尚能侃（64）：网络时代译事难
自严复以下，中国翻译界“江山代有才人出”，各领风骚一时间。当今国内翻译界的“牛人”，当数许渊冲教授。许老先生不无老尚的德性，他的名片上赫然印着下面这句签名：“书销中外四十本，诗译英法唯一人。” 相比之下，老尚一度的网上签名就显得“犹抱琵琶”了：“平生自省无长处，长在汉英双语工”。不过，老尚“做贼心虚”，那个签名仅仅是昙花一现。当然，许老先生也确实有牛的资本，这倒不完全是他的“书销中外四十本”，现如今国中著作等身（全是垃圾）的“大师”，比街上走失的宠物还多。许老先生最为自诩的是他的“不爱红装爱武装”的英译文：“Not to powder the face, but to face the powder.” 就凭这一点，你不服还真不行。
可是在网络时代和“American idol”时代，做任何事（尤其是译事），都要有临深履薄的危机感才行。比如说，我们在网上常常看到一些名不见经传的小人物，在一些名家的译作中“挑刺儿”，常常挑得译者们脸红心跳。其实，在大多数情况下，并非是译者的总体水平不及挑刺者。须知老虎也有打盹儿的时候，通常是因为“智者千虑，必有一失；愚者千虑，必有一得”。此外，写作文跟改作文的心境和态势也大为不同。燕雀有时可能飞得比鸿鹄还高，这实在是不值得大惊小怪的。
另一方面，“人外有人，天外有天”，有些名不见经传甚或是嘴上无毛的小人物，水平也可能很高。我去年夏天在国内做“英文科技论文写作”的演讲时，就曾举过CND论坛上藏龙卧虎的例子。我们这里的菊子和老塔之流，那英文写出来绝对不输于钱钟书之流，我曾见过钱写给夏志清的英文信，所以我并非是信口开河。还有那方舟子，是中英文俱佳的主儿，所以国内不少大师们是蛮怵他的。
译事之难，难在对译者双语的要求之高。记得Jacques Barzun & Henry Graff 在“The Modern Researcher”一书中说过：“…one can translate faithfully only from a language one knows like a native into a language one knows like a practiced writer.”(一个人只能把懂若母语的语言忠实地翻译成熟练若作家的语言)。对照这一标准，我对自己过去的那些译著，心里直打鼓，还敢提什么劳什子“双语工”啊。。。
昨天，碰巧看到孙法理教授翻译的E. B. White的“《文体要义》评介”一文，下面这段话的英文原文，我是耳熟能详的：
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
孙老先生的译文是：
有力的文章都是简练的。一句之中不应有多余的词语，一段之中不应有多余的句子，正如一幅画中不应有多余的笔墨，一部机器不应有多余的部件一样。但这并非要求作者把每个句子都写得很短，也不是要求他处理题材时删去一切细节，只留下个轮廓，而是要求每个字都要起作用。
我不揣冒昧，也试译了一下，贻笑CND坛子里之大方：
有力的文字都是简练的。句中应无冗词，段中应无赘句，正如画中应无多余线条，机器应无多余部件一样。但这并非要求作者句句写短，或略去细节，只将题材勾画出轮廓，而是要求字字言之有物。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
王小波说他的师承是翻译家。相信！我觉得，只有双语俱工的人才能打通语言的脉络。
- posted on 01/08/2008
尚能饭 wrote:
昨天，碰巧看到孙法理教授翻译的E. B. White的“《文体要义》评介”一文，下面这段话的英文原文，我是耳熟能详的：Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
孙老先生的译文是：
有力的文章都是简练的。一句之中不应有多余的词语，一段之中不应有多余的句子，正如一幅画中不应有多余的笔墨，一部机器不应有多余的部件一样。但这并非要求作者把每个句子都写得很短，也不是要求他处理题材时删去一切细节，只留下个轮廓，而是要求每个字都要起作用。
我不揣冒昧，也试译了一下，贻笑CND坛子里之大方：
有力的文字都是简练的。句中应无冗词，段中应无赘句，正如画中应无多余线条，机器应无多余部件一样。但这并非要求作者句句写短，或略去细节，只将题材勾画出轮廓，而是要求字字言之有物。
老尚都侃到64贴了？这不叫尚能侃，叫很能侃。:)
菊子的英文我倒不多见她出贴，中文是很出色而且是很自在的。不只是没有缠足，而且主要是没有做作。从节奏来看，很多帖子 (除了新英格兰系列)是一气呵成敲下来的，完了大概看一看顺一顺，改改错别字就行了。想来这个丫头过去杂书也看了不少。老塔是谁不知道。
译文中老尚也咬文嚼字用成语？有些“翻译家”避免再创作的嫌疑，所以用平字，故意罗嗦了一点。再说，本段是小学五年纪中文课本中的大众常识。为这种论点还太多时间，投入产出是个问题。这种地方也要用功，还能侃到64贴，行啊。:) - posted on 01/08/2008
自立一直跟我称道许渊冲的，可惜没缘读其译笔。
守望古典 wrote:
王小波说他的师承是翻译家。相信！我觉得，只有双语俱工的人才能打通语言的脉络。
打通不打通我不知道。但文明与双语的干系，我有一段时间甚至以为：
文明即诞生于翻译。当然，这里可指广义的翻译。
而只在一种文字中终究浅。比如英文，一对照拉丁，无形的深厚度就
来了。德文，一对比古希腊或梵语，思维的高度不可思议。
只在一种语言内打转转，终究是不行的：
LUPUS ET AGNUS
Vobis fabulam de lupo et agno narrabo. Haec est fibula Aesopi. Cui vestrum est nota haec fibula?
Prope ripam fluvi lupus et agnus stant. Lupus agnum spectat et ‘Tu,’ inquit, ‘cur aquam mihi perturbas?’ Agnus vehementer timet, sed respondet: ‘Aquam tibi non perturbo; aqua de te ad me fluit, non de me ad te.’
Sed lupus iterum, ‘Cur,’ inquit, ‘mihi uno ante anno maledicebas?’ Et agnus miser, ‘Cur falso me accusas?’ respondet. ‘Ego non sum natus unum annum.’ ‘Si,’ inquit lupus, ‘non tu, tum tuus pater.’ Statim agnum rapit et necat.
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
xw wrote:
打通不打通我不知道。但文明与双语的干系，我有一段时间甚至以为：
文明即诞生于翻译。当然，这里可指广义的翻译。
Sounds impeccable. :)
而只在一种文字中终究浅。比如英文，一对照拉丁，无形的深厚度就
来了。德文，一对比古希腊或梵语，思维的高度不可思议。
英文厚，亦或拉丁厚？德文高疑惑梵文高？:)) - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
令胡冲 wrote:
而只在一种文字中终究浅。比如英文，一对照拉丁，无形的深厚度就英文厚，亦或拉丁厚？德文高疑惑梵文高？:))
来了。德文，一对比古希腊或梵语，思维的高度不可思议。
不比不见厚，不对不见高。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
xw wrote:
不比不见厚，不对不见高。
厚和高是否有现实的意义，这是个问题吧。:)
这个目前世界说了英文，而没有说拉丁文，好象拉丁文很难上来匹敌吧。:) - posted on 01/08/2008
令胡冲 wrote:
xw wrote:厚和高是否有现实的意义，这是个问题吧。:)
不比不见厚，不对不见高。
当然有现实意义。不通古罗马的盎格鲁萨克逊，一帮海盗而已。即使
是海盗，也不是Viking(Dano)的对手。
有了Vulgate，有了罗马立法与修辞、商业与政治，就不一样了。
Romani pro suffragiis populi ludos faciebant et magnam opulentiam
ostentare volebant.
et:
Deus tamen, creator terrae caelique hominumque bestiarumque,
semper nos omnes curat.
这个目前世界说了英文，而没有说拉丁文，好象拉丁文很难上来匹敌吧。:)
世人都说英语，英语人说拉丁，依旧高高在上。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
土老先生只有一句话：
Vigorous writing is touche. ;)
Vigorous writing is to circumcise. A sentence should contain no words, a paragraph no sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no lines and a machine no parts. This requires not that the writer make all his hairs short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his head only in outline, but that every hair tell.
- posted on 01/08/2008
xw wrote:
令胡冲 wrote:当然有现实意义。不通古罗马的盎格鲁萨克逊，一帮海盗而已。即使
xw wrote:厚和高是否有现实的意义，这是个问题吧。:)
不比不见厚，不对不见高。
是海盗，也不是Viking(Dano)的对手。
有了Vulgate，有了罗马立法与修辞、商业与政治，就不一样了。
Romani pro suffragiis populi ludos faciebant et magnam opulentiam
ostentare volebant.
et:
Deus tamen, creator terrae caelique hominumque bestiarumque,
sempter nos omnes curat.
这个目前世界说了英文，而没有说拉丁文，好象拉丁文很难上来匹敌吧。:)世人都说英语，英语人说拉丁，依旧高高在上。
唉，有道理。XW很厉害，依旧年轻。:)
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
我的体会是网络时代教翻译难。学生几乎什么都能在网上找到，要教出新意来，还真不容易。
巧了，正在看一篇老美用中文写的论诗歌翻译的神似。等我帮他改完，得到同意，再送稿。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
没学过拉丁，据说拉丁用来训练逻辑与表达非常有效。
令胡冲 wrote:
xw wrote:厚和高是否有现实的意义，这是个问题吧。:)
不比不见厚，不对不见高。
这个目前世界说了英文，而没有说拉丁文，好象拉丁文很难上来匹敌吧。:) - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
LM wrote:
没学过拉丁，据说拉丁用来训练逻辑与表达非常有效。
确实。比如推理针尖上能站几个天使，太阳围绕地球转，巫女必须烧死等都非常有效。
- posted on 01/08/2008
touche wrote:
LM wrote:确实。比如推理针尖上能站几个天使，太阳围绕地球转，巫女必须烧死等都非常有效。
没学过拉丁，据说拉丁用来训练逻辑与表达非常有效。
这就象歌德与黑格尔一席谈，黑格尔吹嘘了一大片逻辑辩证法什么的
，末了，歌德说：如果这玩意弄到坏人手上，怎么办？
这一段也让我想到孔子与老子之间的对话，在庄子中：
孔子西藏书于周室，子路谋曰：“由闻周之征藏史有老聃者，免而
归居，夫子欲藏书，则试往因焉。”孔子曰：“善。”往见老聃，而
老聃不许，于是番十二经以说。老聃中其说，曰：“大谩，愿闻其要。”
孔子曰：“要在仁义。”老聃曰：“请问：仁义，人之性邪？”孔子
曰：“然，君子不仁则不成，不义则不生。仁义，真人之性也，又将
奚为矣？”老聃曰：“请问：何谓仁义？”孔子曰：“中心物恺，兼
爱无私，此仁义之情也。”老聃曰：“意，几乎后言！夫兼爱，不亦
迂夫！无私焉，乃私也。夫子若欲使天下无失其牧乎？则天地固有常
矣，日月固有明矣，星辰固有列矣，禽兽固有群矣，树木固有立矣。
夫子亦放德而行，遁遁而趋，已至矣！又何偈偈乎揭仁义，若击鼓而
求亡子焉！意，夫子乱人之性也。”
看来逻辑与结构还是更高级，不然也不会有：
为之斗斛以量之，则并与斗斛而窃之；为之权衡以称之，则并与权衡
而窃之；为之符玺以信之，则并与符玺而窃之；为之仁义以矫之，则
并与仁义而窃之。
---庄子*胠箧
- posted on 01/08/2008
xw一掉书袋，咱只有闭嘴恭听。 :)
xw wrote:
touche wrote:这就象歌德与黑格尔一席谈，黑格尔吹嘘了一大片逻辑辩证法什么的
LM wrote:确实。比如推理针尖上能站几个天使，太阳围绕地球转，巫女必须烧死等都非常有效。
没学过拉丁，据说拉丁用来训练逻辑与表达非常有效。
，末了，歌德说：如果这玩意弄到坏人手上，怎么办？
这一段也让我想到孔子与老子之间的对话，在庄子中：
孔子西藏书于周室，子路谋曰：“由闻周之征藏史有老聃者，免而
归居，夫子欲藏书，则试往因焉。”孔子曰：“善。”往见老聃，而
老聃不许，于是番十二经以说。老聃中其说，曰：“大谩，愿闻其要。”
孔子曰：“要在仁义。”老聃曰：“请问：仁义，人之性邪？”孔子
曰：“然，君子不仁则不成，不义则不生。仁义，真人之性也，又将
奚为矣？”老聃曰：“请问：何谓仁义？”孔子曰：“中心物恺，兼
爱无私，此仁义之情也。”老聃曰：“意，几乎后言！夫兼爱，不亦
迂夫！无私焉，乃私也。夫子若欲使天下无失其牧乎？则天地固有常
矣，日月固有明矣，星辰固有列矣，禽兽固有群矣，树木固有立矣。
夫子亦放德而行，遁遁而趋，已至矣！又何偈偈乎揭仁义，若击鼓而
求亡子焉！意，夫子乱人之性也。”
看来逻辑与结构还是更高级，不然也不会有：
为之斗斛以量之，则并与斗斛而窃之；为之权衡以称之，则并与权衡
而窃之；为之符玺以信之，则并与符玺而窃之；为之仁义以矫之，则
并与仁义而窃之。
---庄子*胠箧
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
守望古典 wrote:
王小波说他的师承是翻译家。相信！我觉得，只有双语俱工的人才能打通语言的脉络。
同意同意。好的翻译从某种意义上讲，更重要的是母语要好，说的话写的字才能让人看懂，而不是汉学家式的汉语或西式汉语。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
鼓掌。。。
尚能饭 wrote:
尚能侃（64）：网络时代译事难
我不揣冒昧，也试译了一下，贻笑CND坛子里之大方：
有力的文字都是简练的。句中应无冗词，段中应无赘句，正如画中应无多余线条，机器应无多余部件一样。但这并非要求作者句句写短，或略去细节，只将题材勾画出轮廓，而是要求字字言之有物。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
I want to read 尚能侃（1-63）：) - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
July: you've broken my heart--you haven't read them yet?:)
July wrote:
I want to read 尚能侃（1-63）：) - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
Thank you very much for your kind words--and the card!:)
lucy wrote:
鼓掌。。。
尚能饭 wrote:
尚能侃（64）：网络时代译事难
我不揣冒昧，也试译了一下，贻笑CND坛子里之大方：
有力的文字都是简练的。句中应无冗词，段中应无赘句，正如画中应无多余线条，机器应无多余部件一样。但这并非要求作者句句写短，或略去细节，只将题材勾画出轮廓，而是要求字字言之有物。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
I want you post all of them in cafe :-)
shangnengfan wrote:
July: you've broken my heart--you haven't read them yet?:)
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/08/2008
不能不承认，老尚这样译在风格上更接近原文。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/09/2008
很有道理，文明诞生于广义的翻译。顺便参合胡紫薇小姐，这里出一个思考题：
大家说出自己心中的二十世纪中文原创Top 5？ 汉译名著不算，中文小说不算，读没读完没所谓。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/09/2008
xw wrote:
而只在一种文字中终究浅。比如英文，一对照拉丁，无形的深厚度就
来了。德文，一对比古希腊或梵语，思维的高度不可思议。
xw这里指的厚度高度单是指语言本身么，还是语言比较之下传递的历史，文明讯息？
语言本身果然有高下么？什么是标准？语法的精确？使用的范围？据说梵语是极其精确的，但也只限于寺庙。拉丁真正传播开的成为罗曼语系的是外国人说的vernacular Latin。罗马人的拉丁只留在教堂。语言只要使用就要变形走样呀。且语言的主宰就是文明的主宰，怎么比高下？ - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/09/2008
浮生身手不凡。江湖女侠啊。
浮生 wrote:
xw这里指的厚度高度单是指语言本身么，还是语言比较之下传递的历史，文明讯息？
语言本身果然有高下么？什么是标准？语法的精确？使用的范围？据说梵语是极其精确的，但也只限于寺庙。拉丁真正传播开的成为罗曼语系的是外国人说的vernacular Latin。罗马人的拉丁只留在教堂。语言只要使用就要变形走样呀。且语言的主宰就是文明的主宰，怎么比高下？ - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/09/2008
我随浮生。网络时代翻译比以前容易多了，几乎什么都能查到。请教能人也容易了。 - posted on 01/09/2008
Touche不要高兴的过早。关于这一点与浮生的讨论有一段时间了，这
回是老尚的一线，我不再喧宾夺主，另开一线答浮生。
就抄一段The United States Constitution：
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
of the 52 words, 26 are derivatives from Latin; but of the non-Latin twenty-six, six are the word 'the', three are 'and', and three are 'of'; that is to say, twelve of the non-Latin twenty-six hardly count in giving the idea of the passage.
浮生 wrote:
xw wrote:xw这里指的厚度高度单是指语言本身么，还是语言比较之下传递的历史，文明讯息？
而只在一种文字中终究浅。比如英文，一对照拉丁，无形的深厚度就
来了。德文，一对比古希腊或梵语，思维的高度不可思议。
语言本身果然有高下么？什么是标准？语法的精确？使用的范围？据说梵语是极其精确的，但也只限于寺庙。拉丁真正传播开的成为罗曼语系的是外国人说的vernacular Latin。罗马人的拉丁只留在教堂。语言只要使用就要变形走样呀。且语言的主宰就是文明的主宰，怎么比高下？ - posted on 01/09/2008
嗨，这是两百多年前的文字了。再说语法也有错误。“a more perfect Union” , it is either perfect or it isn't. You don't say I am more one hundred percent right. Right?
xw wrote:
Touche不要高兴的过早。关于这一点与浮生的讨论有一段时间了，这
回是老尚的一线，我不再喧宾夺主，另开一线答浮生。
就抄一段The United States Constitution：
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. of the 52 words, 26 are derivatives from Latin; but of the non-Latin twenty-six, six are the word 'the', three are 'and', and three are 'of'; that is to say, twelve of the non-Latin twenty-six hardly count in giving the idea of the passage.
- posted on 01/09/2008
Yes and no.:) The following is from an article I published a few years ago, in case you'd care:
Unique (and other absolute terms such as： chief, complete, perfect, prime, circular, equal, parallel, perpendicular and so on) cannot be compared, as by “more” or “most” or used with an intensive modifier such as “very”, “so”, or “quite”. 但任何规则都会有例外, 如：
美国建国之父们 (the founding fathers) 要使美国 “to form a more perfect union.”
Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco.
He wanted to make his record collection more complete.
You can improve the sketch by making the lines more perpendicular.
可是，下面例句中的最高级和 very 就不能用：
The two central tail feathers of Protopteryx are very unique in birds…
“…including asymmetric wing feathers, down feathers, and the most unique unbranched central tail feather.”
touche wrote:
嗨，这是两百多年前的文字了。再说语法也有错误。“a more perfect Union” , it is either perfect or it isn't. You don't say I am more one hundred percent right. Right?
xw wrote:
Touche不要高兴的过早。关于这一点与浮生的讨论有一段时间了，这
回是老尚的一线，我不再喧宾夺主，另开一线答浮生。
就抄一段The United States Constitution：
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. of the 52 words, 26 are derivatives from Latin; but of the non-Latin twenty-six, six are the word 'the', three are 'and', and three are 'of'; that is to say, twelve of the non-Latin twenty-six hardly count in giving the idea of the passage.
- posted on 01/09/2008
Yes and yes. ;) You know who brought this up? It was E. B. White. Founding fathers blurted too. But I guess it was more natural sounding at that time.
尚能饭 wrote:
Yes and no.:) The following is from an article I published a few years ago, in case you'd care:
Unique (and other absolute terms such as： chief, complete, perfect, prime, circular, equal, parallel, perpendicular and so on) cannot be compared, as by “more” or “most” or used with an intensive modifier such as “very”, “so”, or “quite”. 但任何规则都会有例外, 如：
美国建国之父们 (the founding fathers) 要使美国 “to form a more perfect union.”
Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco.
He wanted to make his record collection more complete.
You can improve the sketch by making the lines more perpendicular.
可是，下面例句中的最高级和 very 就不能用：
The two central tail feathers of Protopteryx are very unique in birds…
“…including asymmetric wing feathers, down feathers, and the most unique unbranched central tail feather.”
touche wrote:
嗨，这是两百多年前的文字了。再说语法也有错误。“a more perfect Union” , it is either perfect or it isn't. You don't say I am more one hundred percent right. Right?
xw wrote:
Touche不要高兴的过早。关于这一点与浮生的讨论有一段时间了，这
回是老尚的一线，我不再喧宾夺主，另开一线答浮生。
就抄一段The United States Constitution：
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. of the 52 words, 26 are derivatives from Latin; but of the non-Latin twenty-six, six are the word 'the', three are 'and', and three are 'of'; that is to say, twelve of the non-Latin twenty-six hardly count in giving the idea of the passage.
- posted on 01/09/2008
两位对国父们有意见，但这些文字还是最高法典呀！
好的是，英语里面尚有让人挑错的余地，要是中国国父们起草什么主
义，就怕只是喜欢不喜欢，语法上挑错的没来由。
但话又说回来，也没人到诗经，楚辞里挑错呀。拉丁有句话：
EGO SUM REX ROMANUS ET SUPER GRAMMATICAM.
(朕言即是语法)
不多说。一直在想怎么回浮生，浮生一阵冲锋枪，就象当年李向阳，
回多了，有点掉书袋，回少了，就不够礼貌。
容我再窝一会儿。抄一段更够拉丁味的，作为GRE也行：
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
--The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
- posted on 01/10/2008
Latin recorded some Greece and Roman spirit, the more perfect side of the legend. :) We have to be with XW on this point.
As for Latin is hence higher and deeper than English or any other modern languages, well, as we say everyday, don't try a step further beyond the truth - that can be nothing but a lie. :) I trust we would confuse ourselves if we read a little bit further than those that we know are established and tested facts, by the history.
But XW is a much stronger debator than before. :) It's a good thread. - posted on 01/10/2008
尚能饭 wrote:
Yes and no.:) The following is from an article I published a few years ago, in case you'd care:
Unique (and other absolute terms such as： chief, complete, perfect, prime, circular, equal, parallel, perpendicular and so on) cannot be compared, as by “more” or “most” or used with an intensive modifier such as “very”, “so”, or “quite”. 但任何规则都会有例外,
Grammar doesn't matter too much here. English can't speak none-English just as much as we can't speak wrong Chinese (or can we? :) ). What we speak is called Chinese, and they English. :) - posted on 01/10/2008
xw wrote:
不多说。一直在想怎么回浮生，浮生一阵冲锋枪，就象当年李向阳，
回多了，有点掉书袋，回少了，就不够礼貌。
我怎么记得李向阳当年拿的是盒子枪呀：）回多回少不碍事，你不单开线，我可就接着帮你喧宾夺主拉。
看样子我们其实没有分歧。你的宪法的例子说明的不是拉丁高于英语，而是英语的渊源。
盎格鲁萨克逊取代了英伦当地语言，象 “the”，“of”这样频率高的小词据说就是当地的语言(Brittonic?)中留下来的，只有十来个最多三个字母长。你肯定不能说那里人原来只讲这些词吧？
虽然早期的英语（以及其他Germanic language）也有拉丁希腊词汇，但大量拉丁／法语词汇的进入在Norman conquest之后。很多英语词汇被取代或英法词汇并存。因为宫廷里讲法语，平民农民讲英语，才渐渐形成源于拉丁的词汇“高于”源于日耳曼的词汇。以至于到了现今也是拉丁词汇在正式场合用的多，比如宪法条文里，日耳曼词汇口语里多（难怪法国人总有优越感：）。Norman conquest之前，人家那里也是有法律条文的。当然拉丁丰富了英语词汇没的说。
所以这个高低其实还是征服的结果，并非语言本身的优劣。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
说得是。现在英语文献已经远远多于拉丁语，优秀作品也多于拉丁文。文字本身很难说那个优劣，按乔姆斯基，任何一种语言都有同样的表达潜力，有的没发挥出来，是社会、历史原因，而非语言本身。 - posted on 01/10/2008
这条线还让不让人活了，非把咱不识拉丁、不懂外文的统统羞死不成？
老尚译得真好，就是要求“字字言之有物”有点过了，“字字皆有用”就可以了，哪能字字成言、个个有物？
其实E. B. White的这段话也够罗嗦的，而且没把问题说清楚，混淆了两个层面的东西：文字上的累赘和意思上的多余。也没指出到底该加哪些细节、哪些可以不要。我看他所加的绘画与机器的细节就有些多余。至少中文里就不用。不然一眼就看出是翻译而非原文。这就是语言的差异。
还可以换个思路，不从单个字词入手，而从整篇文章着眼。那样的话，我看还是梁实秋说得最好：短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
哪位将梁公这句翻译一下看？没准应了象罔的话，英语都派不上用场，非得拉丁才成。语言既使没高低之分，至少有简繁不同，也可以说是各种语言的不同特点。
所以地道一点的中文大概会是这个样子：
有力的文字都是简练的。应当句无冗词，段无赘句，(一如画无多余之线条，机器无多余之部件)。亦非要求句句写短，或是略去细节，只乘轮廓，而是要能字字顶用。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
老尚是不是有什么东西热卖被网民攻击了？ :-)
教你个办法：佯张而不睬。:-)
听喇呱子叫，就不种庄稼啦？ - posted on 01/10/2008
朱老师说得好！但E.B. White 引用Wm.Strunk的那段话中插入的图画和机器的比喻，是修辞的需要，我不觉得累赘。在CND也有人持您的观点，下面是我在那里的回帖，见笑。：）
I beg to disagree. This quotation of William Strunk’s is a good piece of rhetorical exposition. “For the same reason”refers to “concise”, and thus no inherited logic flaw exists here whatsoever. Of course, “a machine with no unnecessary parts”is presumed to have no missing parts, either! The two similes serve to support his argument with added rhetorical flare. Compare it with the following paragraph written by an evangelist:
People! The distinguished characteristic of China is people. The ancient temples are provocative. The Great Wall is inspiring. The Himalayas are beautiful. The trains are interesting. But the sharp characteristic—the one that grabs you first and stays with you throughout your stay—is the almost indescribable and incomprehensible volume of people. Everywhere, people.
So, there is so much more than the mere logic in vigorous writings, my friend.
引文:
-----------------------------------------------------
一真 写道:
尚教授倡导／引导小人物挑“名家大师”的刺，我就从W.S.原文挑起。
这一段英文，说的是“文体”的“简明”，且不说其本身是否“简明”（数一数用了多少个“unnecessary”？真的都necessary？），我要挑的“刺”，还不仅仅是“文体”上的，更必须挑出来的，是与之关联密切的“语言逻辑”问题。
前两个“unnecessary”，是就“文”的“要素”而言的。这两个“要素”，由“句”（含词），到“段”（含句），进而到“文”（含段），具有同一事物的“从属”关联。接下来的两个“unnecessary”，是例证，既然所证的是“for the same reason”，就应该有相应的“语言逻辑”。但是，“a drawing”和“a machine”，显然没有这种“从属”关联，除非这里的“a drawing”是“机械制图”，造句－－－制机械图，组成一段文字－－－组装机器，还可说得过去，但终究牵强。
如果说，这里所有的“unnecessary”，只是以重复来强调“简明”，那么，也还是有“语言逻辑”问题。因为力求“concise”，所要达到的是“vigorous”的效果。一部机器，没有多余的部件，这只是“简明”的必要条件。为什么？试想，如果这机器虽然没有“多余”但“missing”了部件？又怎么能运行？还谈何“vigorous”？所以，如果要强调“简明”，强调的也只能是“明”而不是“简”。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
八十一子 wrote:
老尚是不是有什么东西热卖被网民攻击了？ :-)
教你个办法：佯张而不睬。:-)
听喇呱子叫，就不种庄稼啦？
谢八爷！没有，不是我。是一个朋友被人家揪了错，我两肋插刀了一下。：）
另外，integrity我是翻译成“操守”的，但国内学术界的领导同志们觉得该字太“古”，况且国内已有“约定俗成”的“诚信”，我只好顺着他们。但书中多处我还是翻译成操守的。：） - posted on 01/10/2008
How could integrity become 诚信? “操守”is much closer, I think, although still not right. 诚信means trust worthy.
I am not good at translation at all. When I was a teenager I could still translate some simple sentenses. After I became capable of thinking in English, I could hardly be capable of translating even a single sentence. But, just as you said early, it is much easier to find faults in other's translations. Like this one, 诚信. I really don't think it has anything to do with integrity.
Integrity, in my humble opinion, refers to some internal principle or consistency one holds in one's own mind or heart. Person A says something or does something may not cause people to think he/she has no integrity but Person B might. It depends. A man without integrity is not trust worthy, but a trust worthy man is not necessarily a man with integrity. Almost like the Chinese phrase "Shi Tiao Han Zi" or "Xing Qing Zhong Ren". To say or do things against one's own heart means losing integrity. That's what I think it is. I could be wrong.
As to your point about picture and machine in E.B. White's sentence, my understanding is that it reads natural in English but not so in Chinese. That's a good example of language difference. Details are often appreciated in English whereas not in Chinese. That's why Chinese is deemed as poetic language. It encourages skipping and jumping around whereas English requires step by step process. Good Chinese style often looks imperfect in English, and perfect English style often looks stupid in Chinese.
尚能饭 wrote:
另外，integrity我是翻译成“操守”的，但国内学术界的领导同志们觉得该字太“古”，况且国内已有“约定俗成”的“诚信”，我只好顺着他们。但书中多处我还是翻译成操守的。：） - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
尚能饭 wrote:...
另外，integrity我是翻译成“操守”的，但国内学术界的领导同志们觉得该字太“古”，况且国内已有“约定俗成”的“诚信”，我只好顺着他们。但书中多处我还是翻译成操守的。：）
看来不仅是“国内学术界的领导同志们”的意见了。处于好奇，刚才查了一下 google 的翻译，竟然也是“诚信”。（莫非 google 也是“国内学术界”搞的？）其实，品德，品行，不都可以吗？操行，操守是有点太老了。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
梁实秋本人尽写鸡毛蒜皮。他译的莎士比亚糟糕透顶，看得我无名火起。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
Short writing can be bad, long ones are.
Brief enough?
zxd wrote:
还可以换个思路，不从单个字词入手，而从整篇文章着眼。那样的话，我看还是梁实秋说得最好：短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
哪位将梁公这句翻译一下看？没准应了象罔的话，英语都派不上用场，非得拉丁才成。语言既使没高低之分，至少有简繁不同，也可以说是各种语言的不同特点。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
integrity对我来讲首先是正直，有原则，完整的意思。从词源来讲，整数integer，整合integrate 可以给我们一点提示。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/10/2008
touche wrote:
梁实秋本人尽写鸡毛蒜皮。他译的莎士比亚糟糕透顶，看得我无名火起。
太同意了。刚买了一本梁的散文集，看得我无名火起。本想退货，人家不给。梁写了些非常好的散文，可惜砂子太多，非得从里面挑，好不累。据说梁的文字有两千多万，哎，这实在是种悲哀。当初烧掉十分之九就好了。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/11/2008
有道理，似可译成“良知与守一”。虽不尽如人意，还凑和。“诚信”简直是误导。若以诚信为题搞作文比赛，把征文翻成英语拿去对讲英语的人说这是围绕integrity写的，不让人笑掉大牙才怪。
touche wrote:
integrity对我来讲首先是正直，有原则，完整的意思。从词源来讲，整数integer，整合integrate 可以给我们一点提示。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/11/2008
前半句挺好，后来有点绝对。坏的文章一定长，很准确，长的文章一定坏，则不一定。若是英译中，倒是该用这办法补救，说成：坏的文章一定长。不知英语里是如和区分两者之不同的，还可以改进否。
touche wrote:
短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
Short writing can be bad, long ones are.
Brief enough?
- posted on 01/11/2008
果然有个逻辑漏洞。没看仔细。“坏的文章一定长”也有问题，因为有的短文章也坏。
下面直译一下：
短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
Short writing is not necessarily good; bad ones are uniformly long.
看来后半句在英语中也有问题。我想这常常是简约的代价吧。
zxd wrote:
前半句挺好，后来有点绝对。坏的文章一定长，很准确，长的文章一定坏，则不一定。若是英译中，倒是该用这办法补救，说成：坏的文章一定长。不知英语里是如和区分两者之不同的，还可以改进否。
touche wrote:
短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
Short writing can be bad, long ones are.
Brief enough?
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/11/2008
短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长
颇有理。
Short writings may not be good, but long ones are often bad. - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/11/2008
touche wrote:
果然有个逻辑漏洞。没看仔细。“坏的文章一定长”也有问题，因为有的短文章也坏。
说得是。不过我想他的意思是“坏的文章往往坏在太长“。 - posted on 01/11/2008
It got to refer to an individual piece of writing. In Chinese it is not necessarily a problem, because Chinese is concise and often omits things and most often readers won't get it wrong. So Mr. Liang wasn't wrong in this case. But in English we have to say: A piece of short writing could be bad, but a bad one must be long.
Again, I wonder if Latin could be shorter, because English has rules that makes it unnecessarily long. You cannot say a short writing but have to say a short piece of writing. If Latin can omit verbs or use adjective as verb then it could be shortened by half. Who wants to give it a try?
touche wrote:
果然有个逻辑漏洞。没看仔细。“坏的文章一定长”也有问题，因为有的短文章也坏。
下面直译一下：
短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
Short writing is not necessarily good; bad ones are uniformly long.
看来后半句在英语中也有问题。我想这常常是简约的代价吧。
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/11/2008
令胡冲 wrote:
Grammar doesn't matter too much here. English can't speak none-English just as much as we can't speak wrong Chinese (or can we? :) ). What we speak is called Chinese, and they English. :)
严重同意令胡。
还有，Integrity如果翻译成四川话，应该叫“德性”。
- posted on 01/11/2008
zxd wrote:
How could integrity become 诚信? “操守”is much closer, I think, although still not right. 诚信means trust worthy.
朱老师：谢谢您的赐教。下面是我的一篇文稿的摘录，见笑。：）
Lost in Translation
Shangnengfan
"Poetry is what gets lost in translation."
--Robert Frost
An Overloaded Word
Integrity is an overloaded word that has different meanings in different contexts. It is an oft-cited term of virtue and character by moralists and politicians alike, as in the case of “personal integrity.” However, it can be applied to almost anything. For instance, in the engineering field alone, civil engineers often talk about “structural integrity”, electrical engineers “signal integrity” and “electrical grid integrity”, chemical engineers “experimental integrity”, aerospace engineers “aircraft landing system integrity”, computer geeks “data integrity” and “inter-domain integrity”, and mechanical engineers “material integrity” etc. Classical composers value a work’s “compositional integrity”, be it a one-movement symphonic tone poem or a four-movement full-scale symphony. Artists strive to maintain a painting’s overall “integrity”, and claim that even a light touch could compromise the work’s integrity for being too excessive! The US Supreme Court often uses the phrase “Constitution’s structural integrity” in deciding the thorny cases. Many a country would not hesitate at shedding their citizens’ blood in order to defend their “territorial integrity.” Ecologists are concerned with “ecological integrity” and “ecosystem integrity”, dieticians “nutrition integrity”, and yes, we scientists “academic integrity”. The list seems endless, the utility of the word all-encompassing, and yet the word’s meaning often hopelessly vague and puzzling.
This frustration was succinctly expressed by Stephen Carter, a Yale Law School professor, in his 1996 book called “Integrity”: “Integrity is like the weather: everybody talks about it but nobody knows what to do about it.” Struggling to offer his take on the word, Carter later resigned to say: “ So perhaps we should say that integrity is like good weather, because everybody is in favor of it.” This is far from reaching even a working definition of the word.
Toward a Definition
Various modern English dictionaries, from more conservative but authoritative Oxford English Dictionary to less terse and more approachable The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, define “integrity” in several slight variations on the constant theme that includes:
1. Firm adherence to a strict moral or ethical code: incorruptibility.
2. An unimpaired condition: soundness.
3. The quality or state of being whole or undivided: completeness.
Let us examine these items one by one:
1. There may not be a universal code of moral or ethical value, but incorruptibility is an absolute term.
As an example, let me start my discourse with a tragedy happened recently in China. A young man in Ruzhou, Henan Province, stormed into a high school’s dormitory and brutally slashed five boys to death. And later his mother turned him in to the local police. I read the news both in the People’s Daily and in the Lawrence Journal-World. Both stressed the point that the mother had turned in her son, but gave it a totally opposite moral spin. Whereas the Chinese media lauded it a virtue (大义灭亲) exhibited by the poor mother, the American newspaper portrayed it an unthinkable moral taboo.
In contrast, this reminds me of a moving story I read some years ago in the Times magazine’s “American Scene” column. A single mother at the New York City’s Harlem had a son who was serving his life in prison for a violent crime. For over 30 years, the poor mother got up before dawn every Saturday morning to take a bus to her son’s prison in Pennsylvania, arrived there in the afternoon and spent a couple of hours visiting her son, and then caught the last bus back to Harlem in the midnight. She had to save all the money she had to pay for the trips, and she had diabetes and had to give herself shots on the bus. Before she died suddenly in a hospital, she had only missed twice in making her weekly trip to the Pennsylvania prison: once due to a severe snowstorm that canceled all the buses; the other due to her admission into the hospital before her death.
Both women were great loving mothers. The only difference lies in the fundamentally different value systems. On one hand, the Chinese mother “sacrificed” her own son for the common good of the society, a moral act that has been promoted in China for thousands of years. On the other hand, the American mother loved her son unconditionally for who he was, not what he was, a deep-seated moral value in the Christian culture.
Even within the same culture and thus the identical value system, the moral or ethical code can sometimes be ambiguous as well. For instance, the infamous O. J. Simpson trial provided a classic case for contention. While the majority of the people who watched the courtroom drama played out on their living room TV screens felt that Simpson was guilty, his defense team did an excellent job with admirable professional integrity and handed the prosecutors a stunning defeat. Here one might argue that Simpson’s defense lawyers may have acted with professional integrity but may in fact have also acted immorally in letting a brutal murder go free. However, to turn the argument around, hypothetically suppose that Simpson admitted his crime to his lawyers, and his lawyers felt so morally bound that they would tell the jury his admission, then what would happen?
In the court of law, that admission would be inadmissible at the end, and those lawyers could be reprimanded! Even their legal adversaries, the prosecutors, would condemn them for their outrageous violation of the attorney-client privilege. Otherwise, the very fabric of the current legal system would be threatened, and consequently the Constitution’s structural integrity would be compromised. It seems to be a paradox, doesn’t it? Not necessarily so! The legal system in this country was designed to punish criminals and, equally important, protect the innocent. A vigorous defense mechanism requires a rigorous prosecution, and the “arm races” between the two ensures an overall fair trial and hence limits, but not necessarily eliminates, potential abuses.
Similarly, let us look at another hypothetical case. A would-be murder goes to his church to confess to his priest that he is going to kill a person for whatever reason, and asks for God’s forgiveness. The priest may try every possible means at his disposal to persuade the man not to commit the crime, but in no circumstances would the priest turn him in to prevent the tragic event from happening. The priest is acting with his professional integrity by maintaining the trust people have placed on churches as a religious institution, a spiritual safe heaven so to speak. To protect the confessor’s identity is in fact a strict moral or ethical code that churches have to adhere to, regardless of what consequences that may cause.
In both cases, the integrity of the legal system and the churches was uncorrupted despite the moral “dilemmas” (as viewed by the general public) they had to face.
2. In the physical world, an unimpaired condition is unstable, but the soundness of the object resists any attempt at impairing it. The same must be true of the living world.
In his 1995 book called “Piloting Through Chaos”, international attorney Julian Gressler wrote: “Integrity is the capacity of every living thing to maintain its hold in the face of entropy, disorder, and uncertainty, its link to the living world, its ability to carry on its life, however humble.”
A classic example immediately comes to my mind is about late Dr. Hu Shih, my idol since youth. He was only in his late 20’s when he became a full professor at the Peking University and a leading intellectual figure in the May Fourth Movement in 1919. He later became the wartime Chinese Ambassador to the United States, and in late 1940s, president of the Peking University. He was awarded a total of 35 honorary doctoral degrees by the renowned universities around the world. After the Chinese nationalist’s defeat, he lived in exile in the States during 1950s before returning to Taiwan to become president of Academia Sinica. In early 1950s, he was briefly the head of the Gest Oriental Library at Princeton University, a position that would be considered an insult by some for Dr. Hu’s stature. Yet, he carried out his duty there with enthusiasm and passion and maintained quiet dignity and extraordinary aplomb. This “unimpaired condition” in Dr. Hu’s personal characters was deeply rooted in his own firm belief in humanity’s being “…not necessarily devoid of beauty, of poetry, of moral responsibility, and of the fullest opportunity for the exercise of creative intelligence of man,” even in face of “the apparent cruelty in the struggle for existence” (“My Living Philosophy”, 1933). Dr. Hu’s entire life exemplified those aspects that can be best described by the following Chinese sayings: 威武不能屈, 贫贱不能移, 富贵不能淫; and to these, Dr. Hu added his very own: 时髦不为动.
The soundness of a person’s character is also well illustrated in this incident that literally happened in my doorsteps. In 2002, a Kansas City high school biology teacher caught 28 of her students plagiarizing from an Internet article, and she flunked them all! Under the pressure from the students’ parents, the school district authorities overruled the teacher and ordered her to change those students’ grade. She refused and instead resigned from her post.
3. Integrity as completeness goes back to the word’s etymological root; its sense of wholeness, entireness, and intactness has such a wide applications that they essentially contribute to the word’s overloaded content.
In real world, or at least in the moral realm, however, can this completeness ever be achieved? Or, to frame the question differently, one might wonder whether integrity is merely a lofty ideal that only can be approached but never reached, as the value of “pi” in geometry. The examples of this sort are plentiful, from the biblical story in which “ He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone” to a familiar saying that “The golden idol has feet of clay.”
In his recent book “Letters to a Young Lawyer” (2001), Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor and an internationally acclaimed legal scholar, wrote:
Lawyers tend to be hero worshippers. Perhaps because we often work on an ethically ambiguous terrain, we need to create large-than-life role models to look up to. We airbrush the warts of our heroes and turn them into saints who could do no wrong. Eventually, we learn the truth and we become disappointed, if not disillusioned.
Dershowitz went on to tell some disturbing revelations from his own experiences with several famous US Supreme Court justices, who were generally regarded as the persons of “integrity” but were found, by the author, to be flawed--some even deeply flawed. He later came to a somewhat cynical but true, and perfectly Dershowitzsque, conclusion:
So, please no heroes and no worship. Look up to people who have admirable traits, but understand that all have human foibles, some more than others. Expect to be disappointed, especially if you ever get to know personally those you look up to. Learn to live with the disappointments and still emulate those characters of your role models that warrant emulation. Burt even singular characteristics will rarely be without flaws.
No wonder, in the midst of nationwide worships of late Chairman Mao of China during the Cultural Revolution, Madame Mao, Jiang Qing, was never impressed by the dirty old man! It’s not that “Familiarity breeds contempt”, but it’s that proximity detects defect.
Despite Dershowitz’s rather grim view of “person of integrity”, it is not difficult to find some names that are almost universally acknowledged to represent such a “person of integrity”. Among them, the Pope has been criticized for his view s of women’s role in the Church; Martin Luther King, Jr., has been accused of plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation. Just as a building with structural integrity does not have to be flawless, so one can be a person of integrity without being perfect (完人) or being a saint (圣人).
Perhaps mindful of the fact that people can be imperfect but remain to have integrity, many now often speak of “person of complete integrity”! The word “integrity”, like the word “unique”, used to be considered an absolute term—you either have it or have not, and you cannot have it partially. This tendency to dilute the word’s absoluteness apparently reflects the society’s struggle with or, rather, retreat from a stricter moral code. Therefore, it is essential, now more than ever, for us to grasp the real meaning of the word “integrity”. As Albert Camus aptly stated, “Integrity has no need of rules.” Whereas honesty demands you to be true to others, integrity requires you to be true to yourself. Nothing could be more inspirational than the Greek sculptor Phidias’s two-word answer to his student’s question why the master had to belabor himself with the details of Athena’s back head for nobody will see it—“I will.”
Back to Square One
By now, any lingering sympathy toward the translation of the word “integrity” into 诚信 should have evaporated. 诚信means honesty and trustworthiness, and thus only constitutes a tiny fraction of the meaning of integrity. Therefore, so much has been lost in this particular translation!
Historically, integrity has been embedded in the Chinese moral value system as in that of any other culture. All the things discussed above would find their parallels in Chinese vocabulary without any difficulty. And yet I have failed to find a Chinese word that would even come close in meaning to the English word “integrity”. The integrity would include, but certainly is not limited to, the following Chinese concepts: 忠实, 率真, 正直, 诚信, 坚固, 完整无损, 言行一致, 表里一致, 前后一致, 良好操守, 风骨, 气节, 高尚纯洁, 道德文章, 有所为有所不为, 等等. Any of these Chinese concepts alone cannot convey the very integrity of that all encompassing English word—that has been my biggest problem! - posted on 01/11/2008
尚能饭 wrote:
Historically, integrity has been embedded in the Chinese moral value system as in that of any other culture. All the things discussed above would find their parallels in Chinese vocabulary without any difficulty. And yet I have failed to find a Chinese word that would even come close in meaning to the English word “integrity”. The integrity would include, but certainly is not limited to, the following Chinese concepts: 忠实, 率真, 正直, 诚信, 坚固, 完整无损, 言行一致, 表里一致, 前后一致, 良好操守, 风骨, 气节, 高尚纯洁, 道德文章, 有所为有所不为, 等等. Any of these Chinese concepts alone cannot convey the very integrity of that all encompassing English word—that has been my biggest problem!
Oh, dear. That's not "vigorous writing" for sure. If you just got too many words to tell, then you simply can't tell a word, or say the word. :)
Could I be forgiven to talk about one real-world example, to inspect whether I followed up the basic understanding of Integrity and whether able to hold its basic value when facing a simple choice of the life?
We all know Chinese citizen needs a visa to study and Live in US. There has been a standard question in the visa interview for 30 years, also in the legally-binding questionnaire, which is "Will you come back to China after your study or visiting"? - You have the responsibility to tell the truth; you can choose to lie; you understood it may affect your life for next 40 years. So, what was your answer, Dear Old Shang? :)
If with China's public funding in early years, you might have been able to avoid the visa interview, but there should be a kind of "contract" in Chinese with the "State", also legally binding, explicitly defined the term and ask the applicant's return on completion, if I understood it correctly. Was there such a one, and did anybody still living abroad sign it? :))
I hope this question is no too intrusive to anyone with so far the best understanding of as well as the best faith in the word "Integrity". :)
- posted on 01/11/2008
What about skirt?
Short skirt can be bad, long ones are :-)
捣捣乱。。。
touche wrote:
短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
Short writing can be bad, long ones are.
Brief enough?
zxd wrote:
还可以换个思路，不从单个字词入手，而从整篇文章着眼。那样的话，我看还是梁实秋说得最好：短的文章未必好，坏的文章一定长。
哪位将梁公这句翻译一下看？没准应了象罔的话，英语都派不上用场，非得拉丁才成。语言既使没高低之分，至少有简繁不同，也可以说是各种语言的不同特点。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/11/2008
July wrote:
What about skirt?
Short skirt can be bad, long ones are :-)
捣捣乱。。。
hum.... shake my head. Long ones might be bad for girls, but girl will be a bride one day - and you will see how beautiful it is in the photograph. :)
Don't simply follow up with touche - when you are content with you got a point, you should know you have missed all other 99,999 points. :) - posted on 01/11/2008
For the sake of integrity, I'm answering your two questions with no hedge: neither was applicable to me!:)
1。我当年是所谓“自费公派”，拿美方钱，由中国官方帮助办签证，未需面谈。即便面谈了，我也会给出你所讲的答案，因为在当时的情况下，确实也没想到会要在美国留下来。不管怎么说，当时还是“梯队”成员嘛。：）
2。国内签协议更是我出国N年后，你们小辈儿遇上的事。我们那年月，恐怕连领导同志也还没想到有人会要留在“水深火热”的美国。
That said, I know what you meant. I'd like to say to you that I only surpass you in having a more cynical view of world.:):):)
令胡冲 wrote:
Oh, dear. That's not "vigorous writing" for sure. If you just got too many words to tell, then you simply can't tell a word, or say the word. :)
Could I be forgiven to talk about one real-world example, to inspect whether I followed up the basic understanding of Integrity and whether able to hold its basic value when facing a simple choice of the life?
We all know Chinese citizen needs a visa to study and Live in US. There has been a standard question in the visa interview for 30 years, also in the legally-binding questionnaire, which is "Will you come back to China after your study or visiting"? - You have the responsibility to tell the truth; you can choose to lie; you understood it may affect your life for next 40 years. So, what was your answer, Dear Old Shang? :)
If with China's public funding in early years, you might have been able to avoid the visa interview, but there should be a kind of "contract" in Chinese with the "State", also legally binding, explicitly defined the term and ask the applicant's return on completion, if I understood it correctly. Was there such a one, and did anybody still living abroad sign it? :))
I hope this question is no too intrusive to anyone with so far the best understanding of as well as the best faith in the word "Integrity". :)
- posted on 01/11/2008
尚能饭 wrote:
朱老师：谢谢您的赐教。下面是我的一篇文稿的摘录，见笑。：）
Lost in Translation
Shangnengfan
切，搞了大半天，英汉翻译又不是孙刘联姻，哪里有那么多“一对一”的好事？不信就让老尚翻翻这个“搞”字，也算汉语里面的overloader.
普通用法：搞错，搞鬼，搞乱，搞清楚，搞糊涂，他是搞电脑的，搞砸了，搞点吃的，搞臭
高尚用法：搞好群众关系，搞团结，搞一场联欢晚会
庸俗用法：搞对象，搞大肚子，搞一个指标（比如，计划生育）
- Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/11/2008
The one that I can come up with is "(aspired) not to decorate what they wear, but to wear the decorations". :)
尚能饭 wrote:许老先生最为自诩的是他的“不爱红装爱武装”的英译文：“Not to powder the face, but to face the powder.” 就凭这一点，你不服还真不行。
- posted on 01/11/2008
老瓦 wrote:
尚能饭 wrote:切，搞了大半天，英汉翻译又不是孙刘联姻，哪里有那么多“一对一”的好事？不信就让老尚翻翻这个“搞”字，也算汉语里面的overloader.
朱老师：谢谢您的赐教。下面是我的一篇文稿的摘录，见笑。：）
Lost in Translation
Shangnengfan
普通用法：搞错，搞鬼，搞乱，搞清楚，搞糊涂，他是搞电脑的，搞砸了，搞点吃的，搞臭
高尚用法：搞好群众关系，搞团结，搞一场联欢晚会
庸俗用法：搞对象，搞大肚子，搞一个指标（比如，计划生育）
高尚用法：搞好群众关系
庸俗用法：搞男女关系：）：） - posted on 01/12/2008
“face the powder”听着英勇，可是总有点要殉难的意思，像江姐，像Bhutto夫人。
可以“face the powder”的地方不只是战场。而且英文里也没有这么说的。这更像
是中文的说法(冒着敌人的炮火，前进前进前进进)。
Susan wrote:
The one that I can come up with is "(aspired) not to decorate what they wear, but to wear the decorations". :)
尚能饭 wrote:许老先生最为自诩的是他的“不爱红装爱武装”的英译文：“Not to powder the face, but to face the powder.” 就凭这一点，你不服还真不行。
- posted on 01/12/2008
Lao Shang,
Just as 令胡冲 wrote, you are certainly the one who best understand all of the meanings in the single word of integrity, even though it still puzzles you. To cheer you up, I offer the following case to compare. It's hard to say what's integrity just like what's pornography. The best definition is you know it when you see it.
尚能饭 wrote:
The integrity would include, but certainly is not limited to, the following Chinese concepts: 忠实, 率真, 正直, 诚信, 坚固, 完整无损, 言行一致, 表里一致, 前后一致, 良好操守, 风骨, 气节, 高尚纯洁, 道德文章, 有所为有所不为, 等等. Any of these Chinese concepts alone cannot convey the very integrity of that all encompassing English word—that has been my biggest problem! - posted on 01/12/2008
尚能饭 wrote:
For the sake of integrity, I'm answering your two questions with no hedge: neither was applicable to me!:)
1。我当年是所谓“自费公派”，拿美方钱，由中国官方帮助办签证，未需面谈。即便面谈了，我也会给出你所讲的答案，因为在当时的情况下，确实也没想到会要在美国留下来。不管怎么说，当时还是“梯队”成员嘛。：）
2。国内签协议更是我出国N年后，你们小辈儿遇上的事。我们那年月，恐怕连领导同志也还没想到有人会要留在“水深火热”的美国。
Lucky old guy. Is it why the young generation always bearing the difficulty?:)
- posted on 01/13/2008
Susan wrote:
“face the powder”听着英勇，可是总有点要殉难的意思，像江姐，像Bhutto夫人。
可以“face the powder”的地方不只是战场。而且英文里也没有这么说的。这更像
是中文的说法(冒着敌人的炮火，前进前进前进进)。
Susan wrote:
The one that I can come up with is "(aspired) not to decorate what they wear, but to wear the decorations". :)
尚能饭 wrote:许老先生最为自诩的是他的“不爱红装爱武装”的英译文：“Not to powder the face, but to face the powder.” 就凭这一点，你不服还真不行。
我来试试。
不爱红装爱武装 －
Lipsticks traded for rifles, we want their men, not ours. - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/13/2008
其实可以这么译，西方人一听就明白：
Aspired not to be a Venus but a Diana.
八十一子 wrote:
不爱红装爱武装 －
Lipsticks traded for rifles, we want their men, not ours. - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/16/2008
苏姗这一笔我倒觉得是。要是拉丁，Semper Diana non Venus。
要说许渊冲的译，当然还是最传神。比如powder，就有女民兵练场上
的烟尘气，这也是一种时代气。以后也不能了。
Susan wrote:
其实可以这么译，西方人一听就明白：
Aspired not to be a Venus but a Diana.
八十一子 wrote:
不爱红装爱武装 －
Lipsticks traded for rifles, we want their men, not ours. - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/16/2008
I thought it was gun powder.
I also face the powder everyday. Baby powder.
xw wrote:
要说许渊冲的译，当然还是最传神。比如powder，就有女民兵练场上
的烟尘气，这也是一种时代气。以后也不能了。 - Re: 灏氳兘渚冿紙64锛夛細缃戠粶鏃朵唬璇戜簨闅�posted on 01/16/2008
To me, powdering the face is more brave than facing the powder. After all, the former is a direct application. ;)
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 灏氳兘楗�
- #1 瀹堟湜鍙ゅ吀
- #2 浠よ儭鍐�
- #3 xw
- #4 浠よ儭鍐�
- #5 xw
- #6 浠よ儭鍐�
- #7 xw
- #8 touche
- #9 浠よ儭鍐�
- #10 liaokang
- #11 LM
- #12 touche
- #13 xw
- #14 LM
- #15 楣垮笇
- #16 lucy
- #17 July
- #18 shangnengfan
- #19 shangnengfan
- #20 July
- #21 鍏崄涓�瀛�
- #22 鑰佺摝
- #23 娴敓
- #24 touche
- #25 liaokang
- #26 xw
- #27 touche
- #28 灏氳兘楗�
- #29 touche
- #30 xw
- #31 浠よ儭鍐�
- #32 浠よ儭鍐�
- #33 娴敓
- #34 liaokang
- #35 zxd
- #36 鍏崄涓�瀛�
- #37 灏氳兘楗�
- #38 灏氳兘楗�
- #39 zxd
- #40 guanzhong
- #41 touche
- #42 touche
- #43 touche
- #44 瀹堟湜鍙ゅ吀
- #45 zxd
- #46 zxd
- #47 touche
- #48 鍏崄涓�瀛�
- #49 鍏崄涓�瀛�
- #50 zxd
- #51 鑰佺摝
- #52 灏氳兘楗�
- #53 浠よ儭鍐�
- #54 July
- #55 浠よ儭鍐�
- #56 灏氳兘楗�
- #57 鑰佺摝
- #58 Susan
- #59 灏氳兘楗�
- #60 Susan
- #61 zxd
- #62 浠よ儭鍐�
- #63 鍏崄涓�瀛�
- #64 Susan
- #65 xw
- #66 Susan
- #67 touche
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation