钱钟书的英文

新语丝 　　　　 　　　　御用翻译钱钟书副博士闹了一个大笑话 　　　　 　　　　 　　　　钱钟书在《围城》里竭力卖弄英语, 肆意刻薄他人。但他自己在第一章 　　　　就闹了一个大笑话。 　　　　 　　　　钱钟书在《围城》第一章里写道: 　　　　 　　　　“相传爱尔人的不动产（Irish fortune）是奶和屁股；“ 　　　　http://www.mh2003.com/mhss/mhss/mjzp/wc/002.htm 　　　　 　　　　对英语有所了解的人, 一看就知道钱钟书又在不懂装懂、信口乱说了。 　　　　其实, “Irish fortune“是个俚语(slang), 它的意思查查字典就明白了, 　　　　比方说这儿: 　　　　http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/Irish%20fortune 　　　　 　　　　很明显, “Irish fortune“是指女子的vagina or vulva, 与奶和屁股 　　　　毫无关系。更贻笑大方的是, 钱钟书望文生义, 把“Irish fortune“ 　　　　照字面翻译成“爱尔人的不动产“(实际上, “fortune“不能翻成“不动产“, 　　　　这里就不计较了), 于是有了下面莫名其妙的说法: 　　　　 　　　　爱尔人的不动产是奶和屁股。 　　　　 　　　　Q: 怎样翻译“Let’s go Dutch“? 　　　　 　　　　A: 钱钟书很可能会这样翻: “让我们去荷兰“。 　　 　　 『英语杂谈』 [解疑]为什么钱钟书的英语不是好的英语?(转载) 作者：Cody9999 提交日期：2004-10-5 8:46:00 访问：3431 回复：79 [ZT] 钱钟书的英文 　　　　 　　　　可能 递交于 04-06-2004: 　　　　 　　　　最近找来了钱钟书所有的英文论文。不敢专有，敲出一段大家读读。 　　　　 　　　　T’ien Hsia Monthly, August, 1935, P37. 　　　　 　　　　Tragedy in Old Chinese Drama 　　　　 　　　　By Ch’ien Chung-shu 　　　　 　　　　The critical pendulum has once more swung back and there are signs 　　　　that our old literature is coming into favour again. Knowing persons 　　　　have also told us that there is just at present even a craze for our 　　　　old literature among foreigners and that our old drama especially has 　　　　all the cry in the West. We are quite proud to hear these things. 　　　　That our old drama should lead the way of the craze need not surprise 　　　　us; for, though the real power of drama, as Aristotle says in his 　　　　Poetics, should be felt apart from representation and action, drama 　　　　can for that very reason appeal to the majority of persons whose 　　　　interest does not rise above mere representation and spectacle. 　　　　Moreover, our old drama richly deserves the epithet “artificial” 　　　　which Lamb applies to the comedy of manners. To Western readers 　　　　surfeited with drab realism and tiresome problem-plays our old drama 　　　　comes as “that breathing-place from the burthen of a perpetual moral 　　　　questioning” which must be as refreshing as (say) Barrie’s pleasant 　　　　fancy and pathos after an overdose of Pinero and Jones. But whatever 　　　　value our old dramas may have as stage performances or as poetry, 　　　　they cannot as dramas hold their own with great Western dramas. In 　　　　spite of the highest respect for the old dramatists, one cannot 　　　　sometimes help echoing Coleridge’s wish as regards Beaumon and 　　　　Fletcher that instead of dramas, they should have written poetry, 　　　　i.e. poetry in the broad sense inclusive of tzŭ (詞) and ch’ü (曲) 　　　　as well. I say this without the least prejudice, because I yield to 　　　　none in my enthusiasm for our old literature and would definitely 　　　　range myself on the side of the angels and the ancients, should a 　　　　quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns break out in China. 　　 　　 作者：Cody9999　回复日期：2004-10-5　8:48:04　 　　[ZT] 答复一 　　　　 　　　　River 递交于 05-21-2004: 　　　　 　　　　Thanks to 可能 for the sample of 钱钟书的英文. Upon reading it, 　　　　my first reaction was: "This is bad writing!" But I did not cry 　　　　out loud, for I was reading in the library. 　　　　 　　　　Some people have a moving, curious commitment to bad writing; 　　　　钱钟书 may be one of them. 　　　　 　　　　(1) Name-dropping. It‘s instructive to count how many names 　　　　钱钟书 has dropped in the short paragraph that 可能 posted. 　　　　 　　　　(2) "Knowing persons have also told us ...": this "also" here 　　　　makes no sense. 　　　　 　　　　(3) "has all the cry": this phrase is a bad choice here. 　　　　 　　　　(4) "for, though the real power of drama, as Aristotle says in 　　　　his Poetics, should be felt apart from representation and action, 　　　　drama can for that very reason appeal to the majority of persons 　　　　whose interest does not rise above mere representation and 　　　　spectacle": 钱钟书 first quotes Aristotle, which means if a person 　　　　is interested in mere representation and spectacle he won‘t feel 　　　　the real power of drama. Then, "for that very reason" makes no 　　　　sense here, for the reason that drama can appeal to the majority 　　　　of persons lies elsewhere, has little to do with the saying of 　　　　Aristotle. Moreover, "the majority of persons" is awkward. 　　　　 　　　　(5) "our old drama comes as ‘that breathing-place from the burthen 　　　　of a perpetual moral questioning‘": here 钱钟书 tries to quote 　　　　Charles Lamb, but the quotation is not correct (assuming the 　　　　accuracy of 可能‘s version). The correct quote reads: "that happy 　　　　breathing-place from the burthen of a perpetual moral questioning." 　　　　Then, only 钱钟书 would say "our old drama comes as ‘that breathing- 　　　　place.‘" 　　　　 　　　　(6) "as refreshing as (say) Barrie‘s pleasant fancy and pathos 　　　　after an overdose of Pinero and Jones": does any one recognize 　　　　who Barrie is? Pinero? Jones? 　　　　 　　　　(7) "Beaumon and Fletcher": it ought to be "Beaumont and Fletcher" 　　　　(again, assuming the accuracy of 可能‘s version). 　　　　 　　　　(8) "inclusive of": "including" will suffice. 　　　　 　　　　(9) "I yield to none in my enthusiasm for ...": this is awkward. 　　　　 　　　　(10) "should a quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns break 　　　　out in China": here 钱钟书 tries to sound humorous, but only 　　　　succeeds in being absurd, for this would be a quarrel between 　　　　the Ancients (supposedly dead for ages) and the Moderns (presumably 　　　　still alive and well). 　　　　 　　　　In conclusion, this kind of writing 钱钟书 was capable of looks 　　　　impressive, but on close reading it turns out to be pretentious 　　　　and unthinking. It‘s automatic writing; rather, this is not 　　　　writing, but typing. 　　 作者：Cody9999　回复日期：2004-10-5　8:49:44　 　　[ZT] 答复二 　　　　 　　　　River 递交于 05-22-2004: 　　　　 　　　　The passage that 可能 posted begins with a cliche ("The critical 　　　　pendulum has once more swung back") and ends with an absurdity. 　　　　There is not a turn of phrase in the whole paragraph that will 　　　　strike one as original or creative. Rather, cliche-dropping is 　　　　almost as dense as name-dropping; they come together to mess up 　　　　the prose-ground, and mislead a reader who tries to explore. 　　　　The droppings are: the critical pendulum has once more swung back, 　　　　coming into favour again, has all the cry, lead the way of, pleasant fancy and 　　　　pathos, after an overdose of, I yield to none in my enthusiasm for, 　　　　range myself on the side of, etc. These ready-made phrases and 　　　　platitudes must have saved 钱钟书‘s labor, but without the pain of 　　　　labor no living being could possibly be born; what you get instead 　　　　is something artificial, dull, and forgettable. 　　　　 　　　　Please contrast 钱钟书‘s paragraph with a passage from Charles Lamb 　　　　(1775 - 1834) in which appears "that happy breathing-place from the 　　　　burthen of a perpetual moral questioning" 钱钟书 tried to quote but 　　　　quoted wrong. The images are vivid, the metaphors striking, the 　　　　style vigorous, and no name-dropping found, which shows why Lamb 　　　　is called a master essayist in the English language. 　　　　 　　　　"We carry our fire-side concerns to the theatre with us. We do 　　　　not go thither, like our ancestors, to escape from the pressure 　　　　of reality, so much as to confirm our experience of it; to make 　　　　assurance double, and take a bond of fate. We must live our 　　　　toilsome lives twice over, as it was the mournful privilege of 　　　　Ulysses to descend twice to the shades. All that neutral ground 　　　　of character, which stood between vice and virtue; or which 　　　　in fact was indifferent to neither, where neither properly was 　　　　called in question; that happy breathing-place from the burthen 　　　　of a perpetual moral questioning -- the sanctuary and quiet 　　　　Alsatia of hunted casuistry -- is broken up and disfranchised, 　　　　as injurious to the interests of society. The privileges of the 　　　　place are taken away by law. We dare not dally with images, or 　　　　names, of wrong. We bark like foolish dogs at shadows. We dread 　　　　infection from the scenic representation of disorder, and fear 　　　　a painted pustule. In our anxiety that our morality should not 　　　　take cold, we wrap it up in a great blanket surtout of precaution 　　　　against the breeze and sunshine." 　　 　　 作者：Cody9999　回复日期：2004-10-5　8:52:13　 　　[ZT] 钱钟书一封英语信的评论 　　　　 　　　　River 递交于 05-25-2004: 　　　　 　　　　Let me take a detailed look at one of 钱钟书‘s English letters, 　　　　written in May of 1971. Here is the original: 　　　　 　　　　----------------------------------------------------- 　　　　My Dear Shu-Wu, 　　　　 　　　　Your letter gives me a joyful surprise. Your English is 　　　　astonsihingly good. This is not “flannel” or “butter” 　　　　but my sincere opinion (my hand upon my heart!). The idea 　　　　found from your version of Chairman‘s statement is, to say 　　　　the least, quite unjust. Perhaps yuor hand is recovering 　　　　some of its old cunning momentarily lost through long lack 　　　　of practice. At any rate, it would be a pity - nay, a sin, 　　　　a crime - to let your English get rusty & become finally 　　　　unserviceable. 　　　　 　　　　Yours in haste 　　　　 　　　　By a slip of pen, you wrote “allocation” instead of 　　　　“Collocation”. This is a mere peccadillo. Don‘t let 　　　　meticulousness about such trifles cramp your style. 　　　　------------------------------------------------------ 　　　　 　　　　Let me ignore the typos here. 　　　　 　　　　(1) Improper use of words: flannel, butter, unserviceable, 　　　　peccadillo, meticulousness. 　　　　 　　　　(2) Heavy use of cliches: joyful surprise, my hand upon my 　　　　heart!, recovering some of its old cunning, a pity - nay, 　　　　a sin, a crime, cramp your style. 　　　　(By the way, "cramp your style" has become so hackneyed it 　　　　even sits, the style uncramped, in music: for example, "Cramp 　　　　Your Style" from the rapper Ice-T.) 　　　　 　　　　(3) Vagueness: "The idea found ..." The key question here is: 　　　　Whose idea? 钱钟书‘s idea or 林书武‘s? 　　　　 　　　　(4) Finally, "Perhaps your hand is recovering some of its old 　　　　cunning" suits a trickster better than a writer. 　　　　 　　　　You can draw your own conclusion on 钱钟书‘s mature English 　　　　writing. 　　 作者：Cody9999　回复日期：2004-10-5　8:57:12　 　　[ZT] 为什么钱钟书的英语不是好的英语? 　　　　 　　　　River 递交于 05-26-2004: 　　　　 　　　　The question itself will anger some people, but the answer may 　　　　soothe them, I hope. 　　　　 　　　　This is what I found on a website: 　　　　 　　　　汉语由于历史悠久，典籍丰富，拥有大量的成语和典故，在著述中经常 　　　　使用；本篇也不例外， 如“锦上添花”、“落井下石”、“雪中送炭” 　　　　等等。虽然任何语言的好文章（包括本文）都要靠深刻的内容、生动的 　　　　描述、鲜活的语言取胜，但现代英语的大师们几乎毫无例外地特别反对 　　　　使用所谓“陈词滥调”（cliches）。英国散文家George Orwell (1903- 　　　　1950)在他写于1946年的著名文章Politics and the English Language 　　　　中指出了四大类“形象陈腐”、“含义不准”的陈词滥调，对于有志于 　　　　汉译英的朋友们会有一定的帮助。除“滥用词组动词”（如用“militate 　　　　against”代替“fight”），“虚夸的用词”（如好用“大词”、“外来词” 　　　　和“术语”）和“毫无意义的辞藻”（指遭到滥用而失去原义的词汇） 　　　　以外，他首先抨击的是“濒于死亡的比喻”（Dying metaphors），如 　　　　Achilles’ heel, fishing in troubled waters, leave no stones 　　　　unturned, swan song, take up the cudgels for, toe the line — 　　　　对于中国的英语学习者来说，这些恰恰是最为诱人的陷阱！那么，什么 　　　　是好的英语呢？Orwell认为，“最需要做的，就是让意思选择词汇， 　　　　而不是反其道而行之”，也就是“通过图面和感觉尽可能地弄清自己要 　　　　表达的意思。然后再选择 — 但不是简单地接受 — 最能表达这种意思 　　　　的词语；最后再设身处地、考虑别人对这些词语可能会产生什么印象。” 　　　　我以为，这番话虽然很不容易做到，却对有志于汉译英的英语学习者 　　　　很有教益。 　　　　 　　　　You may want to know that 钱钟书 was a master of cliches, 　　　　arranging and rearranging platitudes in his English writing 　　　　with great skill. It kills originality and creativity, as 　　　　I have shown elsewhere. This is why 钱钟书的英语不是好的英语. 　　　　 　　　　Then how about the following amazing stories collected in 　　　　《钱钟书文集》? some people may ask. 　　　　 　　　　钱钟书在美国讲学，仅凭其操英语的口才，即令四座吃惊，一位在 　　　　哈佛大学研究院工作多年的美国学者说，他在美国长这么大，生平 　　　　从未听过像这样漂亮的英语，算来算去只有哈佛的一位语言学教授 　　　　的英语水平差堪同钱相媲婉美。 　　　　 　　　　除此之外，钱钟书还精通英、法、意、德、拉丁、西班牙等多种语言。 　　　　对于一个曾经在牛津留学的文科学生来说，通晓这些相关语言也许并 　　　　不值得大惊小怪，但要做到纯正得没有一点母语腔调，对所有这些语言 　　　　文学全部贯通，烂熟于心，却不是一件容易的事。 　　　　 　　　　Well, they are just stories, made up to gratify national pride, 　　　　cause a child to giggle, a virgin to blush, an elder to drool, 　　　　and impress earnest fools.