[原创]四谈中、英文两种版本的《资本论》在翻译上的重大分歧

你啊，就不用出来臭显了。告诉你翻译的原理：“信，达，雅”，句子的重新组织，不必“一个萝卜一个坑”等等这些道理，你肯定是不理解的。不难看出，我给你一个总结：你虽然在做翻译，你肯定不是一个毕业于“上外”或者“北外”院校的。

中文的语法称为：孤立语系，英语属于：曲折语。本身在语法上，中文的体系短句要好于长句，翻译的“拆句法”就是为了弥补中文长句组织差的本身特点。你的第一个回答，充分说明了你缺乏必要的翻译理论知识，就不用死撑了。你要是不信，你自己去找几个你的老师去问问。

第二个说法。I admit that I did not understand what dip really means in that sentence. But I want to make you understand one thing: terminology is not something any interpretors or translators should ever be ashamed of. In the English vocabulary, there are thousands of hundreds of terms specifically used in specific industries or fields. Since English words have less function in the imaginary function, people can very easily get confused with some function or meanings of a word if it is used for specific purpose. That is to say, whenever there is something that need you to explain in brackets, (which usually refers to an unusual usage) there is always possibility to misunderstand it.

I do not know why you are so proud of yourself, and why you are so confident with your language and your understanding of economic theory. I do not see a reason in it. In my university before and now, there are thousands of people better than you. So you really need not to put on a high air always. Be yourself.

I can tell you immediately that I was a graduate from SISU ten years ago, and my TEM band 8 was issued at 1997.

What is more important, I did not say your version is not good. What I was exactly trying to express is that: you have no reason to make comparison by your principle. And if you do compare by your principle, you just miss the key issue: the difference in the grammar system. You did the translation in a proper way can not be a direct proof that you understand the theory, because there are millions of people in the world who can translate without knowing the theory. Donot take it personally. I was just saying that you are not professional though still good.

I did not look down upon you, but I need to defend myself. I was just trying to remind you to control yourself, be objective.

Well, it depends on how you define what objective should be like. When you talk about things, the fatal problem on your side is that: you just throw out what you think without a systematic reasoning.

I am not Marxist, and I donot thoroughly understand Marxism. But I studied Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Game theory and etc. What is more, I just made a thorough study in Chinese law system which needs logical or economical analysis into the regulation. When discussing things in whatever it might be, I just put everything down to human nature or refer to some known theorom, this is what I defined "objective".

You can go back to read what I issued before and revalue your comments.

If you go against me just because I am not marxist, then you are not objective. What a objective people should be like is...you go against me when I am wrong. And you need to prove why I am wrong by reasoning that I can accept.

以下是引用仗义执言在2007-7-9 15:50:00的发言：

confuse

如果你的英语好的话,请翻译下面的几段:

as a result of intensive media coverage of the industry.

In announcing the dip in fatalities, the State Administration for Coal Mine Safety Supervision also reported a succession of 'cover ups' of fatal accidents in March.

我的专业不是英语，英语水品不算很高。我和你讨论“By an exchange we equate as values our different products ”这句话的翻译问题，决不是在英语水平上跟你叫劲。我觉得这句话到底怎样译，还有讨论的必要。“equate”在这句话中表示的是“we”的行为，所以，我觉得这句话还是应该译作“人们借助交换将作为价值的不同种类的产品相提并论”。可是，按你的译法，好像不同种类的产品的质的区别会自动消失。我觉得这样译不合情理。

不合情理，还硬要坚持自己的译法。为什么要这样做呢？我估计不是因为你英语水平低，很可能是你屈服于我国经济学界对价值概念的错误理解。我的译法会导致对价值概念产生新的理解。这不值得大惊小怪。请你相信，这个重新理解是靠的住的。既然中国经济学界对价值概念的理解遭到了英文版的《资本论》的挑战，我们为什么不可以对它发生一点怀疑呢？

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-10 22:38:52编辑过]