大家在如何提高自己的语言和翻译水平

J.H. Wang wrote:




按照我的理解是，Phil 的意思应该是，在通顺与准确无法兼顾的情况，以意思准确为主。

jyuan_us wrote:



不准确的句子，倒是可以通顺。这没有问题。

jyuan_us wrote:
不通顺的句子，意思能准确吗？

ysun wrote:

从字面上分析，Phil 那段话的意思是指冒号后面的做法是不对的。如果把冒号改为句号，就不会引起误解。

Shaun Yeo wrote:



一语中的。

jyuan_us wrote:



达不到兼顾，要么理解原文有问题，要么表达有问题。

Shaun Yeo wrote:



一语中的。

Phil Hand wrote:



这点我不同意。有的时候，专业措辞并不通顺，无论是因为科技类的怪长词汇还是因为专利中的长句子还是因为普通词汇在合同中就有非普通的意思，都可能导致专业语句读起来不好听。

ysun wrote:

我个人认为，无论是“科技类的怪长词汇”还是“专利中的长句子”，还是有办法把它们翻译通顺的。

Phil Hand wrote:

我的意思是这样子的句子：

Tenofovir {9-[(R)-2-(phosphonomethoxy)propyl]adenine}, formerly known as PMPA, is a novel nucleotide analog belonging to the class of acyclic nucleoside phosphonates.

虽然结构简单，但专用词很长，结果句子不算通顺。

或者：
A process for the production of a magnesium chloride powder for use in a catalyst, the process consisting essentially of: (a) vaporizing magnesium chloride in a plasma torch; and (b) quenching the vapor with a liquid containing an electron donor to form a magnesium chloride-containing powder, in which at least 80% by weight of the magnesium chloride is present as the hexagonal phase thereof.

专利的长句子往往有过多动名词、重复性多、thereof之类的少用代词等现象，搞得它绝对不算通顺。

或者：
For the 200 years before 1861 it was settled law that, if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.

这个实例也完全没有问题，但是为了正确地理解它，需要一定的法律知识，还有这里的instance和although的用法与普通英文不同，因此对正常的英国人来讲，这句话不通顺。

我对于通顺的理解是：阅读时可以快速顺利获取它的意思。我觉得通顺与符合语言规定应该不一样，正确的英文中有通顺易读的，也有拗口文邹邹的。我们译员就得懂得灵活选择合适的文风，不一定以通顺为上。但是，无论通不通顺，一定要写目标语言写得正确。

Phil Hand wrote:


我对于通顺的理解是：阅读时可以快速顺利获取它的意思。我觉得通顺与符合语言规定应该不一样，正确的英文中有通顺易读的，也有拗口文邹邹的。我们译员就得懂得灵活选择合适的文风，不一定以通顺为上。但是，无论通不通顺，一定要写目标语言写得正确。

Phil Hand wrote:

...then that could well be where any disagreement lies.

Like Nigerose says, once you become very experienced in the technical language of any field, what used to seem odd and jarring can become natural.

My perspective is that as a general translator, not particularly specialised in any field, I still find the sentences above tough. I can read them; I can write them; but it's always a conscious effort.


I do think that coherence and cohesiveness are extremely important, but I put them in a slightly different category to "flowing" or "readable". If you mess up the coherence or the cohesiveness of a text, then you haven't conveyed the meaning properly - a translation fail. But you can write perfectly accurate English/Chinese of varying degrees of readability/flow.

So, if I go back to the comment that started this all off, Marvin Sun didn't actually use 通顺, he used 地道:


For me, the sentences above are definitely not 地道; their readability is low. A good Chinese translation would have to be coherent and accurate, so it must be 通顺 in that sense; but I wouldn't expect it to be 地道. The Chinese could be in a highly written register with the use of lots of obscure phrases and patterns, and that would be OK, just so long as the meaning was there.