Fidelity and freedom in translation have traditionally been regarded as conflicting tendencies. This deeper interpretation of the one apparently does not rve to reconcile the two; in fact, it ems to deny the other all justification. For what is meant by freedom but that the rendering of the n is no longer to be regarded as all-important? Only if the n of a linguistic creation may be equated with the information it conveys does some ultimate, decisive element remain beyond all communication---quite clo and yet infinitely remote, concealed or distinguishable, fragmented or powerful. In all language and linguistic creations there remains in addition to what can be conveyed something that cannot be (p. 21) communicated; depending on the context in which it appears, it is something that symbolizes or something symbolized. It is the former only in the finite products of language, the latter in the evolving of the languages themlves. And that which eks to reprent, to produce itlf in the evolving of languages, is that very nucleus of pure language. Though concealed and fragmentary, it is an active force in life as the symbolized thing itlf, whereas it inhabits linguistic creations only in symbolized form. While that ultimate esnce,
pure language, in the various tongues is tied only to linguistics elements and their changes, in linguistic creations it is weighted with a heavy, alien meaning. To relieve it of this, to turn the linguistic flux, is the tremendous and only capacity of translation. In this pure language---which no longer means or express anything but is, as expressionless and creative Word, that which is meant in all languages---all information, all n, and all intention finally encounter a stratum in which they are destined to be extinguished. This very stratum furnishes a new and higher justification for free translation; this justification does not derive from the n of what is to be conveyed, for the emancipation from this n is the task of fidelity. Rather, for the sake of pure language, a free translation bas the test on its own language. It is the task of the translator to relea in his own language that pure language which is under the spell of another, to liberate the language imprisoned in a work in his re-creation of that work. For the sake of pure language he breaks through decayed barriers of his own language. Luther, Voss, Hölderlin, and George have extended the boundaries of the German language. ---And what of the n in its importance for the relationship between translation and original? 擦手纸
母亲悼词>家务活英语
A simile may help here. Just as a tangent touches a circle lightly and at but one point, with this touch rather than with the point tting the law according to which it is to continue on its straight path to infinity, a translation touches the original lightly and only at the infinitely small point of the n, thereupon pursuing its own cour according to the laws of fidelity in the freedom of linguistic flux. Without explicitly naming or substantiating it, Rudolf Pannwits has characterized the true significance of this freedom. His obrvations are contained in Die Krisis der europäischen Kultur and rank with Goethe’s Notes to the Westöstlicher Divan as the best comment on the theory of translation that has been published in Germany. Pannwits writes: “Our translations, even the best ones, proceed from a wrong premi. They want to turn Hindi, Greek, English into German instead of turning German into Hindi, Greek, English. Our translators have a far greater reverence for the usage of their own language than for the spirit of the foreign works…. The basic error of the translator is that he prerves the state in which his own language happens to be instead of allowing his language to be powerfully affected by the foreign tongue. Particularly when translating from a language very remote from his own he must
九阳破壁豆浆机空虚的近义词go back to the primal elements of language itlf and penetrate to the point where work, image, and tone converge. He must expand and deepen his language by means of the foreign language. It is not generally realized to what extent this is possible, to what extent any language can be transformed, how language differs from language almost the way dialect differs from dialect; however, this last is true only if one takes language riously enough, not if one takes it lightly.”
The extent to which a translation manages to be in keeping with the nature of (p. 22) this mode is determined objectively by the translatability of the original. The lower the quality and the distinction of its language, the larger the extent to which it is information, the less fertile a field is it for translation, until the utter preponderance of content, far from being the lever for a translation of distinctive mode, renders it impossible. The higher the level of a work, the more does it remain translatable even if its meaning is touched upon only fleetingly. This, of cour, applies to originals only. Translations, on the other hand, proves to be untranslatable not becau of any inherent difficulty, but becau of the looness with which meaning attaches to them. Confirmation of this as well as of every
other important aspect is supplied by Höldlin’s translations, particularly tho of the two tragedies by Sophocles. 如何写情书>陕北民歌特点
项目工作计划
In them the harmony of the languages is so profound that n is touched by language only the way an aeolian harp is touched by the wind. Höldlin’s translations are prototypes of their kind; they are to even the most perfect renderings of their texts as a prototype is to a model. This can be demonstrated by comparing Höldlin’s and Rudolf Borchardt’s translations of Pindar’s Third Pythian Ode. For this very reason Höldlin’’s translations in particular are subject to the enormous danger inherent in all translations: the gates of a language thus expanded and modified may slam shut and enclo the translator with silence. Höldlin’s translations from Sophocles were his last work; in them meaning plunges from abyss to abyss until it threatens to become lost in the bottomless depths of language.
