Argument198 【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第6次作业 by tianshi02 猛拍吧

tianshi02UID: 2362794

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.


The arguer presents an argument that the a translation’s failure to preserve the original meaning of the work is unwarranted. The arguer points out that the translators may have a thorough grasp of the original work, which, from my point of view, doesn’t lend enough support to the conclusion. A weak quotation is also cited to reinforce the argument, but it’s flawed in several aspects.

The argument rests on the fact that translators are occasionally outstanding authors themselves, and some works are just translated by their authors. Let’s accept this fact without doubting its correctness. The major problem is that the arguer’s assumption that if the translator gets to the underlying details and meanings of the original work, he or she can produce a perfect translation. This is not obvious at all. Rather, quite a bit of reasoning and evidence need including, if the arguer insists on its validity. A counterexample here could be that even if an author translates his or her own works, there may be some linguistic constraints that inhibit the exact translation. One example of the linguistic constrains is that the ways of thinking behind the facial meaning of the languages cannot be easily adjusted. Therefore, amazing as the translation skills of the author are, discrepancies between the original work and translated one can still divert the meaning of the original work.. In all, grasping the meaning is certainly crucial to the perfect translations, but in no way could be the only determining factor for the quality of the translated works.

Another flaw involved in the above fact is that a majority of translators may not be great authors, and certainly, a huge number of works are not directly translated by the people who have created them. Therefore, it’s not quite a convincing piece of evidence for the conclusion.

Finally, the quotation that “the violin and the piano make different sounds, but they can play what is recognizably the same piece of music” is not a good support. First, by “recognizably the same piece of music”, it implies that fundamental or essential differences could exist, as long as they don’t prevent recognition. However, the arguer is trying to show that a translated work resemble the original work, in such a way that essential meanings don not get lost. This is a much higher requirement than merely recognition. Second, using violin and piano as an analogy is not quite reasonable. The difference between them differ in an important respect from translation and the original work. Translation is produced based on the original work, whereas the violin and piano are simply 2 separately created things. Even if violin and piano can play exactly the same piece of music, it’s not immediately true that the translated work preserves all essential meanings conveyed in the original work.

To sum up, this argument is not well-supported, for the reason that the fact and quotation given both leave too much space for the readers to figure out the reasoning behind them. More analyses of the fact and explanation of the quotation need to be provided to make the argument cogent.

cynthia219UID: 2465245

The arguer presents an argument[url=] that the a translation’s failure to preserve the original meaning of the work[/url][微软中国1] is unwarranted. The arguer points out that [url=]the[/url][微软中国2] translators may have a thorough grasp of the original work, which, from my point of view, doesn’t lend enough support to the conclusion. A weak quotation is also cited to reinforce the argument, but it’s flawed in several aspects. The argument rests on the [url=]fact[/url][微软中国3] that translators are occasionally outstanding authors themselves, and some works are just translated by[url=] their authors[/url][微软中国4] . [url=]Let’s accept this fact without doubting its correctness.[/url][微软中国5] [url=]The major problem is that the arguer’s assumption that if the translator gets to the underlying details and meanings of the original work, he or she can produce a perfect translation. [/url][微软中国6] This is not obvious at all. Rather, quite a bit of reasoning and evidence need including, if the arguer insists on its validity. [url=]A counterexample here could be that even if an author translates his or her own works, there may be some linguistic constraints that inhibit the exact translation.[/url][微软中国7] One example of the linguistic constrains is that the ways of thinking behind the facial meaning of the languages cannot be easily adjusted. Therefore, amazing as the translation skills of the author are, discrepancies between the original work and translated one can still divert the meaning of the original work..[url=] In all, grasping the meaning is certainly crucial to the perfect translations, but in no way could be the only determining factor for the quality of the translated works. [/url][微软中国8] [url=]Another flaw involved in the above fact is that a majority of translators may not be great authors, and certainly, a huge number of works are not directly translated by the people who have created them. Therefore, it’s not quite a convincing piece of evidence for the conclusion. [/url][微软中国9] Finally, the quotation that “the violin and the piano make different sounds, but they can play what is recognizably the same piece of music” is not a good support. First, by “recognizably the same piece of music”, it implies that fundamental or essential differences could exist,[url=] as long as they don’t prevent recognition[/url][微软中国10] . [url=]However, the arguer is trying to show that a translated work resemble the original work, in such a way that essential meanings [/url]don not get lost. [微软中国11] This is a much higher requirement than merely recognition. Second, using violin and piano as an analogy is not quite reasonable. The difference between them differ in an important respect from translation and the original work. Translation is produced based on the original work, whereas the violin and piano are simply 2 separately created things. Even if violin and piano can play exactly the same piece of music, it’s not immediately true that the translated work preserves all essential meanings conveyed in the original work. To sum up, this argument is not well-supported, for the reason that the fact and quotation given both leave too much space for the readers to figure out the reasoning behind them. More analyses of the fact and explanation of the quotation need to be provided to make the argument cogent

我觉得作者写作中对句子句式的把握不错，学习了
但是，作者在总体思路上的把握应该注意一下，而且，作者的第一个和第三个逻辑错误都做了详细的分析，第二个很简单。虽然作文是有详有略，但是否可以考虑把第二个逻辑错误放在最后？可能读起来更舒服一些。
[微软中国1]从句结构不完整，缺动词，且the和a重叠


[微软中国2]可删去


[微软中国3]是否是fact？觉得应该用assumption或者hypothesis


[微软中国4]Orginal author，否则翻译作者也是作者


[微软中国5]你想表达的意思是姑且不怀疑这个事件的正确性还是在不用考虑其正确性的前提下让我们认为它是个事实？感觉有歧义。


[微软中国6]不好意思我并没有看出作者有这个假设前提


[微软中国7]思路句式都很好


[微软中国8]个人觉得这个总结句不好。因为题目中主要是说翻译是否会遗漏原著中重要的点，作者的总结句貌似在强调影响翻译质量的其他因素。


[微软中国9]同样是不喜欢这段的论述。虽然我明白了作者想表达的意思，但是从句子翻译就是：另一个上述事实总的漏洞是……而且，我觉得有必要进行深入分析


[微软中国10]我没有看懂


[微软中国11]没看懂

tianshi02UID: 2362794