yonglie的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/yonglie

博文

细读一段英文

已有 4904 次阅读 2010-7-13 08:43 |个人分类:写作|系统分类:科研笔记

 
 
以前看Rudolf FleschHow to write, speak and think more effectively(台湾版中译本译名《英文宝典》),对它引用的一句Milton横看竖看都不明白。现在自以为有点儿进步了,于是想起拿它来解析,算“温故”一下,“知新”还要靠老师的指引。原文出自Areopagitica(也就是著名的《论出版自由》):  
For if we be sure we are in the right, and do not hold the truth guiltily, which becomes not, if we ourselves condemn not our own weak and frivolous teaching, and the people for an untaught and irreligious gadding rout, what can be more fair, than when a man judicious, learned, and of a conscience, for aught we know, as good as theirs that taught us what we know, shall not privily from house to house, which is more dangerous, but openly by writing publish to the world what his opinion is, what his reasons, and wherefore that which is now thought can not be sound.  
这句话的主干很简单:if we…, if we…, what can be more fair than…。“假如……,还有什么比……更好的呢?”可是,省略号里的内容太多,不能用一个短语或从句表达出来,所以用逗号分隔出那么多的“结巴式的”补充——可惜,分隔太多本来就容易误会或曲解(中外文都一样),我们当然更糊涂了。
 
For if好像不一定非说“因为假如”,这儿似乎更像我们古文里的“若夫”。第一行的困惑在于which becomes not,which说哪个?
 
What can be more fair than是很常见的句式,只不过后面的话长了一点儿。它的主干是a man shall not…but……在man后面跟了三个形容的字眼儿,两个插入的短语。
 
aught 等于all或anything。Theirs,我原想是对应前一句的our teaching,因为作者在前面的段落说了教会布道,“他们的”大概就指那个。但问题是,这儿的说的是a man as good as theirs,所以theirs似乎应该指人:those that (who) taught us…。要么我的理解错了,要么当时的英文不像今天那么严密,不好拿规则去套——请专家教我。
 
than后面的话,大概意思是,假如有个人,既贤明,又有学问,而且心地善良,和那些布道的人一样,他不会偷偷摸摸走家串户,而是公开写东西发表出来……这儿还有一个疑问:shall not privily from house to house,缺了一个动词(或be),不合语法,意思却很清楚。
 
其间还有一个喘气的句子:which is more dangerous,“那样更危险”——那样指“privily from house to house”。走街串巷挨门挨户地宣传,比公开发表你的意见更危险。Which不一定指某个名词,也可以指前面说的事情。那么,回头来看第一行的which,也指前面那句话(do not hold the truth guiltily)——“那可就不对了。”becomes not后面也略了一个词,只能是前面出现的(能与become搭配的)那个in the right。简单的类比是You’re right, but he is not.
 
Rudolf Flesch在书里将那段话改写成下面的“白话文”,我们看起来习惯多了:  
Supposedly we know and don’t purposely suppress the truth, our education is neither inefficient nor irresponsible, and there is no rampant ignorance and irreligion. Consequently, whoever is intelligent, educated and presumably honest should in all fairness be allowed to publish his arguments against current doctrine.  
但回过头去看,原文似乎更自然呢。它像说话,什么时候想补充了,就夹在句子中,不用考虑整合它们。就像我们听故事说,“那天,就在太阳落山的时候,那会儿你还没来呢,我们,还有刚才碰上的那两个,到了海边儿的那个礁石上,……”这样的文字,大概只能用那样的英文。
 
【补充】前两天引用了Abraham de MoivreDoctrine of Chances里的一段话,有读者说“费解”——如果是说数学或哲学思想的费解,那是数学史的故事;如果说英文费解,可以像上面那样解析一下。原文是三句话,第一句说存在一些定律:  
Again, as it is thus demonstrable that there are, in the constitution of things, certain Laws according to which Events happen, it is no less evident from Observation, that those Laws serve to wise, useful and beneficent purposes; to preserve the steadfast Order of the Universe, to propagate the several Species of Beings, and furnish to the sentient Kind such degrees of happiness as are suited to their State.  
不管again,那是承接上文的;其主干结构是  
it is demonstrable that there are certain laws, it is evident that those laws serve to purposes; serve to preserve …serve to propagate……,and furnish to……  
“事实可以说明有那样的定律,观察同样表明那些定律……”这儿说了两方面的定律,一个宇宙秩序的,一个繁衍生命的。the sentient Kind我想应该指人类,与前面的several Species of Beings对应。
 
第二句则说那些定律不是我们可以决定的。  
But such Laws, as well as the original Design and Purpose of their Establishment, must all be from without; the Inertia of matter, and the nature of all created Beings, rendering it impossible that any thing should modify its own essence, or give to itself, or to any thing else, an original determination or propensity.  
这句的主干是 
but such laws must all be from without, from inertia of matter, and from the nature of all beings.  
Rendering it是补充,相当于说this renders it……
 
第三句说那些定律应归于上帝:hence we shall be led to the acknowledgment……  
And hence, if we blind not ourselves with metaphysical dust, we shall be led, by a short and obvious way, to the acknowledgment of the great Maker and Governour of all; Himself all-wise, all-powerful and good.
 


https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-279992-343490.html

上一篇:章鱼之乐
下一篇:寒山的诗和宇宙的琴弦
收藏 IP: .*| 热度|

13 曹聪 钟炳 丁甜 王坤杰 黄晓磊 张天翼 张芳 陈湘明 鲍海飞 钟卫 luxiaobing12 ffy wudou5

发表评论 评论 (4 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-17 05:55

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部