翻译太太太差
两颗星是给作者的,扣的三颗星是扣翻译的!!!
读的时候有些地方觉得不明白,就找来了英文原版,不看不知道,一看吓一跳,整本书的翻译太太太太太差了!很多地方和原文出入很大,有些地方就干脆翻译错了,还有的地方估计翻译自己并不理解内容意思硬翻的,最莫名其妙的是有些地方直译就很好,不知道为什么翻译非要自己瞎改意思,疑似为了显得专业??强烈怀疑是老师交给学生干的。
举几个例子,
1. 正文第一页第一段,第二句英文原文和书上的翻译如下,
The organization of character possibilities along two axes, for example, which seems to me so clearly inferable from psychoanalytic theories and metaphors, may seem contrived to analysts who visualize the varieties of human personality in other images, along other spectra. 对于我来说,性格类型的描述应理所当然地遵循精神分析的理论和含义这样的二维方向,但这样的二维方向可能难免会使有些治疗师觉得有造作之嫌
WTF,我想请教这位翻译,for example 如何理解?从语义上作者是要举例说明什么?metaphors为何翻译为含义?Two axes指的是什么?“精神分析的理论和含义这样的二维方向”你来跟我说说都是啥??
上面是吐槽,下面是我的理解, for example 是插入语,接着上一句阐述,进一步说明这本书内容是按作者她个人的理解来写的。 metaphors就是隐喻,精神分析里面一些概念都带有隐喻,大家懂的。 two axes指的是101页表4.1的二个维度
整个句子的意思是, 例如,根据精神分析的理论和隐喻,人格结构的组织按两个维度(注:101页,表4.1)对我来说理所当然,而这一点对有些分析家来说可能有些勉强,因为他们以其他的方式组织人格的多样性。
2. 第9页,简直无力吐槽,贴英文前两段大家自己看吧,句子都不难,
Even more than when I wrote the first edition of this book, psychiatric descriptive diagnosis, the basis of the DSM and ICD systems, has become normative—so much so that the DSM is regularly dubbed the “bible” of mental health, and students are trained in it as if it possesses some self-evident epistemic status. Although inferential/contextual/dimensional/subjectively attuned diagnosis can coexist with descriptive psychiatric diagnosis (Gabbard, 2005; PDM Task Force, 2006), the kind of assessment described in this book has become more the exception than the rule. I view this state of affairs with alarm. Let me mention briefly, with reference to the DSM, my reservations about descriptive and categorical diagnosis. Some of these may be quieted when DSM-5 appears, but I expect that the overall consequences of our having deferred to a categorical, trait-based taxonomy since 1980 will persist for some time.
First, the DSM lacks an implicit definition of mental health or emotional wellness. Psychoanalytic clinical experience, in contrast, assumes that beyond helping patients to change problematic behaviors and mental states, therapists try to help them to accept themselves with their limitations and to improve their overall resiliency, sense of agency, tolerance of a wide range of thoughts and affects, self-continuity, realistic self-esteem, capacity for intimacy, moral sensibilities, and awareness of others as having separate subjectivities. Because people who lack these capacities cannot yet imagine them, such patients rarely complain about their absence; they just want to feel better. They may come for treatment complaining of a specific Axis I disorder, but their problems may go far beyond those symptoms.
书上的原文和我自己的翻译就不写了,直接吐槽吧,小毛病也略了,比较大的问题就已经够多了
(1)第一段第二句,书上的翻译是什么鬼??翻译好像根本没搞清楚句子结构,原文作者在表达说“虽然两种评估可以共存,但我写这本书是more the exception than the rule”,翻译把一个连贯的意思拆成了两个句子,而且中文和英文对应吗、对应吗、对应吗???
(2)第一段最后两句话,翻译是在拉矛盾吗???Nancy写的多委婉,她对以DSM为代表的诊断体系的尊重,怎么在中文里面变成了满满的对立???而且,中文翻译的乱七八糟,根本对不上。 reservations,保留意见,多么委婉的说法,作者说“我简短的提一下我的保留意见”,翻译说“对于xxx,我不敢苟同”,这个味道大家品品。。。
作者说,“我的一些保留意见可能在新版DSM5出来的时候会be quieted”,翻译说“其中某些内容在新版DSM5中将会被删除”,结合中文的上一句,翻译似乎认为DSM4中一些内容(作者不同意的内容)会被删除。WTF???这个理解是怎么来的???难道是眼花把quieted看成了quitted,再混杂了自己的猜测??
作者希望得以保留的是“overall consequences of our having deferred to……”,我就想问问翻译,这部分英文完全跳过不翻译是为啥?而翻译成了“希望(省略号内的内容)得以保留”,如果是按翻译翻的,希望这些东西保留,那么下面应该接着讲这些东西的好处了,可为啥后面的段落都是相反的意思呢??实际上翻译理解的整个意思完全是错乱的,或者说这位同学根本看不懂自己翻译的内容!
(3)第二段,很多内容直译就好了,简单清晰明了,也没有长难句,为何翻译成这个样子???
implicit definition,翻译成“操作性定义”??? clinical experience,翻译成“治疗的理论”??? accept themselves with their limitations,翻译成“认识自身的缺陷”??? improve their overall resiliency,翻译成“提高整体的康复能力”??? (improve) tolerance of a wide range of thoughts and affects,翻译成“提升挫折容忍力”??? ……
从头到尾翻译问题很多,更多例子不列举了,太可怕了!!!
有可能去看英文吧,比中文好懂,中文太误导人了!