ARGUMENT198 感觉写偏了~大大们看看吧~狠力批

speaklessUID: 2205899

198.There is a general idea that a translation always fails to preserve some of the qualities that distinguish the original work-i.e., that 'something always gets lost in translation.' Writers, critics, and the general reading public unthinkingly accept this cliché. But this belief is unwarranted: translators are sometimes distinguished authors themselves, and some authors may even translate their own works. As the translator pointed out in the preface to an English version of Dante's works, the violin and the piano make different sounds, but they can play what is recognizably the same piece of music.

1.       攻击翻译者可以区别作者，指出这种不同和原著的不同是不一样的，不在一个层次
2.       攻击作者自己翻译不代表他可以翻译的好，也不代表自己翻译的作品就不会丧失特点
3.       攻击最后一个比喻，说明那个比喻实际上是反对了作者的论点
The argument wants to overthrow a general idea that a translation always fails to preserve some of qualities. Although it seems plausible at the first glance, there are still some fallacies in the process of reasoning that may undermine its vitality.

Firstly, the arguer confuses the concepts of “distinguished qualities” of original works and translated ones. The distinguished qualities of original works contain many characteristics, such as the inner meaning of the sentence, the way to describe a thing with words, the distinguished thoughts of writers. On the other hand, the distinguished qualities of translated ones are concerned with other aspects which are quite different from the former ones: the different comprehension with its original meanings, the way to translate the meaning to readers, the overall arrangement of keystones in translator’s eyes. Apparently, the two which has distinct inner meaning with each others can not be treated as the same. So although translators are sometimes distinguished authors themselves, it does not indicate that these differences equal to the qualities of original works.

Secondly, the fact that some authors may even translate their own works leads no supports to the conclusion that it can help to preserve some of the qualities of the original work. The processes of writing and translating are quite different: the key-point of the writing process is always the ideas of the writer in the pre-condition that the writer is always quite familiar with the language which is his/her mother tongue in most circumstances; however when the problem turns to the translating one, the key-point must be took places by the problem of mastering the other language which is probably a less familiar one. So in this circumstance, if an Chinese writer wants to translate his works to English version, it is quite possible that some of the qualities, such as the expression of some important ideas, may be lost due to lacking the abilities of English writing.

Last but not the least, the figuration of the preface cannot support the arguer’s conclusion that translation types sometimes preserve the qualities, on the other hand, I think it is actually successful to refute it. The violin and the piano can play what is recognizably the same piece of music, which equals to the original and the translated ones can express the meaning what is recognizably the same piece of writing. However, it has no indication that the translated one has not lost any qualities that distinguish the original ones because person who have basic knowledge of music instruments can find the differences between the two pieces of music which have the same notes. So the different qualities and strength of music instruments are the reason why the latter one has lost some qualities that may distinct the first one. In this sense, the figuration of the preface has supported the general idea and opposed the arguer’s.

In sum, with many fallacies, the arguer fails to make a conclusion that the translated workings can preserve the qualities that many distinguish the original one. To better support this, the arguer should contains more reliable examples.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-7-20 01:05 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

The argument wants to overthrow a general idea that a translation always fails to preserve some of qualities(要么复述全, 要么就不复述, 这样腰斩题目主题句不合适). Although it seems plausible at the first glance, there are still some fallacies in the process of reasoning that may undermine its vitality.

Firstly, the arguer confuses the concepts of “distinguished qualities” of original works and translated ones. The distinguished qualities of original works contain many characteristics, such as the inner meaning of the sentence, the way to describe a thing with words, the distinguished thoughts of writers. On the other hand, the distinguished qualities of translated ones are concerned with other aspects which are quite different from the former ones: the different comprehension with its original meanings, the way to translate the meaning to readers, the overall arrangement of keystones in translator’s eyes. Apparently, the two which has distinct inner meaning with each others can not be treated as the same. So although translators are sometimes distinguished authors themselves, it does not indicate that these differences equal to the qualities of original works.
(这段你理解错了吧
dis·tin·guished
Pronunciation: -(g)wisht
Function: adjective
1 : marked by eminence, distinction , or excellence <distinguished leadership>
2 : befitting an eminent person <a distinguished setting>
这里它是个形容词, 不是过去分词--过去分词不能直接当定语的, 我们平时看到的貌似定语的过去分词其实都是形容词, 做形容词的时候distinguished没有"被区分出来的"意思
从句法上分析也可以知道这里作者的出发点:
后一句说作者本身就是翻译者, 那么这里肯定是在说翻译者是作者, 所以它的意思是"翻译家本身就是很杰出的作家", 也就是说这里两个并列式彼此等同相互补充, 攻击的时候只要说"翻译家是作家不能说明他们就不会弄丢作品的信息, 最牛逼的作家也未必能理解其他作家作品的优点)

Secondly,(前段理解的话这里用On the other hand比较合适) the fact that some authors may even translate their own works leads no supports to the conclusion that it can help to preserve some of the qualities of the original work. The processes of writing and translating are quite different: the key-point of the writing process is always the ideas of the writer in the pre-condition that the writer is always quite familiar with the language which is his/her mother tongue in most circumstances; however when the problem turns to the translating one, the key-point must be took places by the problem of mastering the other language which is probably a less familiar one. So in this circumstance, if an Chinese writer wants to translate his works to English version, it is quite possible that some of the qualities, such as the expression of some important ideas, may be lost due to lacking the abilities of English writing. (没必要具体到两种语言, 说一个作家用他的非母语去翻译就行了, 然后还可以提些别的元素, 比如语言本身的不同性, 有些双关语, 谐音的区别, 等等, 别把自己的攻击区域限定得太死了)

Last but not the least,(这个开头还是模板化, 这里的攻击点跟前两条不是一个逻辑层面了, 用这种没信息量的引导词没什么意思, 要么不用, 要么用个besides之类的就行了) the figuration of the preface cannot support the arguer’s conclusion that translation types sometimes preserve the qualities(这句话还是模板化了, 比喻用作support虽说不是可以, 但感觉上并不精确, 用个analyze之类的词更精确), on the other hand (by contrast/oppositely 你用的着词是表示同样意思的, 是并列不是对比), I think it is actually successful to refute it.(最好先解释作者错哪了, 然后再从本质上进行分析, 而不是在refute后面先说共同点) The violin and the piano can play what is recognizably the same piece of music, which equals to the original and the translated ones can express the meaning what is recognizably the same piece of writing. However, it has no indication that the translated one has not lost any qualities that distinguish the original ones because person who have basic knowledge of music instruments can find the differences between the two pieces of music which have the same notes. So (你这里在解释前面的论断, 不是因果) the different qualities and strength of music instruments are the reason why the latter one has lost some qualities that may distinct the first one. (翻译呢? 你要说的是翻译, 这个不同提出来了, 为什么不进一步联系到主题? 比如说, 不同语言带有的情感也不一样, 读音不同结构不同产生的效果不同, 这种情况类似音乐, 而且也会使本来的特征被扭曲)In this sense, the figuration of the preface has supported the general idea and opposed the arguer’s.

In sum, with many fallacies, the arguer fails to make a conclusion that the translated workings can preserve the qualities that many distinguish the original one. To better support this, the arguer should contains more reliable examples.

总评:
这道题跟其它题不太一样, 涉及到更多的背景知识, 但也因此错误比较明显, 所以相对好写些 (对此题几乎没有印象, 可能不是ETS喜欢考的ARGUMENT类型所以频率不高)
BODY第一段似乎对词义理解有错
第二段的例子举得不太合适, 不过论证很充分
第三段没有跟题目内容直接联系起来, 最后一个逻辑环节有所欠缺
总体而言还是不错的, 如果时间够的话开头和结尾可以再花点功夫