A simple remark yet it baffles the awesome

wherestip wrote:

"The astonishing thing is that these discoveries were made at all"

As I said, in usages like this, astonishment is expressed toward a fact or action, while the person effecting the fact or action is often not even explicitly mentioned. That is because who the person is is not that important to the main thrust of what is being said. IMO, it certainly was not with the point that Einstein was trying to make ...

所以说， 如果在翻译 爱因斯坦最后一句话时 特别指出并添加上 “西方”，难免是画蛇添足，曲解了他的原义。他原话只是赞叹历史上这两个重要突破的发现， 毫无 褒表或贬低 任何一方的意思。

我与Martin J. Klein教授和F.L.Holmes 教授讨论过关于如何理解Einstein 的回信，特别是信的最后一句话的问题。他们都认为，Einstein 信中最后一句话的意思是：“使人惊奇的是，那些发现，【不论在何处或被何人，】到底都被做出来了(and that’s enough!)。”由此看来，《爱因斯坦文集》中的中文译文中，译者在最后一句中所加入的“在中国”三个字，是因误解原文而导致的误译。“在中国”三个字应该从译文中删去。

Klein教授认为，Einstein 在其回信中并未就关于古代中国人是否做出了信中所述的两个发现作出肯定或者否定的判断。（Martin said that Einstein was not an expert in the history of science in China. It is probably irresponsible for him to make such kind of judgment on this important question.）Einstein的意思是：究竟谁做出的那些发现是不重要的，重要的是它们毕竟被做出来了！

Martin J. Klein
Editor
1993-1996: Einstein Papers Project. Lead editor, Volumes 3, 4, 5; editor, Volume 6, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Princeton University Press

Development of Western Science is based on two great achievements: the invention of the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the possibility to find out causal relationship by systematic experiment (Renaissance).

In my opinion one has not to be astonished that the Chinese sages have not made these steps. The astonishing thing is that these discoveries were made at all.

西方科学的发展是以两个伟大的成就为基础的：希腊哲学家（在欧几里得几何学中）所发明的形式逻辑体系，以及(在文艺复兴时期)发现的通过系统实验找出因果关系的可能性。

在我看来，人们不必对中国的贤哲们未能迈出这两步而感到惊讶。令人惊奇的倒是那些发现到底都作出来了。

ysun wrote:



http://www.sef.hku.hk/~cgxu/chinese/90/Hudanian.doc
胡大年的译文：

Martin J. Klein (M. J. Klein) (June 25, 1924 – March 28, 2009) was a science historian of 19th and 20th century physics. At Yale University, he was the Eugene Higgins emeritus professor of the history of physics and an emeritus professor of physics. He was elected to the Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences (1971), the National Academy of Sciences (1977) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1979).

In 2005 Professor Klein was the first recipient of the Abraham Pais Prize for History of Physics, a joint award of the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics.

nigerose wrote:

按原文，两大成就，即两个基础，也即两个叙述的主题，一个是“invention”（发明），另一个是“discovery”（发现）。
胡译易被理解为，两个基础，也即两个叙述的主题，一个是“形式逻辑体系”，另一个是“可能性”。
胡译第二句倒是很好。

nigerose wrote:

... 当然这个考虑只是从爱因斯坦的这句话 ...

nigerose wrote:

试拍2：
In my opinion one need not be astonished that the Chinese sages did not make these steps. The astonishing thing is that these discoveries were made at all.”
原译有点直译和语气不太顺，试译：
在我看来，中国先贤们未能作出这些成就不足为奇，值得惊奇的倒是西方居然作出了这些成就。
（这里discoveries应指“two great achievements”）


[修改时间: 2012-01-22 11:16 GMT]

ysun wrote:


“值得惊奇的倒是西方居然作出了这些成就”这种说法，给读者的感觉就是“作出这些成就的本来不应该是西方”。就如同“值得惊奇的倒是一个语文考60分的中学生居然获得了新概念作文大赛的一等奖”。

顺便提一句，爱因斯坦的那封信就只有上面提到的那两段话。请见此文第14页上的影印件：
http://www.sef.hku.hk/~cgxu/chinese/90/Hudanian.doc

我们翻译文件，只能按照看到的文字来翻。不能根据推测，更不可能还得去考虑作者“鲜为人知的另一面”。

nigerose wrote:

“居然”的意思是“表示出乎意料”，如果从爱因斯坦的西方人优越感出发，用“居然”是可以的，即爱因斯坦可能在思考，为什么西方能有这些“成就”，中国就没有？也即对于中国来说，one need not be astonished that the Chinese sages did not make these steps（也许爱因斯坦骨子里就认为中国不行，所以中国没有这些成就不值得大惊小怪）；对于西方来说，The astonishing thing is that these discoveries were made at all（也就是说，西方能有这些成就才是令人惊奇的，出乎意料的）。

...

在这里讨论讨论而已，我在翻译实践中绝对不会这样加词的。所谓“加词”的翻译技巧多是语言学者“鼓吹”的。加词的做法风险非常高，“吃不了兜着走”。


[修改时间: 2012-01-31 10:32 GMT]

kenny2006woo wrote:

中國人一般只會把“拙見”用在自己身上，把“卓見”用在他人身上。

“拙見”并不一定不卓，謙辭而已。