"全數"vs"大多數"；可能(或者另一類，"假設語氣")vs "一定"
最近讀兩篇短篇，發現我們要特別注意"全數vs大多數；可能 (或者"假設語氣")vs "一定"
最近讀/討論了蕭乾先生的翻譯疏忽，他沒去查引文(典故)，原文是"假設語氣"的，也沒翻譯出來：
請教張華兄 "Psychology." by Katherine Mansfield 典故昨天才知道，胡適之先生翻譯過短篇小說Psychology，中間因故放棄。 我很想知道那些地方讓他翻譯不下去。 這篇，Wikipedia 有簡介，還指出用了兩是處西洋文學的典故。 其中，L. Carroll的，朋友張華視專家，所以我向他請教。以下是我們的筆談
-----全數與大多數
蘇錦坤兄寫的短文：
錯誤
http://yifertw.blogspot.tw/2017/01/blog-post_57.html
'What is Life?' Fiction, Not Science
What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Erwin Schrödinger. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1967. 96 pp. (Originally published in 1944.) Schrödinger's book is written is an engaging, lively, almost poetic style ("The probable lifetime of a radioactive atom is less predictable than that of a healthy sparrow.") Up to 1948 it drew 65 reviews and it has probably by now sold about 100,000 copies.
| April 6, 1987
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/8556/title/-What-is-Life---Fiction--Not-Science/
蘇先生："這本書正確的部分沒有原創性，有原創性而影響深遠的部分，則完全錯誤。" ----這是我所謂的"全數"之說法，其實原文的說法不是這樣，它的指控在某些方面更嚴重 (即，寫'What is Life?'時，並沒參考當時的較新的文獻，所以不知道那些當時已經知道了)，不過，它沒採用"全數"否定之說法，它這樣說：(原文。黑體字)：
I was asked by the organizers of the Schrödinger Centenary Symposium to review the influence of his book on molecular biology. I accepted with the intention of doing honor to Schrödinger's memory, but to my disappointment, a close study of his book and of the related literature has shown me that what was true in his book was not original, and most of what was original was known not to be true even when the book was written. The book also ignores some crucial discoveries that were published before it went into print. It is more fiction than science, which may account for its huge sales.
沒有留言:
張貼留言