| 话题中的页数: [1 2] > |
Off topic: 一句法律语言的理解 论题张贴者: orientalhorizon
|
|---|
最近看美国的《联邦证据法》（Federal Rules of Evidence）一书，发现一句话很有意思。这句话特别长，按一般写作标准来说，算得上“懒婆娘的裹脚 — 又臭又长“，但在法律类书籍中，这样的句子却是比比皆是。在此贴出与大家分享，看好不好理解，朋友们可以见仁见智，看谁能一下子说清其含义：
Treatment of specific instances of conduct offered to inpeach by Rules 405(a) and 608(b) as c... See more 最近看美国的《联邦证据法》（Federal Rules of Evidence）一书，发现一句话很有意思。这句话特别长，按一般写作标准来说，算得上“懒婆娘的裹脚 — 又臭又长“，但在法律类书籍中，这样的句子却是比比皆是。在此贴出与大家分享，看好不好理解，朋友们可以见仁见智，看谁能一下子说清其含义：
Treatment of specific instances of conduct offered to inpeach by Rules 405(a) and 608(b) as collateral is based upon an assessment of the lack of probative value of extrinsic proof contradicting the denial given by the witness upon the credibility of the witness in comparison to the trial concerns enumerated in Rule 403.
注：这本书是West Nutshell Seriers的影印本，书号：ISBN 7-5036-2870-7/D•2581，法律出版社出版。作者：Michael H. Graham，迈阿密大学法学院教授，美国证据法界的著名学者。
[Edited at 2008-09-22 16:05]
[Edited at 2008-09-23 02:44]
[Edited at 2008-09-23 07:22] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
这我就更不懂了，可是好不好把那个换成个“丈夫”，”相公”啥的？
orientalhorizon wrote:
最近看美国的《联邦证据法》（Federal Rules of Evidence）一书，发现一句话很有意思。这句话特别长，按一般写作标准来说，算得上“懒婆娘的裹脚，又臭又长“，但在法律类书籍中，这样的句子却是比比皆是。在此贴出与大家分享，看好不好理解，朋友们可以见仁见智，看谁能一下子说清其含义：
Treatment of specific instances of conduct offered to inpeach by Rules 405(a) and 608(b) as collateral is based upon an assessment of the lack of probative value of extrinsic proof contradicting the denial given by the witness upon the credibility of the witness in comparison to the trial concerns enumerated in Rule 403.
注：这本书是West Nutshell Seriers的影印本，由法律出版社出版。
[Edited at 2008-09-22 16:05]
| | | |
Wenjer Leuschel (X) 
台湾
Local time: 20:31
English英语译成Chinese汉语
+ ...
orientalhorizon wrote:
Treatment of specific instances of conduct offered to inpeach by Rules 405(a) and 608(b) as collateral is based upon an assessment of the lack of probative value of extrinsic proof contradicting the denial given by the witness upon the credibility of the witness in comparison to the trial concerns enumerated in Rule 403.
救命！这种长句几乎与康德哲学无异，大概也只有那些有资格要求一个字美元两毛以上的翻译者才有办法用中文顺畅料理一番的吧？
我的平常价也不过美元两毛以下，所以底下的尝试大概又是翻译比赛的落选文章，将贻笑大方了。
“规则405(a)和608(b)所供者作为推翻证据的附带条件，此等特定审判的处分乃基于参照规则403列举的审判主旨，因外来证明矛盾于证人所给予的，而否定证人的可信度，故评估外来证明为缺乏举证价值。”
| | | |
Joyce Curran wrote: 这我就更不懂了，可是好不好把那个换成个“丈夫”，”相公”啥的？ orientalhorizon wrote:
最近看美国的《联邦证据法》（Federal Rules of Evidence）一书，发现一句话很有意思。这句话特别长，按一般写作标准来说，算得上“懒婆娘的裹脚，又臭又长“，但在法律类书籍中，这样的句子却是比比皆是。在此贴出与大家分享，看好不好理解，朋友们可以见仁见智，看谁能一下子说清其含义：
Treatment of specific instances of conduct offered to inpeach by Rules 405(a) and 608(b) as collateral is based upon an assessment of the lack of probative value of extrinsic proof contradicting the denial given by the witness upon the credibility of the witness in comparison to the trial concerns enumerated in Rule 403.
注：这本书是West Nutshell Seriers的影印本，由法律出版社出版。
[Edited at 2008-09-22 16:05]
过去，“丈夫”或“相公”有可能懒，可他不裹脚，家里穷的还可能光脚儿，即便臭，很快也就散去了，这就臭而不长了。旧时的婆娘可就不同了，家里穷也得裹脚。勤快点儿的就换得勤点儿，虽然长，但不那么臭。家庭条件好的，再弄点香熏什么的，自更无问题。懒的就不同了，裹一次一年半载也不换，等到换的时候，那可不又臭又长。当然了，当代的婆娘完全不同了，大多都成了光脚儿的了，与这个俗语绝缘了，当然也有不甘心的:)。反而是当代的“丈夫”或“相公”，大热天的还得弄个套儿套在脚上，据说在很多单位，不这样还不行，会违反公司行为规范。即便如此，还是不敢贸然就把这个俗语中的“婆娘”换成“丈夫”或“相公”。因为，如果那样，首先不答应的恐怕就是当代的众婆娘了:)。一则说这样不尊重知识产权，二则说这是在破坏传统文化:)。
[Edited at 2008-09-23 02:37]
[Edited at 2008-09-23 07:21]
| | |
|
|
|
redred
中国大陆
Local time: 20:31
English英语译成Chinese汉语
+ ...
Joyce Curran wrote:
这我就更不懂了，可是好不好把那个换成个“丈夫”，”相公”啥的？
你很好玩啊.
| | | |
Wenjer Leuschel wrote: orientalhorizon wrote:
Treatment of specific instances of conduct offered to inpeach by Rules 405(a) and 608(b) as collateral is based upon an assessment of the lack of probative value of extrinsic proof contradicting the denial given by the witness upon the credibility of the witness in comparison to the trial concerns enumerated in Rule 403.
救命！这种长句几乎与康德哲学无异，大概也只有那些有资格要求一个字美元两毛以上的翻译者才有办法用中文顺畅料理一番的吧？ 我的平常价也不过美元两毛以下，所以底下的尝试大概又是翻译比赛的落选文章，将贻笑大方了。 “规则405(a)和608(b)所供者作为推翻证据的附带条件，此等特定审判的处分乃基于参照规则403列举的审判主旨，因外来证明矛盾于证人所给予的，而否定证人的可信度，故评估外来证明为缺乏举证价值。”
老兄的译文很象民国时期的法律文书。我看过一些民国时期的法律（很多如“民法”现在仍在台湾使用，而且修订较少。由于当初立法时大量借鉴了德日的既有立法成果，有很大的前瞻性，很多大陆法学家认为，该民法至今仍很先进），觉得很多措辞都是文言文的痕迹较重，但在很情况下，如改用现代白话文反倒表述不清。
不过，这句英文确实非常啰唆，要译成汉语，做到精练准确绝非易事。其结构本就略显零乱，给准确把握带来不小困难。我是反复看了若干遍才找到其要点，要译成汉语，恐怕只能打破原结构重组了。
| | | |
我这里多数婆娘倒还就这样的，不仅仅光脚儿。我想可能是因为男女平等了吧。
orientalhorizon wrote:
过去，“丈夫”或“相公”有可能懒，可他不裹脚，家里穷的还可能光脚儿，即便臭，很快也就散去了，这就臭而不长了。旧时的婆娘可就不同了，家里穷也得裹脚。勤快点儿的就换得勤点儿，虽然长，但不那么臭。家庭条件好的，再弄点香熏什么的，自更无问题。懒的就不同了，裹一次一年半载也不换，等到换的时候，那可不又臭又长。当然了，当代的婆娘完全不同了，大多都成了光脚儿的了，与这个俗语绝缘了，当然也有不甘心的:)。反而是当代的“丈夫”或“相公”，大热天的还得弄个套儿套在脚上，据说在很多单位，不这样还不行，会违反公司行为规范。即便如此，还是不敢贸然就把这个俗语中的“婆娘”换成“丈夫”或“相公”。因为，如果那样，首先不答应的恐怕就是当代的众婆娘了:)。一则说这样不遵重知识产权，二则说这是在破坏传统文化:)。
[Edited at 2008-09-23 02:37]
| | | |
我就纯粹一周伯通，功夫不怎么样，心情一年有半年天天好。
redred wrote:
你很好玩啊.
| | |
|
|
|
wherestip
美国
Local time: 07:31
Chinese汉语译成English英语
+ ...
| Some advice wanted or not | Sep 23, 2008 |
orientalhorizon,
My advice to you is to go back to the actual "Federal Rules of Evidence" and read the relevant rules mentioned in this sentence. With context it would be clear to you what this sentence is referring to.
The actual letter of the law is not exactly the same as someone paraphrasing or interpreting it.
[Edited at 2008-09-23 14:06]
| | | |
Wenjer Leuschel (X)
台湾
Local time: 20:31
English英语译成Chinese汉语
+ ...
| 读懂是一回事，翻译是另一回事。 | Sep 23, 2008 |
orientalhorizon wrote:
老兄的译文很象民国时期的法律文书。我看过一些民国时期的法律（很多如“民法”现在仍在台湾使用，而且修订较少。由于当初立法时大量借鉴了德日的既有立法成果，有很大的前瞻性，很多大陆法学家认为，该民法至今仍很先进），觉得很多措辞都是文言文的痕迹较重，但在很情况下，如改用现代白话文反倒表述不清。
不过，这句英文确实非常啰唆，要译成汉语，做到精练准确绝非易事。其结构本就略显零乱，给准确把握带来不小困难。我是反复看了若干遍才找到其要点，要译成汉语，恐怕只能打破原结构重组了。
其实，我的翻译正是模仿台湾的法律条文措辞所作。其中仍有语病。整理如下：
根据规则405(a)及608(b)所供者作为推翻证据之附带条件，此等特定审判处分乃基于参照规则403列举之审判主旨，然因外来证明与证人所供者矛盾，故否定证人的可信度而评估其为缺乏举证价值。
至于403列举之审判主旨为何，405(a)及608(b)所供的附带条件为何，这全都是查考条文后才会明白的。翻译者事实上根本无从理解那些东西所指何物，只能由法律人自行查考解读。
我以往总开玩笑说，读懂的就能翻译，不过这并非事实，很多东西就是懂了，真正翻译起来还是很有问题。
| | | |
wherestip
美国
Local time: 07:31
Chinese汉语译成English英语
+ ...
Wenjer Leuschel wrote:
我以往总开玩笑说，读懂的就能翻译，不过这并非事实，很多东西就是懂了，真正翻译起来还是很有问题。
Wenjer,
我觉得任何的翻译, 彻底读懂原文是必要的. 否则如同机械翻译, 还不如不翻.
这只是我个人看法, 并不一定对. 也许有人会认为这种想法是因噎废食
[Edited at 2008-09-23 14:15]
| | | |
wherestip wrote:
orientalhorizon,
My advice to you is to go back to the actual "Federal Rules of Evidence" and read the relevant rules mentioned in this sentence. With context it would be clear to you what this sentence is referring to.
The actual letter of the law is not exactly the same as someone paraphasing or interpreting it.
Thanks a lot, Wherestip. I actually have read through all the rules mentioned herein and I understand clearly what the sentence is talking about, and I have managed to organize it in Simplified Chinese as an attorney in the Mainland China would write it in the first place. I just feel this is one of the most complicated sentences I ever saw, even for legal materials. I just offer it here to see how the friends in the community interpret it, to see how difficult it is oftentimes to really communicate between different languages; on the other hand, I just want to make it a mind-boggling game, or just for fun, it's said the best way to develop and keep one's head active is to use it . A good discussion and communication is always a good catalyst for better understanding.
| | |
|
|
|
Wenjer Leuschel (X)
台湾
Local time: 20:31
English英语译成Chinese汉语
+ ...
wherestip wrote: Wenjer, 我觉得任何的翻译, 彻底读懂原文是必要的. 否则如同机械翻译, 还不如不翻. 这只是我个人看法, 并不一定对. 也许有人会认为这种想法是因噎废食
Steve,
懂有许多不同的层次，要看沟通的需求到达怎样的层次，往往就是根据那样的需求做出翻译的决定。我们都知道比较翻译的优劣也牵涉到比较者自身的素养，大多数人认为优的并不见得好，大多数人认为劣的也不见得劣。这种现象在“宋玉对楚王问”里说得最清楚。
- Wenjer
| | | |
wherestip
美国
Local time: 07:31
Chinese汉语译成English英语
+ ...
| Ensuring Quality | Sep 24, 2008 |
Wenjer Leuschel wrote:
懂有许多不同的层次
Wenjer,
That goes without saying. Of course there are different degrees of understanding and appreciation of a language or a piece of text in that language. But I hope that doesn't become a convenient excuse for lowering the bar as a professional translator.
I definitely don't mean to knock anyone's translation, least of all yours. I agree with orientalhorizon though on his approach of dealing with a sentence like this. Do enough background research to understand what is being discussed. Also go through the process of parsing the sentence to identify the main grammatical elements. Such steps at least can ensure the main thrust of the sentence doesn't get completely botched or distorted.
Sometimes people think they can translate difficult sentences accurately without any context. Personally, I think it is foolhardy.
[Edited at 2008-09-24 12:07]
| | | |
Alice yang
中国大陆
Local time: 20:31
English英语译成Chinese汉语
+ ...
|
| 话题中的页数: [1 2] > |
Login to reply/comment 
