网课代刷,网课代刷平台,网课代看,刷课,刷网课,

寫作技巧

英國essay代寫-Reflection

顯然,弗拉基米爾·納博科夫(Vladimir Nabokov)的這篇文章描述了作者對奧涅金譯本所采用的翻譯方法、支持采用這種方法的原因,并進一步提出了他關于什么是正確翻譯方法的想法。在這篇文章的一開始,弗拉基米爾·納奧科夫(Vladimir Naokov)就向那些稱贊“先生”翻譯作品的人展示了他的“無助的毛茸茸”。 (或)某某小姐”(第113頁)用陳詞濫調代替原作者的精彩表達,體現了他對直譯的偏愛。后來他提出了很多論據,試圖證明用韻翻譯作品是不可能的,證明腳注是解釋作品押韻的最好方式,并證明使用抑揚格二度音符和抑揚格五音符的適用性。替換原作中的十四行不押韻的臺詞(第125頁)。然而,帶有大量腳注的文學翻譯版本真的適合作為所有讀者的知名杰作的另一種語言版本嗎?我確實有強烈的懷疑。


It is clear that this article by Vladimir Nabokov describes the translating method that the author adopts for his translation version of Onegin, the reason in support of such an adoption, and also further suggests his idea about what is the right way to make translation. At the very beginning of this article, Vladimir Naokov has shown his helpless furry towards those who praised any translating works done by Mr. (or) Miss So-and-so (p.113) that uses platitudes to take place of the original authors great expression, which reflects his preference for literal translation. Later, he made a lot of arguments with an attempt to demonstrate the impossibility to translate the works in rhyme, to prove that footnotes are best ways to explain the works rhymes, and to attest the suitability of the use of iambic dimeter and iambic pentameter to substitute the fourteen unrhymed lines in the original works (p.125). Nevertheless, is a literacy translation version with copious footnotes really appropriate to serve as another language version of a well-known masterpiece for all readers? I indeed have strong doubts.


在我看來,弗拉基米爾·納奧科夫(Vladimir Naokov)基于這篇文章的翻譯可以看作是一個非常典型的學術翻譯模板,能夠準確地傳達普希金的語義、句法,對于學者、學習者來說是一個非常好的版本。達到一定的俄語水平。然而,弗拉基米爾·納奧科夫(Vladimir Naokov)的大量腳注的直譯使翻譯版本失去了原著帶給讀者的樂趣、趣味甚至審美愉悅,或者更具體地說,讀者對俄語一無所知或知之甚少。很難從 Vladimir Naokov 的版本中獲得任何故事情節或有意義的靈感,因為他們可能會在他深刻而深不可測的表達中遭受很多痛苦,并且難以在正文和更具可讀性的腳注之間切換。因此,我非常尊重 Vladimir Naokov 自己的思想,但更欣賞包含必要釋義和自由風格的語言版本。

In my point of view, Vladimir Naokovs translation, based on this article, could be seen as a very typical academic translation template that is able to convey Pushkins semantics, syntax in an accurate way, which is a very good version for cholars, learners who achieve a certain Russian level. However, Vladimir Naokovs literal translation with a large amount of footnotes makes the translation version to lose enjoyment, interestingness, and even aesthetic pleasure that the original works could bring to readers, or, to be more specific, readers knowing nothing or very little about Russian could feel hard to get any storyline or meaningful inspiration from Vladimir Naokovs version, because they may suffer a lot in his profound and unfathomable expressions and struggle to switch between the main text and the more readable footnotes. As a result of it, I have strong respect for Vladimir Naokovs own thought, but more appreciate a language version including necessary paraphrases and free styles into it.



在線客服

售前咨詢
售后咨詢
微信號
Essay_Cheery
微信