英文概念的中译问题

公共休息室
#1

最近在考虑是不是可以做一个中英对应的哲学词典，这样在中文语境下讨论问题就可以有个参考，因为我发现例如sound这样的基本概念都是没有现成的中文译名的（有的书译作可靠，有的译作合理）。如果维护一个词典，以后说不定可以慢慢统一用词的共识。

我原先觉得一个概念，可以用讨论的问题来index，例如一个realism的词条可以按不同领域来给予不同含义：

===中文===
实在论
唯实论
现实主义

===英文===
realism

===释义===

#共相问题
唯实论认为共相是实际存在的。

#法哲学
法律现实主义认为法律是不确定的，反对法律形式主义。

#道德哲学
道德实在论认为道德可以是客观的。

本来的假设是中文那三个名字是同义词，因为它们对应的英语都只是realism，理想情况下三个可以削减成一个。但是说“现实主义”和“实在论”等同却非常反直觉，讨论共相问题的时候，可能“唯实论”是最符合直觉的，而用“现实主义”就会非常奇怪。

如果是这样的话，单独realism这个词是找不到一对一的中文对应的，中文词实际上embed了比英文的realism更多的涵义。而在编纂词典的时候必须把不同领域的用法区分开来，例如在法哲学里用法律实在论/法律唯实论是错的，但是法律现实主义才是对的。不知道经过时间的演变，中文和英文的用词有没有可能趋同成一对一，这么一想的话日语的片假名就很好…

最后不知道大家对英文资料中译的态度是啥，我一直对这个很悲观，因为一篇英文论文如果要中译，会发现里面有非常多的概念对于汉语读者来说都是需要额外解释的，而汉语并未形成一套通用的哲学语言，翻译出来了可读性也会远远低于英文的。我搜索了台湾的书店网站，似乎也并没有多少西哲的书而更多是人生哲学之类的。那么西哲是不是注定不能翻译到中文或者用中文讨论？

如果真的要向中文读者传递西哲知识，似乎通过直译是做不到的，更好的应该是自己咀嚼了再重新用中文读者熟悉的话说出来。

1 Like
#2

在英语里，你在语境不清楚的情况下说realism也是指代不明的

2 Likes
#3

并不需要单独用的时候是指代明的，关键是在有语境的时候，中文依旧有过多的表达选项，而英语没有过多的表达选项。例如sound在中文可以 可靠 合理，这个已经是在单一语境之下的，但是英文只有一种，中文却有两种甚至多种，那么此刻应不应该尝试统一用词？

#4

我觉得这是个好的想法，但是实际做起来工作量非常恐怖。

1 Like
#5

我其实一直觉得中文和西文是有鸿沟的，只是不知道这个鸿沟具体在哪，或者说包不包括常见的哲学话题。例如我很喜欢一些恶搞宗教，如discordianism和dudeism，Principia Discordia - Page -6 这个玩意相当于前者的圣经，但是由于里面有过多双关语之类的梗，所以翻译成中文基本是不可能的。如果哲学话题都有类似的性质，那么其实对中文读者来说是很可惜的事，虽然未来的趋势应该每个人都会几门语言

1 Like
#6

这似乎是二十世纪语言哲学经常讨论的严格翻译问题。一方面，我觉得quine的翻译不确定性论证值得参考。一个稳定的可以作为翻译媒介的意义实体可能是不存在的。另一方面，试图将语境因素量化几乎是一个不可能的任务。一个典型的例子就是siri或者微软的那些人工智能界面，实际上交谈起来的效果依然不是很好。

#7

我大概都赞同。关于siri我还有一个想法是，如果说siri是通过所有可用的语料（这些语料来源于不同的人）学习发言，那么假使他学会了怎么在语境中回复，他的回复也是基于多个人格的，可能在两个回复中会有不一致性，而很容易被人类察觉到异常。人们期待siri是一个有着单一和一致人格的东西，这可能也是一个问题

#8

英文词的义项比中文词的义项更多，也许这是英文的缺陷

#9

Your idea is great! :heart_eyes: But this is indeed difficult to do, because languages ​​are effectively “untranslatable”, especially languages ​​that are as different as Chinese and English.

You mentioned Japanese katakana :face_with_monocle:, and it’s true that Japanese is better compatible with the characteristics of phonetic scripts, giving it an advantage in accommodating epigraphic scripts such as Indo-European. But modern Chinese, on the other hand, has preserved its main features of ideographs in the process of language modernization (the vernacular language movement), which has certainly caused some trouble, but it has also made Chinese the most precise language in the world in terms of expressing meaning. The unique way of word formation and sentence construction allows the Chinese language to theoretically create new meanings without adding new “characters”, thus serving the need for precise expression. The Chinese vocabulary is infinite in itself.From this point of view, “one-to-one” Chinese-English translation should be impossible and unnecessary, why should a more abundant and precise language accommodate a more ambiguous language :face_with_raised_eyebrow:?

From the perspective of translation practice, different methods of translation have certainly caused a lot of confusion in expression and understanding. However, in the long run, it is often possible to produce one or a small number of more common and recognized translations, which are eventually integrated into the vocabulary and national thinking of the Chinese language. In this regard, we can refer to the translation of the Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures more than a thousand years ago, where many Buddhist words have been fully integrated into the Chinese language today.

As for the problem of translating English materials into Chinese, the problem you mentioned is one aspect, and what comes to my mind is that most of the Chinese translations nowadays are of very poor quality :smiling_face_with_tear:. However, it seems that we don’t have to worry too much about this problem in the field of philosophy, which is a very niche field of knowledge, and ordinary readers wouldn’t have high requirements for translated books, while specialized readers would choose to use the original English as the main basis. Regarding the question of whether or not Western philosophy can be discussed in Chinese, I think it is perfectly OK. The reason is simple: if a philosophy can only be thought about and debated within its original language, does it not run counter to the universality of wisdom that it seeks? Moreover, English does not represent all traditions of Western philosophical thought, a “thorough” understanding of Western philosophy in the field of study usually requires proficiency in both English French German Latin and Greek.

Direct translations do tend to be poorly worded, which I fully agree with. Lastly, once again, your idea might actually be worth practicing, it’s a cause that no one has pioneered yet, can we look forward to seeing your results one day? Best wishes to you~ :heart:

2 Likes