argument198 ,拍吧

roinyouUID: 2447501

1月7号作业， argument198 有点抽象，请拍吧，谢谢各位G友。

This argument claims that it is refutable of the general idea that a translation fails to preserve the original work. It cites three facts to support  that this belief is unwarranted as some translators are the distiguished, and some are even the the autor themselves, and it also refer a translator's analogy from the violin and piano. Nevertheless, the reasons and evidence for the claim have several flaws that render the conclusion unconvincing.

First of all, it assumes that the famous and distiguished authors have the capacity to translate the work with perfect performance. However, a best author does not mean that he/she is a best translator. Authors are used to express what their feelings and their mind, he/she usually is good at one language, on the other hand, the translators usually are good at at least two languages, and what they do are not express themselves by that language put down, but express others' mind and feelings. It is entirely possible that the translators do not understand the another's work very well, and if it is that case, even he/she is one of the best distiguished translator, he/she can not translator the original work.

Furthur more, the author also assumes that the authors themselves are able to perfectly  translate their work with another language. Admittedly, authors themselves do understand their original work, but the perhaps have no experice to handle another language to translate the original work, even he/she have the capacity to translate, it is possible that the work is limited by the culture or the language, it is difficult for his/her to translate the abstract concept by another language.<br />

Still, it cites the a translator's analogy of translation and origin as the the musical work played by different instruments. However, the author does not provide any substantiated evidence to show whether the relationship make sense. The literal arts is different from music arts in many aspects, and one music work may be played by violin and by piano in same success, but this situation may not happen in the translation scenario.

To sum up, only one who is one one hand the distigush author who can totally understand the orginal work and the other hand the translator are able to handle another language to tranlate the original work, is able to perserve the original work. To bolster the claim, the author also have to give more infomation to substantiate the analogy makes sense, or the author can not convince me that the general belief is unwarranted.

[ 本帖最后由 roinyou 于 2009-1-7 22:03 编辑 ]

tianshi02UID: 2362794

This argument claims that it is refutable of the general idea that a translation fails to preserve the original work. It cites three facts to support  that this belief is unwarranted as some translators are the distiguished authors, and some are even the the autor themselves, and it also refer to a translator's analogy from the violin and piano. Nevertheless, the reasons and evidence for the claim have several flaws that render the conclusion unconvincing. 开头精彩：开门见山，简洁流畅

First of all, it assumes that the famous and distiguished authors have the capacity ->capability to translate the work with perfect performance. However, a best author does not mean that he/she is a best translator. Authors are used to express what their feelings and their mind, he/she usually is good at one language, on the other hand, the translators usually are good at at least two languages, and what they do are not to express themselves by that language put down, but to express others' mind and feelings. It is entirely possible that the translators do not understand the another's work very well, and if it is that case, -> if that is the case, even he/she is one of the best distiguished translator, he/she can not translator the original work.

Furthur more, Furthermore, the author also assumes that the authors themselves are able to perfectly  translate their work with another language. Admittedly, authors themselves do understand their original work, but the perhaps have no experice to handle another language to translate the original work, even he/she have the capacity to translate, it is possible that the work is limited by the culture or the language, it is difficult for his/her to translate the abstract concept by -> in  another language.<br />

Still, it cites the a translator's analogy of translation and origin as the the musical work played by different instruments. (首句中国式的翻译痕迹明显） However, the author does not provide any substantiated evidence to show whether the relationship makes sense. The literal arts is different from music arts in many aspects, and one music work may be played by violin and by piano in same success, but this situation may not happen in the translation scenario.  (可在这里通过举例展开分析，体现出这个类比的不合理）

To sum up, only one who is one ->on one hand the distigushed author who can totally understand the orginal work and the other hand the translator are able to handle another language to tranlate the original work, is able to perserve the original work. To bolster the claim, the author also have to give more infomation to substantiate the analogy makes sense, or the author can not convince me -> readers that the general belief is unwarranted.

总的感觉，结构合理清晰，论述严密但可更深入。继续努力！