翻譯原則珠璣語錄

（易讀版連結見留言）
　
　
I am somewhat of a ‘literalist’, because I am for truth and accuracy. （我算是個「直譯派」，因爲我求真、求準。）
——Peter Newmark, ‘A Textbook of Translation’, 1988
　
　
Translation ‘should be as faithful as possible, and as free as necessary.’ （翻譯應盡可能忠於原文，必要時自由釋意。）
——P. Cauer, ‘Art of Translation’ (‘Die Kunst des Übersetzens’), 1914. 德文原文 ‘So treu wie möglich, so frei als nöthig.’
　
　
What is first and most needful is that the translation should be correct, that the thoughts should be rendered by their correspondents, not falsified or mutilated or amplified by extraneous matter. （ 第一要務：翻譯應當正確，原作的思想應當以對應的思想呈現，而非用外來的東西加以篡改、肢解或擴大。）
——J. P. Postgate quoting (perhaps translating too) Friedrich Blass on ‘Die Überselzungen’, Hermeneutik und Kritik, volume I of Iwan Mueller’s ‘Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft’
　
　
當我們說翻譯要「信達恰」時，便是要譯文「先忠於原文，再本身通順，最後還恰到好處」。當我們為一篇譯文打分數時，標準或許可以訂為：60%的信，30%的達，和10%的恰。能滿分的應該沒有，能有50分的信加上20分的達，便是及格而且中上了。
——董崇選，《中英翻譯：從理論到實踐》
　
　
By general consent, though not by universal practice, the prime merit of a translation proper is Faithfulness, and he is the best translator whose work is nearest to his original.
——J. P. Postgage, ‘Translation and Translations : Theory and Practice’, 1922
　
　
[I]n communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect is secured, the literal [1] translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation. There is no excuse for unnecessary ‘synonyms’, let alone paraphrases, in any type of translation.
——Peter Newmark, ‘Approaches to translation’, 1981

註[1]：此處，Newmark 原文寫 the literal word-for-word translation，我去掉了 word-for-word，因爲我更同意 Wilss 大篇幅論述的一點：literal（字面）不等同 word-for-word（逐字）。見下一個引述。
　
　
In contrast to word-for-word translation, literal translation, which is set up bidirectional (not unidirectionally, as is the case with non-literal translation) , is a translation procedure which, under certain circumstances, is totally acceptable stylistically.
——Wolfram Wilss, ‘The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods’, 1981
　
　
從翻譯文學史上看，人們對意譯和直譯及其相互關係的認識是逐漸深化的。晚清時代梁啟超所說的“譯意不譯詞”中的“譯意”其意思就是“意譯”。但那時人們還分不清楚“意譯”與“竄譯”的區別。他們所說的“譯意” 或“意譯”就是指對原作隨意加以增刪改動的竄譯，正如把“直譯”也理解為逐字對譯一樣。實際上，翻譯界一直有許多人對“意譯”和“直譯”做了這種理解。有人認為翻譯的基本方法只有兩種，那就是“直譯”與“意譯”。這樣一來，就自然地把“竄譯”包含在了“意譯”中，同時也把逐字硬譯包含在“直譯”中了。這樣做對科學地區分翻譯方法是不利的。應該說，竄譯”是“意譯”的極端，而逐字硬譯是“直譯”的極端；但“竄譯”是以不尊重原作為前提的，不尊重原作首先就是既不尊重原作的“形”與“詞”，也不會尊重原作的“意”，其結果就不可能準確地譯出原作的“意”，因此不能稱之為“意譯”。
——王向遠，《翻譯文學導論》，2004
　
　
我們現在其實還沒很超過Postgate五十多年前論翻譯時候所注重的話。 他說：大家都承認，雖然大家不都實行，一個翻譯的基本優點就在乎一個信，誰翻譯的跟原文最近就是誰翻譯的最好。可是遠近旣然還是程度的問題，這話不是又說回頭了嗎？有一個有用的試驗法就是把譯文譯回頭，看是不是另有一個更恰切的原文可以對這譯文。如果有的話，那就是起頭兒翻譯的不夠信。
——趙元任，〈論翻譯中信、達、雅的信的幅度〉
　
　
Translation is in essence a compromise, and its course a zigzag. Its deviations from the straight the Translator with singleness of purpose will reduce to a minimum, while the free ‘Verter’ with one eye on the reader and the other more than half on himself will be tempted to extend them till they correspond to the large vistas of Beauty and Truth that these obliquities of vision can command. Such a one may ‘vert’ as much and as freely as he pleases; but if he seeks the humble title of a ‘translator’ he must change his methods or renounce his claim.
——J. P. Postgage, Translation and Translations : Theory and Practice, 1922

《如何有效整理單字筆記III》進階篇

👨‍🏫 若是你的字彙量已達4000字(大概國中+高一)，Ken建議學員們在整理筆記時，能避免翻譯就盡量避免。最主要的原因在於，有些單字一字多義，(比如：bear, move, meet, render…)，若是把所有的中文都寫在筆記上，在背誦上，非但會造成腦袋負擔，而且也不易記得長久。

🦅 做個大自然的比方，若您深知自己在學習英文上總是遇到瓶頸，就好比幼鷹在進食之際，沒有經過老鷹母親的咀嚼，就難以吸收食物的營養，吃太多難消化的食物，不但腸胃受影響，還會營養不良呢！

📒 整理過的筆記，就好比老鷹母親咀嚼過的食物(整理後的單字)，讓這些小鷹(初學者)可以好好進食(背單字)，慢慢成長(累積單字)，未來得以獨立飛行(運用單字)。希望這個比喻對你來說不會太奇怪，呵呵。

🤷🏻‍♂️ 勢必有學員會問，一字多義的單字該如何整理？
(別擔心，下回Ken會分享一字多義的筆記，請學員持續關注喔！)

💁🏻‍♂️ 舉 “render” 此字為例，我查了單字之後，會從一堆中文意思裡，找出前三名自己認為很常用的字義，並且頒發🏅例句🏅給它們：

🏆 冠軍render 給予；提供 v.
🏅 We are ready to render them assistance.
我們樂意援助他們。

🥈 亞軍render使得；使成為 v.
🏅 His stammer rendered him unfit for a teaching job.
他的口吃毛病使他不宜擔任教職。

🥉 季軍render交回；歸還 v.
🏅 She rendered back his money.
她歸還了他的錢。

等到你熟悉字義後，你甚至可以背下這些例句，以便日後知道如何運用。若是你還想學到更多，可以分別再送這些一字多義的單字🎁小獎品(同義字/相關字)🎁，這也算是記誦一字多義的另一種方法。

🏆 render- give, provide, offer
🥈 render- cause, make, effect
🥉 render- return, give back

至於render的其他意思，我們可以等到做了題目、考試遇到了，或是看美劇時聽到單字了，再補充於筆記裡頭。

👉 把握基本原則➡️循序漸進

🧠 學習任何語言，左右腦都會運用到，Ken本身比較偏向右腦學習，很愛幻想，替單字編故事，所以比較喜歡用比喻的方式來幫助自己學習。學習方法因人而異，我的學習方法僅供參考，也歡迎你們與我分享您學習英語的方式。

#英文筆記

這真的令人瞠目結舌

葛特曼的律師2014年11月25日回函
回覆：您10月給葛特曼先生的信函
請諒解我們的回應時間，超過了您當初於十一月四號信中，我們所承諾的三週期限數日。
我們對於柯醫師的疑慮非常認真地看待，且我們已經詳閱所有書中相關頁面並檢視當時撰寫依據的面談紀錄與文件。
我們認為，在台灣媒體上全面性的誤解與魯莽的指控，是因為Gutmann書中的英文與相關頁面被翻譯成中文過後，因為語言與文化的差異所造成的理解問題。
我們相信所有的誤解都會在中文版的The Slaughter中被澄清，其中會包含未收錄在英文版中的序言，會直接回應柯文哲醫師的疑慮。
為了讓事情更明朗，我們必須要指出，對於書中225頁的理解，完全沒有英語語系的評論家，有著跟第一語言是華語的台灣讀者有著相同解釋。 在您給Gutmann先生的信件中，您對於255頁的敘述「所有器官都是來自於法輪功」有特別的疑慮。
這本書有透過三位專業讀者同儕審查，且經Prometheus冗長的內部編輯過程，不僅包含文字內容，更須檢視作者的筆記、訪談的錄音帶以及電子溝通。
沒有任何英語系的讀者會將標題或是文字內容解讀為，柯文哲可從類似私人「器官仲介」交易的形式取得法輪功器官，只會解讀為柯文哲醫師是被告知資訊的。
迄今沒有任何英語系讀者曾經將柯文哲醫師解讀為器官仲介者。
迄今也沒有任何英語系讀者相信，柯文哲醫師曾試圖自行購買器官或是以任何形式參與營利行為。
相反地，多數讀者讚揚柯醫師對於調查的貢獻。審查人員們均一致地如此回應，就像是觀眾們在華盛頓特區National Endowment for Democracy中舉辦的The Slaughter書本發表會的反應一樣。
我們相信語言、翻譯以及在台北市市長選舉中激昂的政治環境，會導致大家誤會作者的意思並讓事情變得更模糊。
然而我們將全力確保在中文版的The Slaughter會越準確越好。
總而言之，我們重申我們認為台灣媒體對於柯文哲醫師以及Gutmann先生的對待是不公平的。Gutmann先生相信且我們認為他的書所闡述的是，柯文哲醫師的舉止高尚，柯文哲醫師從來不曾執行器官仲介，他也從來不曾透過中國器官市場進行獲利，且他對於揭露目前仍在中國進行的醫療犯罪行為有著重大國際級的貢獻，柯文哲醫師的行為是令人驕傲的。
克萊夫 安世立
敬上
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Your Letter to Mr. Gutmann on October
Please excuse us for having exceeded by a few days the three week time period within which we had agreed to expand upon our earlier letter to you of November 4.
We take Dr. Ko's concerns very seriously and we have reviewed the relevant pages in his book together with our own records of interviews and notes on which those pages were based.
We have concluded that the entire misunderstanding and the reckless accusations which have appeared in the Taiwan media would appear to be based on language and cultural differences between the English in Mr. Gutmann's book, on the one hand, and the understanding of the relevant pages when the latter have been rendered into Chinese.
We believe that all misunderstandings will be clarified in the Chinese edition of The Slaughter, which will contain a special preface not included in the English edition. This preface will address Dr. Ko's concerns directly.
For greater clarity, we would like to point out that no English speaking reviewer of the book has understood page 255 in the way it has apparently been understood in Taiwan by readers whose first language is Chinese.
In your letter to Mr. Gutmann, you specifically mentioned the caption on page 255 reading "All the Organs will come from Falun Gong" as a particular concern.
This book was peer-reviewed by three expert readers and subjected to a lengthy internal editing process by Prometheus. This review included not only the text itself, but also the author's notes, interview tapes, and electronic communications.
No English-speaking reader has understood the caption or the text to mean anything other than that Dr. Ko was being given information, rather than making a statement about the availability of Falun Gong organs in some sort of personal "organ broker" deal.

No English-speaking reader to date has understood for one moment that Dr. Ko was acting as an "organ broker".

No English-speaking reader to date believes that Dr. Ko was trying to purchase organs himself or was in any way involved in any sort of profit-making venture.

On the contrary, most readers have praised Dr. Ko for his contribution to the investigation. Reviewers have responded similarly, as did the audience at the author's book launch at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC.
We believe that language, translation, and the heated environment of the political campaign for the mayoral race in Taipei may be playing a role in misconstruing the author's intentions and clouding the issue.
Nonetheless we are interested in ensuring that the Chinese edition of The Slaughter is as accurate as possible. In conclusion, we reiterate that we think the Taiwan media has been unfair in its treatment of both Dr. Ko and Mr. Gutmann. Mr. Gutmann believes, and we think his book demonstrates, that Dr. Ko has acted honourably, that he has never been an organ broker, that he has never sought profit through China's organ marketing, and that he has contributed significantly to the international effort to expose the medical crimes which continue to be perpetrated in China.
Yours Truly
Clive Ansley