.
.
.
.
.



本文於 修改第 2 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=57666&aid=3620494
頁/共9頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁