The dearbookian # 20040407 - Translation Hack of lolita translation reading experience
[Here are some texts that ark chat with people in a forum]
In my opinion, Nabokov's work is extremely difficult because I feel that NABOKOV's work is the charm of the language itself, and it is changed to another language inevitable ingredient.
Nabokov's Lolita's Chinese translation I have 89th editions in the hand, the new version of the translation, Taiwan's new version. Two simplified translations basically grind the NABOKOV's writing and there is a serious translation error. Taiwan's traditional versions can be more acceptable, and there is no exudative translation error in the time of the time.
> Kingofark, can you mention some examples of translation and Taiwan version, I am very interested in this.
About Simplified translation with Taiwan Traditional Translation
1989 Edition: Zhejiang Literature Publishing House, Peng Xiaofeng / Kong Xiao Wei Translated 2000 Translation of Limin Publishing House, Yu Xiaodan Translated Taiwan 93 New Edition: Lin Yu Culture Business Co., Ltd., Huang Jianzi
Taiwan's traditional translation I haven't seen it carefully, but I feel that I feel much better than two simplified translations than two simplified translations. Many times, many times have a relationship with personal feelings and more depth literary translation research, I also know that I am ignorant, learning is shallow, translation, translation, and I don't dare to use a few words to summarize.
Regarding the accuracy, I propose two places you feel that you can discuss. Of course, this is my own kind, if you have omissions and fallacy, please criticize.
Discussion [1]
Original [Note the last two paragraphs]: "i" ll die if you touch me, "i said." You are Sure you are not coming with me? Is there oo hope of your coming? Tell me only this. "" NO, "SHE SAID." NO, HONEY, NO. "" NO, "SHE SAID," I Would Sooner Go Back to Cue. I Would Sooner Go Back to Cue. I Mean - "She Groped For Words. I Supplied Them Mentally ("He Broke My Heart. You MRELY BROKE My Life").
89 years of confidant translation (inexplicable version): (fore) "No." She said, "This is no doubt. I will go back to Keati, I ..." She is looking for the right words, I Hold her busy in my heart ("he broke my heart, you just ruined my life").
Translation of the 2000 new version (Dan Bab version): (fore) "No," she said, "This is absolutely impossible. I have to go back to Qiu sooner or later. I said ..." She is looking for a suitable The word, and I added her in my heart ("he shredded my heart, and you didn't break my life.")
Taiwan's 93-year version (can be accepted): (fore) "No," She then said, "This is impossible. I would rather return to Chu Dai. I said ..." She looks for the word, in my mind Give her to make up. "She ruined my heart, and you just ruined my life.")
The most worthless place is the last two paragraphs: "NO," She Said, "It is quite out of the question. I Would Sooner Go Back to Cue. I Mean -" She Groped for Words. I Supplied Them Mentally ("HE Broke my heart. You merely broke my life "). Among them:
1) I Would Sooner Go Back to Cue.
At this point, she has left Cue (which is a quilty), I am planning to launch my life with her husband Dick. So this sentence is obviously to strengthen the previous NO, it is a virtual voice, meaning "with it, I am not going back to CUE!" The two words of Would Sooner laid the virtual tone and refusal of this sentence. Expression of mean.
2) She groped for words.
Grope Words is "finding words"; and "word" itself has a tendency to reflect it should be "appropriate / proper words", so there is no need to completely add a "appropriate" or "appropriate" modification. .
3) He Broke my heart. You merely broke my life.
Two sentences are inexhaustible, otherwise merely cannot be used. In fact, Merely's usage is very subtle, and can only find "just, but" in the concise dictionary.
I think Merely is here a "strengthening", not a "means weakening". Contact the context, the whole sentence should be understood as "he hurts my heart. And you have a living to destroy my whole life (this is more serious, so I would rather return to him, I don't want to go with you)."
Discussion [2]
Original: At The Hotel We Had Separate Rooms, But in The Middle of The Night She Came Sobbing Into Mine, And We Made It Up Very Gently. You See, She Had Absolutely Nowhere else to Go.
89-year-old translation (inexplicable version):
In the hotel, we slept in bed, but in the middle of the night, she drilled into my arms. We are enjoying the feelings in warm honey. You know that she does not have other places.
Translation of the New 2000 New Edition (Di Barban):
At the hotel, we left the room, but when the night was deep, she whimped into my embrace, so the warmth of the gentleness was almost. You know that she doesn't have other places at all.
Taiwan's 93-year version (acceptable version):
In the hotel, we sleep each room. But in the middle of the night, she pulled up and climbed my bed, we warmly. You know, she doesn't have any other way.
among them:
1) At The Hotel We Had Separate Rooms, But in The Middle of The Night She Came Sobbing Into Mine,
The BUT sentence is connected to the previous sentence, so the mine in the BUT sentence refers to My Room.
2) And we name it up very gently.
Make it is UP, and well, the translation of the 89-year-old translation is really a hole.
3) You see, She Had Absolutely now else to go.
The "indeed" "indeed" translation of the 89 years is really no born. Taiwan's translation of "there is no other way to go" has a strongest ingredient, but it does not rule out the language of Taiwan's habits. [summary]
As can be seen:
1) The taste of Taiwan version "Inline" is a lot, but I think is that the key place is still correct (except that merely I have different opinions), the Taiwan version is dealing with Taiwan's speech habits, it should be said that the translator is still Think of the principle of understanding.
2) The 89-year simplified version accuracy zone, but reads more smooth than in 2000.
3) In 2000, the new version of the translation is much stronger than the 89-year version. It can be seen that its translator is still an understanding, but it feels that there is some dry Barba in writing, and it seems to translate very rush (so will appear later Would Sooner) Possible improper handling).
For the case of 2), 3), there is also a typical example is Thomas Harris's The Silence of The Lambs, and the translation has published two different versions, one is 95 years, Wu Anlan / Jiang Hui Jian; One is 98 years, Yang Hao translated. The 95-year translation accuracy has more mistakes, but the translation is quite smooth. Nowadays, there is a dinner product in the real-selling books of the highly participation; the translator of the 98-year edition is clearly understood and accurate. There is no problem, but the translation reads the hardship of dry, and the wax is chewed.
My feelings have been in the late 1990 years. Many excellent foreign bestselves have introduced to China. The quality of translation seems to be more sad and honest (as long as it is a new foreign book, I only look at the original text, because I can't stand it. - All written is all grinded. However, there have been no several :-(). Compared to the past 80, 70 or more foreign translation levels is quite high.
The above is my little. My things about literature are ignorant, learning is shallow, and some ideas are produced in purely on water deciduous interest. If there is something wrong, please also criticize
> Why didn't I feel that Merely has "means strengthening",> For women, she can make her sad, meaning that this person affects her more. > But this book I didn't have seen it, so I don't know how it is.
> I also think that Merely is still "just" what it means. "He made me heart, you just destroy my life.>" Lolita is obsessed with quilty.
> Wonderful! Thank you Kingofark, I learned new things from it. > I basically agree with Kingofark's insights. > You read more than me, this detail I have already jumped over, it is really embarrassed.
> As for merely, I checked Merriam-Webster "S, there is the following three meanings:> 1: Having no admiXture: Pure> 2 Obsolete: Being Nothing less Than: Absolute> 3: Being Nothing More Than > It should be the first or second meaning, otherwise I can't explain why she wants to go back.
> In addition, there is one to seek to you. > Why did three translations did not translate "Mine" in the second example into "My Room",> but translated into "My Bouche", "My Bed"? Why is it wrong?
