问答题
A reader in Florida, apparently bruised by some personal experience, writes in to complain, "If I steal a nickel"s worth of merchandize, I am a thief and punished; but if I steal the love of another man"s wife, I am free." This is a prevalent misconception in many people"s minds—that love, like merchandize, can be "stolen". Numerous states, in fact, have enacted laws allowing damages for "alienation of affections".
But love is not a commodity; the real thing cannot be bought, sold, traded or stolen. It is an act of the will, turning of the emotions, a change in the climate of the personality.
When a husband or wife is "stolen" by another person, that husband or wife was already ripe for the stealing, was already predisposed toward a new partner. The "love bandit" was only taking what was waiting to be taken, what wanted to be taken.
We tend to treat persons like goods. We even speak of children "belonging" to their parents. But nobody "belongs" to anyone else. Each person belongs to himself and to God. Children are entrusted to their parents, and if their parents do not treat them properly, the state has the right to remove them from their parents" trusteeship.
Many of us, when young, had the experience of a sweetheart being taken away from us by somebody more attractive and more appealing. At the time, we may have resented this intruder—but as we grew older, we recognized that the sweetheart had never been ours to begin with. It was not the intruder that "caused" the break, but the lack of a real relationship.
On the surface, many marriages seem to break up because of a "third party". This is, however, a psychological illusion. The other woman or the other man merely serves as a pretext for dissolving a marriage that had already lost its essential integrity.
Nothing is more futile and more self-defeating than the bitterness of spurned love, the vengeful feeling that someone else has "come between" oneself and a beloved. This is always a distortion of reality, for people are not the captive of victims of others—they are free agents, working out their own destinies for good or for ill.
But the rejected lover or mate cannot afford to believe that his beloved has freely turned away from him—and so he ascribes sinister or magical properties to the interloper. He calls him hypnotist or a thief or a home-breaker. In the majority of cases, however, when a home is broken, the breaking has begun long before any "third party" has appeared on the scene.
【正确答案】
【答案解析】一位来自佛罗里达州的读者来信向我抱怨,他似乎有过什么受伤的经历。他写道:“如果我偷走了五分钱的商品,我就是个贼,要受到惩罚,但是如果我偷走了他人妻子的爱情,我却不必因此受到惩罚。”这便是许多人心目中对爱情的误解,即爱情,像商品一样,可以被“偷走”。实际上,许多州都颁布了法令,允许索取“情感转让”赔偿金。
但是爱情并非商品;真情实意是不可能被购买、出售、交易或者偷走的。爱情是将意愿付诸实践,是自我情绪的释放,是对个性的改变。
当一个丈夫或妻子被别人“偷走”时,他们被偷走的条件其实已经成熟,早已做好了接受新伴侣的准备。这位“爱匪”不过是取走了“等待被取走、盼望被取走”之物。
我们往往待人如物。我们甚至说孩子“属于”父母。但是谁也不“属于”谁。人都属于自己和上帝。父母是孩子的委托人,如果他们不善待子女,州政府就有权剥夺他们的托管权。
我们年轻时,大多都有过这样的经历:一个比我们漂亮、有魅力的人夺走了我们的恋人。当时,我们兴许怨恨这位不速之客抢走我们的爱人。但是随着岁月流逝,我们开始认识到,所谓的心上人,从来就不属于我们。并不是第三者的入侵“导致了”我们的决裂,而是我们之间本来就缺乏真正的感情。
从表面上看,许多婚姻似乎是因为有了“第三者”才破裂的。然而这只是一种心理上的幻觉。实际上,那些破裂的婚姻在第三者出现之前就已经失去了原本的意义,而第三者却往往成为导致婚姻破裂的替罪羔羊。
因失恋而痛苦,因别人“插足”于自己与心上人之间而图报复,是最于事无补的。这是对现实的曲解,因为谁都不是别人的俘虏或牺牲品,每个人的命运都掌握在自己手中,不论最终爱情的结局是圆满还是破裂,都是自己造成的。
但是,遭离弃的一方始终无法相信他的心上人会无缘无故地离他而去——因而归咎于插足者心术不正或迷人有招。被抛弃的一方往往把第三者称为催眠师、窃贼或破坏家庭的人。然而,大多数事例表明,最终破裂的家庭早在“第三者”出现之前就已经开始出现问题了。
[解析] A reader in Florida, apparently bruised by some personal experience, writes in to complain, "If I steal a nickel"s worth of merchandise, I am a thief and punished; but if I steal the love of another"s wife, I am flee."
本句着重强调读者来信抱怨一事,因此“个人的受伤经历”这一部分可以单列出来翻译,放在后面,以突出原文所表达的重点。
一位来自佛罗里达州的读者来信向我抱怨,他似乎有过什么受伤的经历。他写道:“如果我偷走了五分钱的商品,我就是个贼,要受到惩罚,但是如果我偷走了他人妻子的爱情,我却不必因此受到惩罚。”
This is a prevalent misconception in many people"s minds that love, like merchandise, can be "stolen".
这一句中的“this”指的是上文中的观点,因此翻译时需要使用恰当的连接词承接上文,可译为“这便是”,使句子间的衔接更加自然、紧密。
这便是许多人心目中对爱情的误解,即爱情,像商品一样,可以被“偷走”。
Numerous states, in fact, have enacted haws allowing damages for "alienation of affections".
“in fact”是一个插入语,翻译时可按照中文的表达习惯放在句首。这句话中包含了后置定语成分,信息较多,用拆分法翻译,表达更加明晰。
实际上,许多州都颁布了法令,允许索取“情感转让”赔偿金。
But love is not a commodity; the real thing cannot be bought, sold, traded or stolen.
参考译文将“bought, sold, traded or stolen”全部翻译为两个字的词语,保持了原文的句子结构。
但是爱情并非商品;真情实意是不可能被购买、出售、交易或者偷走的。
It is an act of the will, a turning of the emotions, a change in the climate of the personality.
翻译这句话时不可过分拘泥于原文的字面意义,应该采取意译的手法,传达出作者想要表达的意思。
爱情是将意愿付诸实践,是自我情绪的释放,是对个性的改变。
When a husband or wife is "stolen" by another person, that husband or wife was already ripe for the stealing, was already predisposed toward a new partner.
这句话所含信息较多,翻译时需要适当调整原文句子成分的位置,添加合适的连接词,使之符合中文的表达习惯。
当一个丈夫或妻子被别人“偷走”时,他们被偷走的条件其实已经成熟,早已做好了接受新伴侣的准备。
The "love bandit" was only taking what was waiting to be taken, what wanted to be taken.
“love bandit”形译为“爱匪”,体现了语言的形象性。
这位“爱匪”不过是取走了“等待被取走、盼望被取走”之物。
Children are entrusted to their parents, and if their parents do not treat them properly, the state has a center to remove them from their parents" trusteeship.
原文中使用了被动结构,表示“孩子被托付给父母”,由于中文习惯用主动句,因此参考译文稍加转换,将被动变为主动,使整个句子的前后连接更加自然流畅。
父母是孩子的委托人,如果他们不善待子女,州政府就有权剥夺他们的托管权。
Many of us, when young, had the experience of a sweetheart being taken from us by somebody more attractive and more appealing.
原句同样使用了被动句,翻译时可以适当地调整句子成分的位置,将其转化为一个主动句,更加符合中文的表达习惯。
我们年轻时,大多都有过这样的经历:一个比我们漂亮、有魅力的人夺走了我们的恋人。
At the time, we may have resented this intruder—but as we grew older, we recognized that the sweetheart had never been ours to begin with.
“intruder”指“擅自闯入者”,这里可将意义补充完整,即“抢走我们爱人的不速之客”。“grew older”原指“长大了”,这里强调岁月流逝后,我们的顿悟,因此可译为“随着岁月流逝”。
当时,我们兴许怨恨这位不速之客抢走我们的爱人。但是随着岁月流逝,我们开始认识到,所谓的心上人,从来就不属于我们。
It was not the intruder that "caused" the break, but the lack of a real relationship.
“intruder”在这里可译为“第三者的入侵”,正是作者想要表达的含义。“real relationship”原意是“真正的关系”,这里可意泽为“真正的感情”。
并不是第三者的入侵“导致了”我们的决裂,而是我们之间本来就缺乏真正的感情。
On the surface, many marriages seem to break up because of a "third party".
“第三者”的英文是“third party”,需要考生掌握。
从表面上看,许多婚姻似乎是因为有了“第三者”才破裂的。
This is, however, a psychological illusion.
“psychological”是形容词,译为“心理上的”,参考译文中使用了其副词的含义。
然而这只是一种心理上的幻觉。
The other woman or the other man merely serves as a pretext for dissolving or a marriage that had already lost its essential integrity.
本句采用意译,表达了作者的意思,语言更加简洁清晰。
实际上,那些破裂的婚姻在第三者出现之前就已经失去了原本的意义,而第三者却往往成为导致婚姻破裂的替罪羔羊。
Nothing is more futile and more self-defeating than the bitterness of spurned love, the vengeful feeling that someone else has "come between" oneself and a beloved.
本句中需要注意“futile”和“self-defeating”两个词语的含义,这里表示一种无力、无助的感觉,因此可译为“于事无补”。其次需要注意,否定的比较级表达的是最高级的含义。
因失恋而痛苦,因别人“插足”于自己与心上人之间而图报复,是最于事无补的。
This is always a distortion of reality, for people are not the captives or victims of others they are free agents, working out their own destinies for good or for ill.
这句话中很多词语的翻译都需要用意译的方法,而不能按照字面意思直译,例如“free agent”是名词,但是表达的却是“每个人掌握自己的命运”的含义。同样,“最后的命运的好坏”所表达的意思是“爱情的结局”。
这是对现实的曲解,因为谁都不是别人的俘虏或牺牲品,每个人的命运都掌握在自己手中,不论最终爱情的结局是圆满还是破裂,都是自己造成的。
But the rejected lover or mate cannot afford to believe that his beloved has freely turned away from him—and so he ascribes sinister or magical properties to the interloper.
“freely”的原意是“自由地”,在这里不能按照字面意思来翻译,而应该深入理解原文的含义,即“没有任何理由地无故离开”。
但是,遭离弃的一方始终无法相信他的心上人会无缘无故地离他而去——因而归咎于插足者心术不正或迷人有招。
He calls him a hypnotist or a thief or a home-breaker.
翻译这句话时,需要弄清句中的指代词分别指代谁。第一个“he”指的是“被抛弃的人”,后面的“him”则是指代“第三者”。
被抛弃的一方往往把第三者称为催眠师、窃贼或破坏家庭的人。
In the vast majority of cases, however, when a home is broken, the breaking has begun long before any "third party" has appeared on the scene.
“the breaking has begun”指的是“破裂已经开始”,意译为“就已经开始出现问题了”较为自然,符合中文的表达习惯。
然而,大多数事例表明,最终破裂的家庭早在“第三者”出现之前就已经开始出现问题了。