客服微信: pphelpme

X

Reflection 影子 代写essay案例

文章类型:essay 发布时间:2019-08-07

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 author’s 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.
 
In my point of view, Vladimir Naokov’s translation, based on this article, could be seen as a very typical academic translation template that is able to convey Pushkin’s semantics, syntax in an accurate way, which is a very good version for cholars, learners who achieve a certain Russian level. However, Vladimir Naokov’s 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 Naokov’s 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 Naokov’s own thought, but more appreciate a language version including necessary paraphrases and free styles into it.
 
 
 
显然,弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫的这篇文章描述了作者为其奥涅金的翻译版本所采用的翻译方法,支持这种采用的原因,并进一步表明了他关于什么是正确的翻译方式的想法。在这篇文章的最开始,弗拉基米尔·诺科夫向那些赞扬任何翻译工作的人表达了他“无助的毛茸茸”。 (或)某某小姐“(第113页)使用陈词滥调取代原作者的伟大表达,这反映了他对字面翻译的偏好。后来,他提出了许多论据,试图证明不可能翻译作品的韵律,证明脚注是解释作品韵律的最佳方式,并证明使用抑扬格二聚体和抑扬格五音的适用性替换原作中的十四条无韵线(第125页)。然而,一个具有丰富脚注的识字翻译版本是否真的适合作为所有读者的着名杰作的另一种语言版本?我确实有很强烈的怀疑。
 
在我看来,弗拉基米尔·纳科夫的翻译,基于这篇文章,可以被看作是一个非常典型的学术翻译模板,能够以准确的方式传达普希金的语义,语法,这对于学习者来说是一个非常好的版本。达到一定的俄语水平。然而,弗拉基米尔·纳科夫(Vladimir Naokov)用大量脚注进行的字面翻译使得翻译版本失去了原创作品可能给读者带来的乐趣,趣味甚至审美愉悦,或者更具体地说,读者对俄语一无所知或很少知道从弗拉基米尔·诺科夫的版本中得到任何故事情节或有意义的灵感都很难,因为他们在他深刻而深不可测的表达中可能会遭受很多苦难,并且难以在主要文本和更易读的脚注之间切换。因此,我非常尊重弗拉基米尔·诺科夫自己的想法,但更喜欢语言版本,包括必要的释义和自由风格。