Some Translation Problems Between Latin, German, and English:A Contrastive Analysis and Pedagogical Implications

從對比分析論拉丁文、德文與英文閉一些翻譯問題

SOME TRANSLATION PROBLEMS BETWEEN LATIN, GERMAN, AND. ENGLlSH: A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS AND. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLlCATIONS

O. INTRODUCfION

By

Chiang Tai-hui

Latin as one of the daughter languages of Italic,l which in tl1rn is'a first-level subgroup in the, hierarchy' of the Indo-European family, :and as the ancestor language of the Romance

langu祠的 is genetically rather far from German' and, English, which are diffêrent已 daughters of the (West) Germahic (see Vidos 1;968, König 1,978, and Baugh and Cable 1978), despite the felics of 'gehetic relationships and. of the structUral. similaritìes be，tw~en them. Of the three, Latinjs'dead. but !remains to be a means forprçserving and uriderstanding the cultural, intellectual treasures' of classical antiquity. As such, 'it'包 still being taught and learned in thè institutions of higher'learning and even in the schools of secondary education in some countries, especially in COritinental.Europe, ;such as in Germany and Austria (see Chiang 1985a).2

The àmbuntl nf translated Jitetature3 from Latin into. German and/or Eng

\ish has been

tremendous; so are translations from German into English or the other way round (see Jumpelt 196'land Newmark 1981).4 Needless to say, many more. such t~~，ks， especially between the twü'“living" languages, are being'\mdertaken.

The importance of the three languages一-and in türn bf the

“

bridge" or, translation between the泊之 -"is' more ithah obvious: Latin, the most important .classical language;.

Ger-mart, one of the most' important languages for art, literat叮e， 'philosophy, science and technòlogy, as well as' fõr some other cu1tural and intellectual activities; and English, the interhational means of communication.5

Transla tio ri ，的 Newmark! (1981) puts it, is

“

a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a writtefnnessage and/or statement iin'one language bythe same message and/or statement irt añother language'? (p. 7)

,

or, as defined by Gatford (1- 96~) ， is

“

the repl~ççment of textual

師大學報第卅一期

material in one language (source language) by equivalent textual material in another language (target language)" (p. 20). The two definitions are basically of the same purport, that translation, or, more è~act旬， the, task of tra'nslation

,

i8. tliè replacèmenu .0f> Ya' 可ritten

text in one language ~by something “the. same" ,b'r“equïválent," in ãnothet.. Anô t1}ey leave

the same question: Just in what condition(s) may two or more 1inguistic expressions一­ words, phrases, or ∞ mplete utterances一-beconsidered

“

the same" or

“

eq uivalent"?

To answer this question or similar ones, even only more satisfactorily, will not be easy at all and will entail lengthy and tèdious' discussions in phi1osophy, logic, linguistics, and a number of related discip1ines. For the time being, however, it would be convenient to set up the dichotomy between physical and linguistic equivalence. We willleave the subject

of physical identity (equivalence) to the discussion of those who. work in tþe o.ther，巾ranches 'of knowledge and look a little more into the question of 1inguistic equivalence, to which

translation equivalents, which are our immediate concern, belong.

By linguistic eqùivalence, here the author refers chiefly tQ the .semantic equivalence

(Lyons 1 977:236ff.) which is supposed to exist between lexemes from .. differ~nt languages and whiéh forms the basis for synonyms. Strickly speaking,however, th~re aJe'few l.exeme~ or wòids bètween two languages which are of exactly the same “méaning" (taken in a striGt sense to include.nòt only the denotation of .aw.ord but the Jbundle of co"nnotations t1J.~t surrounds' it andjot' the possiblé' combination of βmotional irriplications that may be associ-ated wïth it). BihceHmguage is tö .à gteat已 extent culturally and ethnically specific, what is lexicalized in one languagé with réspect 1:0 this culture of ethnic group may not b.e callized in another language with respect to that culture or ethnic group. Or whát is lexi-çalized 01' èxpressed. 'in: this 'way in.one".language may be lexicalized or: .expressed 'otherwise in

the other lariguage. It woùld not b\! surprising~ therefore, 'to find that' ther.e was no、 worQ for

“

snow" ïn a language of equatorial. Africa (Lybns.， 1977江 36)， and .it 'is nor:mal also f01; the translator to find no equivalent in the English or Germ;ln language focthe Chinese lexeme hsiao-jen 小，人 (Usua:lly translated as 刊 (the) smallman" in"most of the translatiQ的。 f the Chinese classics in which.it Ifrequently: appears), as the bündle .of connotations 時surrounding the word 'is so complièated and the combination of emotional imp1ication電，as"socia~~d>>,ith

'it. .is. so rich. In other 'words, the éxpression hsiaò-jen in the. Chines.e language is so cultural1y specific that it can hardly find an exact equivalent 'Ïn ap.y btheJ lalJ.guag~ t,nan itsown.

:r

he Chinese h'Siao-jen is Ì10t just a

“

bad guy" or

“

villian" or any' .strict or lo.ose syn9ny:ms of

these tèrms'; he is meah and he is m.o凹， that;l that; and in physical build he may b.e. tall a.nd s仙rdy. Whât .exactβquivalents does it firid, then, say, in German, French, Arabic, Russian,

從對比分析論拉丁文、德文與英主ralJ一些翻譯問題 or Japanese, or in the language ofthe Eskimos, or in one ofthéJanguages of the Africaris or American lndians? Perhaps none. Thé English translation (not an equivalent!)_

“

(the): small maÌ1" forChinese', hsiao-jen， 的 it stands and to the ex恆的 that it has somehow been

es-tablished, is perhaps one of the “bèst" ..translations the translator can find, although the term, by' itself, is not self-explanatofy: it requires much more words to make c1ear júst what a hsiao-jen or

“

small Jman" 函， or is 1ike, in the Chin:ese cu1ture and language-in which it originally appears.

ln theory, thereare

“

translatables" and

“

inhanslatables" between languages.τerms like Chinese hsiao-jen belong to this latter group, although for the practical need of transla" tion it does find a superficial, .word-for-word

“

equivalent" in the English

“

small man." The translatables .are 1ike English man, German Mensch (or Mann), French homme, Chinesè jen 人， Japanese hito' (or otoko)6 and Latin homo

,

all referring to one and the, same-species of animals; so are; for example, English break.βlst~ German Frü'hstück, Latin ientaculum, Chinese I tsao卅日 'an 早餐， and Japanese.asameshi, despite the fact that speakers ofthese languages, of ancient or modern times, definitely eat (ate) different. things at different times and in different ways {or the">firstmeal of the day一一that 尬，regardless of the cultural,

ethnicãl differences of the expressions.

Just how does the one who .knows two or more languages conceive orrecognize such “equivalence" dr 心sameness" betweeri languages? This may turn out to beanother intricate problem一 -and 'very often one of controversy--among logicians, linguists, and psychol-ogists. Lyons (1977) holds the view that such an abi1ity in judging the semantic 'equivalehce between languages is largely inherent and intuitive in bi1ingual speakers, whereas the second-jforeign-language learner's awareness of such paral1e1ism between two or more languages is most1y learned rather than intuitive. ln this latter、 case ， the processρf learning plays ah important role.

..'Furth缸， it mUst be kept in mind. that all translations are approxim瓦tions"judging from the fact that exact semantic .equivalence between languages seldom exists. 'And, in a shict sense, translation equivalents are not to be 'confused with semantic可 equivalents， .for the former are mereIy, in Eugene A., Nida's words,“the clos

師大學報 第卅一期

Ttanslation theory is .closel乎 associated with ωmp~ratiye t∞lJ.trastiye) linguistics. and especially with semantics. (Newmark 1.9.81; 5). As a matter. of. fact, many Qf the tenets 卸 translation theory are derived. from the .observations Qr r.esults. o.f. contrastive analy~es between langl.iages. So are the theories' in sociolinguistics (as the cXl.!cial distinction. .drawn

between langz紹" the system of language, and parole, the .l~.lJ.guage in a: real ，∞ mmunicative

∞ntext) ，. semiot.içs，何ld comm.l.!nication. The .translator's concerl1, ,however, is usually with

the final product of his work一一the correctness, beauty, and expressiveness .of; ~js tfansJated pie臼-:"rather than with the. theory of trai).slatiQn, which they ;think. is the job of the linguist.ör the,translation theorist (p..23.).

Finally, with thè practical task of Jranslation; ther~ is the distinction,. or controversy,

between free. and literal (word-for-word) .translation, Or between

“

communicative" and

“

semçmtic" translation一 -together with anumb.er: of other terms suchas ‘~interpretative translation，~'“technical (scientific) tran~ation，"and the like. (see Newmark 1981). Some of them ar:e real; others are only superficial, conceptual,.and relative 缸 .not totally hypo-thetical.

Above all .these is the tenet or even

“

doctrine'\ o.f faithfulness, e;xpressiveness, and elegance8 (信達雅)， which has had a relatively long standwg among.Chiriese translators.. The three requirements, which. were a.ttached equal importance formerly, have been reevaluated and. ret~ted by somej translators an吐 scholar~ (as.ChelJ. 1971 andWu‘1.982), claiming that faithf~.:tlness remains .~ !l)U峙， that 的(達) d、oes not ßecessari1y mean, .fluency, and that elegan呵.is,unnecessary and trivial.(Chen 1.97 L: 13• t6).

1 、 THE LANGUAGES: SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES

Latin. a:s ,a:“syntþetic" language9 ' lends itself to a highly complicated picture of in. flection. .Fr:e.e forIl)s arerelatively few; most of, the forms,or:

“

words".lQ in the Latin sentençear~ grammaticàlly boulJ.d to on.e,another. Word-ord.er is relatively fr.ee and meJ~ning depends Il)Qf~ on morphology than op syptax，一 -that 函， moreon the inflection of the forms. Thus, pueJ!ae magistram

,

$alutant C(t4e) girls greet.(the) (female),.teacher', in the order of S_ +.0 + V) would. mean basically the sameas. magistram puellae salutant (0 +.S +

V) aside from f! s1ight shift of fo~us (the latter placing a 1ittle :thore emphasis on the fronted. obje~t)， 11 since mean.Ì.ng and gr.ammatical relationship are alt:eadY.specified by .the inflec-tional endings of the words: -ae in puellae (specify.ing that, the~noun is. .fernirüneJ nQminative

從對比分析論捏了文、續文與英文閉一些翻譯問題

plural),.-am in mågistram (specifying that the I)oun is feminine accusative singular), and -nt

in salutant (specifying that the verb is indicative present 3nd-person plurali active)一-all' necessary granÌIÎ1atical in:formation already there in the words themselves.

The grammatical categor.ies or form-Cla~ses. of Latin

,

on which those of English, .Ger.-man, and many other languages are traditionally but superficially based, :fall firstly'into a major distinction of three classes: nominals, 'verbs, and particles. Subsumed 'under the cate-gory of nominals. are~ substantives' (nouns and .noun equivalents), adjectives, pronouns, and; numerals;‘under partides' are. adverbs, pr~positions ， .conjunctions, .and interjeGtions. There are, therefore, altοgethér nirte .classes of worQS: nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, interjections, and numerals. (but .no articles)一-by and large the same 肘.the grammatical categories in the traditional Latin,.based grammars of English, the

“

eight parts of speech" (the only,difference being that numerals are usual1y'not set up aS.a distinct class ïn English :and that some grammaríans set up: the English articles as a. nineth class).. The classificafion into the thtee major cilteg。一tiesis basically formal

,

all nominals and verbs are. inflectionäl, whereas 'particles arenot. The .franiework is, therefore, chiefly a for-mal classïficatiöh of word區.

'Lat凶 noininals 一徊。 t nouns' alone) lerid. thêmselves tb .a 3-way distinction of gram-. matical1gender (masculÍne, femÍnir詣， and néuter), a 2-wây distinction of number (singular and plural), and a 6-way .distihction of ca:閱 (nominative， genitive, dative,.-accusative, vöca-tive, and ablative). There are, therefore, 3x2x6=36 different grammatical functions ahd the same possiblè. mirriber of forms for each noun, adjective, pronoun, or numeral, each fulfi1ling theoretically' 'a' different .function. Actually, however, there are not so many, since many of the. forms overlap. For the Latin adjective meaning

‘

good', for example, thereare thirteen different forms一 -bonus， bona, bonum, boni, bonae, bono, bonam, bone, bonorum, bonarum,. bonis, bonos, and. bonas-~fulfilling the. thirty-six, grammatical functions.一 Of these, bonus, the masGuline singular nominative, formed from the

“

word-. stock" .(Get. Wortstoclçi2 bon- and. the suffix -us, is the. so-called.'“name form" (by which a word is mentioned)13 or

“

dictionary form~' (by which,the lexeme is eritered into the lexicons .and dictionaries). Som'e forms一 -namely bohus, bone, bonam, bonarum, and bonas.于一fulfill nnly one grammatical function: bonus 可only as mascu1ine singular nomina-tive, bone only as mascu1ine singular vocative, and the like. Most of them, however, assume

a mulfifunctional grammatical role: bonae not ortly as feminine plural nominative, but also as feminìne' singular genitive, femirtihe singul訂 dative;，and feminine plural vocative; bona

not onlyàs Jeininine singular nominative, but also as meuter plural nominative, femiîîiiiê "-499 一

師大學報第楷-期

singular vocative, neuter plural ac~usative ， etc.; and. the 1ike. The conjugation of the Latin verb is even more complicated: it is a “pQmpous'" 一-sO to speak--array of the p。“ible combinations of the grammatical concepts of person, 'numbet:, t.ènse (asp~ct)， voice, and mood. In order to speak Latin fast' and ∞rr~ctly，“dne must be able to proc~ss linguistic information as quickly aS.a modern computer:"14

Modern German :comes, rather c10se to Latin insome significant ways. Word-orçler in .German.is also relatively free, a.rid sentence 'meaning depends also heavily' on inf1ection of words. Thus, d~r JungeLliebt dasMqdchen 'the boy loyes the girl', with the normal S + V+ 0 word-order, does not differ .much in meaning from das Madchen liebtder.rJunge

‘

the boy loves the girl', with the word-order 0 + V +' S, aside from a shift of s'entence focus (some-,

thing.like the English construction,‘it is this girl that the boy loves', but not so much em-.phasized). Meaning wi11 be changed, however, when.the, two ilouns in the sentence are

otherwise inf1êcted, as den Jungen liebt das Madchen (0 +' V +的‘the girl10ves the boy'.

:Likewise, Latin Nero interfeci( Agrippinam

‘

Nero killed Agrippina' wi11 m~an basically the same as. Agrippinam interfecit Nero (0 + V + S) or NerQ Agr加pinam ivferfeçi( (S+O+ V).

Hence, in German, ich liebe dich (S + V + 0)

‘

1 love you' means basically the Isame as dich liebe ich (0 十 V+ S), the only 1 syn~l!çti.c requirement being that the verb should always

assume the secQnd position of thç sentence (thus, unlike Latin, *dich ich. lil!be -is uJ}

gram-matical unless in, an int~ntionally topica1iz~d context ，的 in Chinese ta wo bu hsi-huan, literally,‘he, 1 don't Uke'),

Grammatical çategories in GermaI) are by and. large the saml;l' as: those in. Latin and,

English, since. both English. and. German' grammars used -.10 be Latiri-:based (s臼，Michael 1970). Some minor differences卡 exist ， .of ∞urse. For. insta,nce, while Latin has no articles, German and English do. While Latin draws a c1earcut formal distinction between adjectives and adverbs (one: inf1ectional and the otheruninflectional), G叮血îandoes'not. Most German adjectives and adverbs are of the same 'form and may convenìently be given the same

form-c1ass labe1.15 The inf1ectional system ,of German appeàrs to be slight1y.1ess compliéated than that of Latin, but much mor.e complícated than that of Modern Englis

p.:,

3-way distinction of grammatical gend~r (mascù1ine, feminine, and neuter), 4-way distinctionof case' (norÌ üna-tive, genitive, dative, and accusative), a.nd a much more comp1icated picture òf conjugation than. that of.English.

English used to be m.uch mOt:~ ÇQmþ1icated than ,it is 'now. While Modern English is an analyti~ 1ariguage, 01d English was a synthetic one. The inf1ectional system 9f Old English r,esembles tha~ of m9der:n Gefman~(B.augh and Cable 1978). The language has, gone, through

從對比分析論拉了文、德文與英文間一些翻譯問題

a process of simp1ification to become analytic in the course'of time. Thus

,

where Latin had

a 6-way distinction of case and modern German has a 4-way one, Mddeni English ke.eps only

a few re1ics, of case inf1ections, namely the s-gentive一一the 3-way distinction between

nominative (subjective)

,

accusative (objective) and genitive (possessive) is just superf1uous

and unrea1.

2. SOME TRANSLATION PROBLEMS BETWEEN THE LANGUAGES

Owing to the structural simi1arities and dissimi1arties between Latin, German, and

Eng1ish, may problems may arise whi1e translating one into another. Linguistic transfer,

both negative and posit1ve

,

is common. We wi11 present and discussion some of the

pro-blems below.

2.1 咽leproblem of the article

Let us examine the Latin text and the German and English translations below:

“

(1) a. (Latin text)

Augustus Paulum amicum vocat:

“

Avus meus nos in naviêulam suarñ invitat.

Propera, care arnice! Etiam Iulium invitat! Avus nos iam in navicula exspectat."

Paulus amico obtemperat. Cum Iulio amico ad ripam properat. Avus一-iam in

navicula一一:“Saluto vos弋 inquit，“amici!Ventus secundus est. Naviculam intrate!"

Amici salutant et naviculam avi intrant. Avus cum amicis naviculam remis incitat.

Iam medüs in undis vento agitati navigant. Avus amicis e navicula pulchras ripas,

amoenos vicos, hortos, campos monstrat. Magna est laetitia amicorum et alüs

amicis postea de undis et vento et amoenis vicis narrant.

b. (German translation)

August ruft seinen Freund Paul:

“

Mein Großvater lädt uns 泌 se詛 Bootein. Eile,

lieber Freund! Er 1出t Julius auch ein! (Der) Großvater erwartet uns schon im

BooC' Paul、 gehorcht seinem Freund. Mit dem ,Freund Julius eilt er zum Ufer. Der

Großvater一-schon im Boot一一:“Ich begrüße euch", sagt er. “o Freunde! Der

Wind ist gün繭. Betrétèt 曲sBðαt! Die Freunde grüßen und betreten das Boot des

師大學報第卅一期

Großva:ters. DerGroßväter mit den Freund~n' treibt das Boot mit dèn Rudern 'an:

'Sie segeln schon inmitten .der Wellen, getrieben von ,dem Wind. Der Großvater J

zeigt den .Freunden aus dem Boot d.ie schõnen uf說， die lieblichen Dörfl缸， die

Gärten und die Felder. Groß ist die' Freude der Freunde und nachher erz誼ùensie.

anderen Freunden über die Welle

n,

den WÌBd und äie'lieblichen Dörfèr.

c. (English translation)

August calls his friend Paul:

“

My grandfather invites us (盼to his boat. Hurry 呵，

dear friend!, He invites 訕。 Julius!My grandfather, is already waiting for (expecting)

us in ,his Qoat." Paullisten~ to (obeys).1,ús.friend., With his friend Julius, he h\}rries

to the 也0拭 The grandfather--already in the boat一-says: “l greet you,my

friends! The wind is favorable. Get in the,boat!" The friends greèt him and enter

the boat of the grandfather. The grandfather, with his friends, drives the boat with

the oars. They are already sailing amid the waves, driven by the wind. The.

grand-father ,shows his' friends from the boat the beautiful shores, the lovely vil1ages" the

gardens, and the fields. Great is the joy of his friends and later they explain, to some

other frieilds about the waves, the wind, and the loyely vil1ages:

Much can be said of the Latin text above and of the German arid English translations

regarding all aspects of structure of the three languages with respect to the theory zpd the

actual task of ttanslation. Fot our immediate concern, however, let. us' begin with the

problem of the article‘ and, come to the rest later iñ our discussiöÌl.

As previously mentioned, Latin ~s no ~rtic1e， and definitness of nouns and noun

equivalents is either ipferred from context or express~Ø otherwise: by the, use, of

demon-stratives 仙化， haec, hoc

‘

this'; ille, a旬， lllud 'thaf";'and the like}orby the use öf relatives

and relative constructions (qui, quae," quod, ‘who, whìch, that' , etc.). German has, as

English does, the definite artic1e (der, die, das ‘the', with a full declension with respect to

three genders, two numbers, and four cases), the indefinite (e帥， eine, ein ‘a(n)', with the

sam~ systerri of' dec1ension), and a

“

negative artic1e" (ke帥， keine, kein

‘

no', with the same

dec1ension as the indefinite). The (idioma、~ic) use of the articJes, however, varies between

German and English. Generally speaking, the German definite article is much more

fre-quently used, especially in idioms where ,no definite teference is,present, th~n its English

counterpart; and, in many idioms (adverbial or adjectivàl) whosé English equivale.nts (see

O. for the discussion of

“

equivalents") have no artic1e or an indefiilite artic1e

,

German often

has' the. definite artic1e. Thus:

(2) a. Er kommteinmal.im Jahr. 'a'. He comes once (in)a,year;

b. Zum Beispiel, . . b', For example,.'. ••

c;' Sie sind bei Tisch. c也‘ They' are at table.

'd. Er ist beim Essen.

d'. He 1s,atmeal-time (at meals).17

e. Sie! ist (sitzt) am Tisch.

e'. She is (sitting) at (the) table .

從-對比分析論捏了文、德文與英文閉一些翻譚問題

.f. 1m Sômmer wird es warmer (sein). f. ln 側面 mer'.it,wi11'be warmer.

g. Die Bäume 七lühenim Frühling.

g". The. trees blossom in(thè) spring.

h. Er gel.t zur Arbeit.

'h'. He.is going (back) 的 (his) 'W ork. ~. Am Sonntag maèhe "ich :nichts.

i'. On Sunday 1 do nothing. j. A'm Abend sehe ich fèrn.

j\ 1 watch TV at night (in the evening).

k. Zum Schluß möchte ich sagen, daß. . . . k'. Finally I'dlike to 'say that. . . .

1. 1m Januar kommt niein Vater zurück.

1'. My father comes back in January.

m. Dann werdé ich Ihnen 'meínen Artikel zum Raten schicken. m\ Then I'll send 'you 'my artic1e for advice.

In 'aU tlîese and mahy other 'examples contrasting the use öf artic1ès.in Germán and English we might

品cern

some 'genetal differertces regardïng the use of tlîe âttfc1e system ln .each language, lthough defiñite' rules can hardly be genëralized froIÍ1 'theni since the üses of artic1es, in Gennan as in English, are to' a 區reat exteht ∞ nventionalized and ldioniatic. In the examples，加1 Jahri in (a) means 1iterally'‘in the year', the form im being a

"'-師大學報 第卅一期

bination of the preposition in

‘

in' and the definite articles dem

‘

the'. (neuter singular dative), with the final consonant of the article 姐∞rporated into the preposition. Thus

,

im Jahr

,

in this context, is to be translated into English as (in) a year, rahter than in the year, though the latter is possible in some o!her ∞ ntexts， as he came 州lice 的 theyear (a specific year). In (b), zum Beispiel means 1iterally

‘for the example'

, zum being a corpbination of zu

‘to/

for' and dem 'the'. In .the English equivalent, however, no article occurs. Sentences (c) and 恥') happen to be the same, both without an article and both taking the functional import of having a meal, as against the spatial meaning as ∞nveyed by am Tisch 'at the table' in (e), though the functional meaning may be included in the spatial: when one is at the table, he may or may not be havi.pg a meal.18' Synonymous with bei Tisch:is beim.Essen, literally

‘

at the meal', in (d)一 -this time with the article. There is, however, a major dífference il1 the use of the article between German and English when 'a preposition of time is used with a noun in connection wíth time, season, or the days of the week, ;lS in th雙 pai.rspf sentences

(η， (g), (i), U), and (1), where im Sommer means litera1.ly

‘

in thesumm訂" im Frühling,

literally

‘

in the spring', am Sonntag literal1y

‘

on the Sunday', am Abend literally

‘

in the níght', and im Januar literally

‘

in the January'一 -all with the definite article. Thei.r English parallels, however, usually occur without any article (in summer, in spring, at night, on Sunday, in January, and the 1ike), though in some instarìces alteniative expressions exist (in (the)spring, at night/in the night/in the evening, etc.). 'For (h), where zur Arbeit means literal1y

‘

to the work', it is hardly desirable or necessary to keep the definite article in the Eng1ish translation, making it ‘going (back) to the work'; substitution of the' definite article with a pronominal adjective would

,s

ound more natural. Thus, an el1iptical .imperativ~ like

also, zur Arbeit! will not be translated literally jnto English a巨 wellth.en, to the work!, but more idiomatically as well then, back to your work!. Zum Schluß in (k) means 1iterally 'to the end' but idiomatically

‘

finally'

, and

zum -Raten literaHy -<for the advice'

, though no

definite reference in the noun Raten, a gerund, is implied.

Let us now go back to our previous Gèrman and English translations ofthe Latin text in (1). Now, before we go in

從對比分析論扭了文、種文與英文間一些翻譯問題 problems and limitations.l9 _{Whi1e translating the Latin texts into German and English, the} translator (i.e., the author himself) has always. kept in mind that faithfulnçss and accuracy are what counts, placing the other requiremelJts such ~s fluency and beauty in "a secondary position. On this account一 -not a plausible excuse, though一 -atsome places ~ the 甘ansla­ tions, owing to the configuration of the origin~1 texts and to the structural, expressional differences andJor constraints between the languages involved, there may be expressions or structures which may not sound fully

“

fluent" or

“

idiomatic" to the native ear of each of the target languages into which the Latin texts have bee"n translated一一though，as far as the translator believes, they are faithful and correct and (hopefully) expressiv~ translations. They ∞me， so to sþeak, c10ser to the so-called

“

semantic tqmslation" (see Newmark 1981:

22)20 than any other type.

Generally "speaking, iIl order to 訂閱t a topic concerning the use of articles, longer texts, rather than discrete sentences, should b.e taken as i11ustrations and evidencç; this is why a. te本tli.ke

0

a) has been taken. When one scrutinizes (1 a) agaiI}st the suggesteq German

and English translations, one finds:

1) Where the German andJor English traIlslations should grammatically or idiomatically have an artic1e, or at least some oth,er substjtute (a Qeterminer ofsome other kind, say, a pronominal adjective 1ike h訟， her, etc.), the Latin sentence has no.ne, as:

(3) a. Augustus Paulum amicum vocat.

August(us) Paul friend calls

‘

August(us) calls (hiS) friend Paul.'

b. August ruft seinen Freund Paul.

c. August(us) calls his friend Paul.

(4) a. Avus nos iam in navicula exspectat. grandfather l.!s already in boat expeGts

‘

(My) grandfather is already waiting for (expecting) us in (thelhis) boat.'

b. (Derjmein) Großvater,erwartet uns'schon im Boot.

c. My (the) grandfather is already waiting for (expecting) us in the (his) boat.

(5) a. Paulus amico bbtemperat. Paul friendobeys

'Paullif;ten尋 to (obeys) (his) friend.' b. Paul gehorcht seinem freund. c. Paul1istens to (opeys) his friend.

師大學報 第卅一期

(6) a. Cum Iulio ami∞ ad ripamproperat. with Julitis friend to shore 俏。)hurries ，

‘

With(his) friend Julius he hurries to (the) shore (beach).' b. Mitseinem (dem}Freund eiIt.erzum Ufer.

c. With his (the) friend 'he.hurries'to the'shore (beach). (7) a. Ventus secundus' est.

wind favorable is

‘

(The)'wind is favorable.' b. Der Wind.ist g泣nst尪. c. The wind is fa\Torable~

2) The choice between the definite artic1ê and the' pronominal adjective depends largely on the degree.ofdefinitenëss desited (the latter being' more definite than. the former) ,and on idiomaticity. Thus, the choice of seinen and his jrt (3b) artd' (3c)resp己ctively 訂e

better and c1earer than dem and the because, especiallY'Ín this beginnïng sentenceof the discouÌ'se, ahigher degree of definiteness for the noun,amicum

‘

friend' is ~equited to 'specify

whose. friend he is (Augustus池， his fathèr池， or someone else's?).Jn (4b)and (4c), howèv缸， the choice of the definite artic1e im

‘

in the' .ând' the rather than in .seinefri

‘

ih his"àrid. ifl his, in each ﹒個se， sounds bettei' than the reverse. The same holds true for (5), (6), and many other sentencesin the translations. With (7) and .simi1ar ones, idiom governs the

'choice of the、 definite artic1e, der Wind, the wind, and 'the like~in both languages;

so

is the choice of zum 'to the' and the before Ufer

‘

shore, beach' and shore irt '( 6b ) and (6c).

3) Where the definiteness of a . Latin substantive has. already been specified by a pronominal adjective, translate as it is:

(8) a. Avus meus nos in naviculam suam invitat. gran.dfather my us 姐 boat his invites

‘

My grandfather invites us (in)to his böat/

b. Meirt . Großvaterlädt uns.in sein Boot ein .. c. My grandfather invites us (in)to his boat.

4) Where one Latin substantive (noun) is followed by another in the ge

n:

itive case, as in the case of anEnglish noun followedby an oJ~phrase， it is' by nature definite and will be translated usually with the definite article bothih German and inEnglish,as:

'--從對比分析論拉丁文、穗文與英文間一些翻譯問題 (9) a. Amici salutant et naviculam avi intr.ant.

friends greet and boat of-grandfather'enter

‘

(The) friends greet (him) and get into (the) boat of the gràndfather.' b. Die Freunde grüßen und betreten 4,

as

Boot des Großva:ters.

c. The friends greet him and get into the boat of the grandfather.

The lack of arî artic1e system does not necessari1y me'an 凶that the ancient Romans and thé other Latin-speaking people did not havÿ in their minds the concept of definiteness .or indefiniteness of beings, as long as they had some other ways to. specify it. As a certain conceptual gradation ofthe defihiteness' of all beihgs seems t6 be to some extent univer-sal in the minds of all1anguage speakers, it is not necessary that such a gradation or c1 assi-fication in "the mind, cOÌlscious or subconscious, be overtly marked by 1inguistic means-一 though in most of the cases it 函，as by the use of article systems. By artic1e system we mean a clearcut c1assification of. the degree of definiteness of b~ip.gs npt only in, the mind, but in the linguistic means by which such a c1assification is overtly expressed in speech. English has an artic1e system, which q:msists of three forms, a, an,_ and the, together with all the rules, either èxp1icif or conceptual, that govern their use in speech. Genrian has, for its own sake, another, which consists of much more forms (see previous discussion in this section). Latin, however, ha:ppened to have none. The Eng1ish artic1es serve fundamentally its definiteness-specifying purpose, except in those cases. in which the occurrence or non-occurrence of an artic1e is p.urely idiomatic,r conventional, incidental, or optional, or is the result of historical change. The. artic1e systerri iil German, aside from its function of .specifying the definiteness of beings, fulfi11s also the function of specifying the grammatical gender of words (thus also called, in German, Geschlechtswort

‘

gender word'). In

.Latin

, where grammatical re-lationships with respect to number, gender, and case are already specified by means of a highly comp1icated system of inf1ection in the nominals, there seems to be no need tp ∞ m­ p1icate or supplement the picture with a further grammatical system of artic1es. This, of ∞urse， is only a conjectural reason for the non-existence of an article system in Latin; a better .reason should be, plainly, that it s油lply doesn't exist.

As definiteness of reference in Latin substantives is to be inferred partly from context and part1y.by some oth~r means (see above), there m!lybe difficulty specifying the definite-ness of a Latin no.un when the conte~t is not .sufficient to enable the ~stener or reader to infer from it，的 inthe following sentence, taken alone:

師大學報 第卅一期

(10) a. Puel1a 個ntat.

girl sings

'(A/The) girl signs (is sin斟ng).' ‘

b. E卸 (das) M品chen singt.

c. A (the) girl sings (is singing).

10

check our understanding of the principl~s and techniques tn inferring from a given

∞ntext the definiteness of each .Latin noun as disèussed so far in thissection, let us read

.t

he Latin text below and fi11 in each of the blanks in the German and English translations

with a proper artic1e or any other determiner (when nothing shou1.d be fi11ed 恤， usea 的 :21，

(11) a. Austria par凹， sed clara terra Europae est. Gloria Vindobonae et aliarum provinci- 、

arum pulcharum Austriae magna est. Clarae sunt pulchrae silvae nostrae. Magna est

indust巾 incolarum patti~e nostrae. Mu也a et 1itterae incolis Au圳ae carae sunt.

Amamus Austriam, caram patri缸nnostram.

b. Osterreich ist 一一_ kleines aber becühmtes Land Europas. 一一 Ruhmvon W ien

und 一一_ anderen schönen Provinzen Osterreichs ist groß. Becühmt sind unsere

schöne Wålder. Groß ist 一一 Fleiß 一一_Einwohner unseres Vaterlands. 一一 Musik

und 一一Literatursind lieb 一一_Einwohner Osterreichs. Wir lieben

Osterreich, \lnser geliebtes Vaterland.

c. Austria is 一一_small but famous country of Europe. 一一_glory of Vienna and

一一 o曲er-beautiful pr~vjnce$ of AlIstrill i~ great. F部nous are our be學ltiful

‘fore拘. Great is_一 in如何 oË'_'__ residen1s ofour fatherland. 一 music

ánd 一一_ literature arè cherished by__ inhabitants of Austria. We love Austria,

. our beloved father1and.

2.2 The problem of case

As discussed previously 個 1. ， Latin had a highly eç>mplicated case system

,

modern

German has one which is slight1y less complicated than that of Latin but sti11 rather'

com-plicated

,

and English has one which is downright simple compared with those of German

and Latin.

The term case (in German, Fall or Kasus), derived from Greek 1TTWσtç and Latin

castω1， has been employed to refer to that grammatical category of the noun by which a

noun in a sentence is held in some relationship, grammatical and/or semantic, to some other

色lements (usually also nouns)"in the same Sentence. Traditionally, case has been treated as a

從對比分析論拉丁文、德文與英文間一些翻譯間屆 surface phenomenon, indicated by overt grammatical signals such as il1fle~tional elem~nts， (as Latin and German) or by word-order (as English). Some “deep semanticists," such as Fillmore (1968), argue that case is fundamentally 'a deep phenomenon that "Îs to some extent universal, and that simi1ar systems of case relationships. ~nder.lle .a,1.11al)gJ,.lages. There

are, therefore,“surface" and “deep" cases.

The number of surface cases varies from language to language: Latin had six; German has"four; Russian has six; Finnish has as many as sixteen; Eng1ish used to have four but now at most threι22 Slirface cases' 'are‘ specified either. morphologically iu一 the in.t1eçtjQn of forni餒。r syntacticàlly in word-order and in the. use ~of prepositions一于a double, but, :un-satisfactory criterion. Notionally:, both :Latin and modern German aré said to be language~ 0:6 high precision arid öf unambiguity. This, aside :fr9m r some o.th~r (actors, is achieveq mainly'"through,'thè: operation,òfthe:highly coínp1icatéq., but accurate)/~a~e system in.each.

In both lahguàges, it is well-known. that 'spe.cific ,cases 'go with speçific v.~r，bs;prepositiQp.哩，

and' occasionally 'even adjectives; Questions 1ike,“What case shQuld‘、þe.

.the indirect

ol~ject to the verb lehren ‘teach' in?",“In what .case should it b,e for the obj研t.to the preposition wegen

‘

on acéount of?",“What case sho,uld be ,used ~with tþ.~ predi明te.a.djective eingedenk

'kept‘ in mind心 rfor the object?" and. many ,similar on~s .have (requently been asked þy

learners 'of German, non-nativer as well as native 9pes,23, 'Let us contrast a few German

sentences with their! Eng1ish paraUe1s:

(12) a. :Der ,Lehrer lehrt 'die Kinder das Lesen und, SchI:eiben.

b.. J The teacher teaches thé children reading and writing.

(13) a. Wegen.meines Studiums hier k品nnte ich vielleicht nicht kommen. b. Because.of my study here perhaps 1 còuld not come.

(14) a. Ich bin deiner eingedenk. b. 1 remember you.

Here in '(12), while the indirect object to"verbs Jike teacl), give, and the 1ike, is said to be in the dative' case, German le

lJ.

ren' takes the' accusative (here, die Kinqer instead of den Kiridern)一，--thιus，但king. two accusatives, in thei'sentènce pattern S 十 V+O+O. In (l3a), the prepositiõn 'wegen:takes ~nobject， meines Studiums, in the genitive24~ in卡(1 4a)， which means 1iterally *‘1 am of you remindful', the prediC4te adjective ta1,ces i.ts semantic object、，

deiner ~öf-you~ ， in' the genitive.-'T,his last example parallels exactly in case Latin, from which it has perhaps derived!

個大學報第卅一期

(1"5) a. Memor sum tui.

mindful(remembe:ring) I-am oFyou '1 remember (think of) you.' b. Ich bin deiner eingedenk.

(=Ich g~denke deinerjlch denke an dich.) c. 1 rememb'er (think. of) you.

Another common 'problem for German and.LatinJearners and 'for translators çleaUng with the three languages. is the ,choice of case between .dative and accusåtÎ\re (or the German reflexive 'pronoun sich (the nam"e.J'orìn), parallelled by Latin. se (acc.) and sib.i -(qat.), espèdally when translating' the languages the. óther way round (Le., from(English back to German andjor Latin). The “sich于problem" to learn'ers 'of German is already well::known: many Gerinan verbs are inherently reflexive, without even a reflexiy~ ， semantic import; màhy othefs arè option:al, with or'without a. difference in meaning; then there is thel pro-blem ofcase, and finally that of position'.

Since a better und叮standing' ofa La:tin lor Gertnan text, as previouslymentioned, depends to a great extent upon an understanding of the rather complicateö case relatioñ-ships in each öf the sentences that make up the text, the translator would hardly be able to do his job correctly and effectively without such an"únd叮standing..Luckilÿr,. there are à great number of similarities betw臼n Latin and German in this area, from which inferences and analogies can frequently 'be made.'Ge'nerally 'speakirig, ,fhe basic' functions"and mean:ings of the four cases (namely, the nominative, genitive, dative and accusative) of LatÜl and German overlap. The two surplus onèS in Latin are to_be incorporated into tþe,four while translating Latin into German, and this\vill be further simpli{ied when.German,is translated into English.

The nominative case, both in Latin and in German, which answers' thequestion quis?

or qu甜? (wer od. was?)

‘

Who or what?', is the case of the surface subject. It may, but does nöt necèssãrily, express the 'deep case, telationshiþ o

f.

Agentive, which 的ay .be. other.wise

realized in the surface sentence (Fi1lmore 1968).~. iAt this point, however, two charac.-teristics about' the surface subject寸 of:Latin and' German, 'respectively, mu~t be observed by the translator. The first is that, with German' 'and a number of other Indo:-European lan-guages, â dative, instead of a nominãtiv吼了nay often serve as the. surface subject , of 'a

sentence, as mir' ist ka缸， lite1'allý' 油e(dät.) Îs ∞ld' ， w hich is to, be. translated into .Ehglish as

1 am ([eel) cold, rather than the rather cumbersome it is cold [or/to me, wi址th'，甘 一 5'‘'1ω0 一

從對比分析論捏了文、穗文與英文間一些翻譯問題 subject in German replaced by the nominative in English. Secondly, with Latin, when the pronoun subject of a verb is already sufficiently marked or incorporated into the verb itself, it is usually not necessary to repeat it unless when emphasized. Thus, Lat. laudo means

already ‘1 praise', canto means already ‘1 sing/am singing', laudabimus means already ‘we shall praise', and laudabimini means already ‘you(pl.) will be praised'. They are, so to speak,“subject1ess" one-word sentences, whose pronoun subject will occur only when it is for some reason intentionally emphasized, as ego canto

‘

1 am singing (not anyone else)'.

The basic meaning and function of the genitive case in Latin and German, which answers the question cαuiωus‘s?

pre臼ss討iona旭all卸y ‘“‘可logi化ca叫l，，"，“ symmetrical" language, may lend itself to a long succession of genitives, as the second sentence in the Latin text (lla):

(16) a. Gloria Vindobonae et a1iarum provinciarum pu1chrarum Austriae magna est. b. Der Ruhm von Wien und der (von den) anderen sch品nen Provinzen Österreichs

ist groß.

c. The glory of Vienna and (0ηthe other beautiful provinces of Austria is great.

The (case) structure of the Latin sentence, when broken down, will show the following stratification:

(17)

日日

S COMP V

The grammatical relationships among forms are strict: gloria (fem.sg.nom.) ‘glory', head-noun of the subject; Vindobonae (fem.sg.gen.) ‘Vienna', inflected from Vindobona (fem.

sg.nom. 一 -the name-form); et ‘and', conjunction, uninflected; aliarum (fem.pl.gen.) ‘of-all' , pronoun, from aliae (fem.pl.nom. of alius

‘

another'); provínciarum (fem.pl.gen.)

‘

of-provinces', from provincia (fem.sg.nom.); pulchrarum (fem.pl.gen.)

‘

beautiful', from

pulchra fem.sg.nom.), in turn from pulcher (mas.sg.nom.); Austriae (fem.sg.gen.)

‘

Austria', from the fem.sg.nom. name-form Austria; magna ‘great' , adjective, in feminine singular

師大學報 第卅一期

nominative to agree with the subject g!oria in gender, number, and case; est ‘is', the copula, i!1dicative present 3rd-person singular active. Note also the complete grammatical concord

as marked by the fem.pl.gen. ending -arum in the three words meaning '(the) other beautiful

provinces', and the highly balanced, symmetrical order of modification as achieved by all the grammatical means. When the proper articles are supplied, the sentence finds its German and English translations in (l6bc).

Further, while there is usually only one way to show genitive relationships (i.e., by way of inflection) for Latin, there are, nevertheless, two differem means for German and English: one morphological (inflectional) and the other syntactic. The former is the so-called s-genitive (China's) in English, and the other is the so-called of-genitive (of China).

German has the same alternatives, von China ‘of China' vs. Chinas ‘China's', von Berlin ‘of (from) Berlin' vs. Berlins ‘Berlin' s', and the like. In actual translation, the decision to make depends largely on context, tone, and fluency. Thus ，的ndobonae in (l6a) has been trans-lated as von Wien instead of Wiens in (16b), taking the von-genitive; and Austriae as Öster-reichs rather than von Österreich, taking the s-genitive. Doing it the other way round would result in der Ruhm Wiens (genitive relationship not clearly enough, especially for those who are not familiar 叭it出w h the name of the city) and der (伽vo仰nd伽en叫) a仰nd由er陀en s跎chω的Ineo

von οste仰rr陀ei化ch (two 1昀y砂on's may make it a little clumsy叭). Different speakers and translators, however, may have different opinions at this point. In addition, since modifiers in Latin usually come after rather than before the heacl-noun they modify (i.e., postmodification)

and the succession of genitive modifiers following the head-noun may be long, it would be clumsy to do it likewise in English. Thus, a free translation of the same sentence into English would be like:

(17) The glory of Vienna is great; so is the glory of the other beautiful provinces of Austria.

Or into German:

(18) Der Ruhm von Wien ist groß; auch ist der (Ruhm) der anderen sch品 nen Provinzen Osterreichs.

The accusative case in the three languages (not to be confused with the deep-case concept of Objective--see Fillmore 1968 :25), which basically answers the question quem?

or quid? (wen? oder was?) ‘Whom? or What少， deserves also interlanguage attention. While - 512 一

從對比分析論挂了文、德文與英文間一些鞠譯問題

Modern English no longer reveals formal distinction between the nominative and the

ac-cusative except in personal pronouns (thus the same John and Mary in John loves Mary and

Mary loves John), Latin did, and modern German sti1l does (but no longer for most proper

names like Maria ‘Mary' and Johann ‘John', which usually take no articles). As objects to

prepositions, there is the general distinction between what is “actional" and “static" in

German: the use of an accusative with an action verb and a dative with a stative one, as die

Mutter legte das Essen auf den Tisch ‘the mother laid the food on the table' (actional) vs.

das Esen liegt auf dem Tisch ‘the food lies on the table' (static). The same distinction is

made in Latin, except that the stat此， which is usually expressed by the dative in German, is

usually desginated by the ablative in Latin. Let us examine the Latin text and the transla-tions below:

(19) a. Agricola in si1va densa laborat. Uxor agrici1ae in vi11a est. Femina magna

industria cenam bonam parat. Fi1iae agricolae mensam rosis pu1chris ornant.

Agricola e silva vicina in vi11am properat. Cum femina et fi1iis cena se delectat.

Fi1iae agrici1am fabulis novis delectant. Tum agricola rursus e vi11a 凶 si1vam

pro-perant.

b. Ein bauer arbeitet in einem dichten Wa1d. Die Frau des Bauern ist im La

nd-haus. Die Frau bereitet das gute Essen mit großem Fleiß. Die Töchter des Bauern

zieren den Tisch mit schönen Rosen.

Der bauer ei1t aus dem nahen Wald ins Landhaus. Mit seiner Frau und Töchter

erfreut er sich an dem Essen. Die Tδchter erfreuen den Bauern mit neuen

Geschich-ten. Dann ei1t wieder der Bauer aus dem Landhaus in den'wald.

c. A farmer works in a thick wood. The wife of the farmer is in the country

house. The woman is preparing a good meal with great effort. The daughters of the farmer are decorating the table with beautiful roses.

The farmer hurries out of the woods c10se by and into the country house.

With his wife and daughters he enjoys the mea1. The daughters amuse the farmer

with new tales. Then the farmer hurries again out of the country house and into the woods.

In the Latin text above, where the verb is non-actional, i.e., one that involves no movement

or change in position or space, an ablative object has been used with the

preposition;other-wise an accusative has been used:

師大學報 第卅一期

(20) a. in silva den回 laborat (non-actional: ablative) in forest thick works

b. in einem dichten Wald arbeitet (non-actional: dative)

c. works in a thick forest (wood) (no indication) 。 1) a. in villa est (non-actional: ablative)

in country-house is

b. im Landhaus ist (non-actional: dative)

c. is in the country house (no indication) 。 2) a. in villam properat (actional: accusative)

in country-house hurries

b. ins Landhaus eilt (actional: accusative)

c. hurries in(to) the country house (no indication except in the preposition) 。 3) a. in silvam properat (actional: accusative)

in forest hurries

b. in den Wald ei1t (actional: accusative)

c. hurries in(to) the woods (no indication except in the preposition)

Furthermore, it must be noted that accusatives alone may, without a preposition, function as an adverb 一 -as they do in German:

(24) a. Femina magna industria cenam bonam parat.

woman great effort meal good prepares

b. Die Frau bereitet das gute Essen mit großem Fleiß.

c. The woman is preparing a good meal with great effort.

or as m:

(25) a. Romam proficiscemur.

Rome we-shall-travel

b. Wir werden nach Rom reisen.

c. We shall travel to Rome.

In these and similar examples, the bare accusative (i.e., accusative without a preposition) fulfi1ls the function of an adverbial一 -somethingwhich the translator must observe in order

從對比分析論扭 T 文、德文與英文閉一些翻譯問題

to ∞rrectly translate the Latin sentences into German and English. The same happens also in German, w hich parallels the “noun adverbs" in English:

(26) a. Was machen die Kinder den ganzen Tag?

b. What do the chi1dren do the whole day?

The vocative case, which is absent in modern German and English, is the case of direct address. If English were to have the vocative, it should have a different form for the word

John in a sentence like John, come here!. Even in Latin, the vocative does not lend itself to much variation in form: all vocatives take the same form as the nominative except for the vocative singular of nouns of the o-declension ending in

-us

(Latin nouns of the o-declension may end in ﹒帥， -er, or -um), as in the second sentence in (1 a):

(27) a. Propera, care amice!

hurry dear friend b. Eile, lieber Freund!

c. Hurry (up), (my) dear friend!

In all the other cases it takes the same form as the nominative，的 inthe same text:

(28) a. “Saluto vos", inquit,“amici!" I-greet you(pl.) says (said)-he friends

b. “Ich begr旬 eeuch", sagt(e) er,“(0) Freunde!" c. “1 greet you," says (said) he,“friends!"

The vocative case does not seem to cause trouble for the translator except that sometimes a pronominal adjective, or the interjection 0

‘

oh', may be added to make the vocative noun more natural, intimate, or formlll ，的 is the German expression for

‘

ladies and gentlemen',

meine Damen und Herren, which without the pronominal adjective meine

‘

my' would sound

unidiomatic. Thus, when a Latin imperative like the one below is translated into German, the pronominal adjective meine will be idiomatically added:

(29) a. Naviculam intra峙， domini et dominae! boat enter gent1emen and ladies

師大學報第卅一期

‘Board (get in) the boat, ladies and gentlemen!'

b. Betretet (Betreten Sie) das Boot, meine Damen und Herren!

c. Board (Get in) the boat (please), ladies and gent1emen!

Finally, while Latin has the ablative case but modern German and English do not,

the ablative functions of Latin are to be incorporated into the dative and (less frequently)

into the accusative to form adverbials of time, place, manner, and the like because it answers

the questions ubi? (Ger. wo?)

‘

Where?', quando? (Ger. wann?)

‘

When?', quam? (Ger. wie?)

‘How?', qua re? (Ger. wodurch?) ‘By what means?', unde? (Ger. woher?) ‘From where?',

and the like. (It must be noted, however, that the actional concept of quo? (Ger. wohin?)

‘To where?', is usually with the accusative, not ablative, in German: see above.) The Latin

ablative is, therefore, basically adverbial in function. And, in terms of the deep-case models

of Fil1more (1968) and the other deep semanticists, the Latin ablative is temporal, locative,

instrumental and sociative, aside from some other functions.

We have so far discussed brief1y the case relationships between Latin, German, and

English. The translator's job is to discern these relationships among them in order to

trans-late more accurately, faithfully, expressively and, hopefully, also elegantly one into another.

Let us examine the text and translations below. Note especially the case relationships among

them and how they are translated into one another.

(30) a. In vico magnum aedificium ardet. Etiam Augustus et Paulus ad incendium

pro-perant. Iam vi11a et stabula nova aedificii magno in periculo sunt. Sed agricolae

stabula intrant. Magna pericula flammarum non timent. Magno studio taurum et

vaccas et equos e stabu1is servant. Tum multa aqua incendium vi11ae et stabulorum

sedant. Sic etiam aedificia vicina periculo liberant. Magnum est gaudium agri-colarum.

b. 1m Dorf brennt ein großes Gehöft. August und Paul ei1en sogar zum Brand. Das

Landhaus und die neuen Ställe des Geh谷ftes sind schon in großer Gefahr. Aber

die Bauern treten in die Stå11e ein. Sie fùrchten sich nicht vor den großen Gefahren

der Flammen. Mit großem Streben retten sie aus den St証llen den Stier, die Kühe

und die Pferde. Dann beruhigen sie mit vielem Wasser den Brand des Landhauses

und der Stå11e. Auf diese Weise befreien sie auch die nahen Gebå"ude von der

Gefahr. Groß ist die Freude der Bauern.

c. In the vi11age a big farm is on fire. August and Paul are even hurrying into the fire.

The farmhouse and the new stables of the farm are already in great danger. But the

從對比分析論拉了丈、德文與英文間一些翻譯問題

farmers tread into the stables. They do not fear the great danger of the fire. With

great effort they save the bull, the cows, and the horses from the stables. Then

they calm down the fire of the farmhouse and the stables with a lot of water. In

this way they free a1so the neighboring buildings from the danger. Great is the joy

of the farmers.

Let us tabulate the case relationship of some elements across the texts:

(31) Latin German English

in vi∞ (ab l. locative) im Dorf (dat.) in the village

ad incendium (acc. actional) zum Brand (dat.; zu always to the fire

with dat.)

magno in periculo (abl. ) in großer Gefahr (dat.) in great danger

magno studio (abl.) mit großem Streben (dat.) with great effort

e stabulis (abl.) aus den Stäl1en (dat.) from (out of) the stables

mu1ta aqua (abl.) mit vielem Wasser (dat.) with a lot of water

periculo (abl.) von der Gefahr (dat.) from the danger

The correspondence justifies part1y the author's previous generalizations, which may be

approximately diagramed as fol1ows:

(32) Latin German

。

讀﹒

ma~n 函，

secondary 一- -一-一→』

師大學報第卅一期

N=nominative, G=genitive, D=dative, A=accusative, V=vocative, Abl=ablative, S=subjective, O=objective,

s-G=s-genitive, prep-phrase=prepositional phrase, AN=adverbial nominal

The diagram is not total1y self-evident and needs some more remarks to make itself clear: 1) Since Latin is a synthetic language and, as such, depends more on morphology than on syntax, Latin adverbials formed with the ablative or the accusative may be without a preposition. That is, the “bare" ablative or accusative noun may function alone as an

adverbial element, as magno studio (ab l.)有with) great effort' and multa aqua (abl.)‘(with) much water' in (30a) and magna industria (abl.)‘literal1y: (with) great diligence' (translated in (24c) as with great effort because ?to prepare a meal diligently would sound unidiomatic

in English) in (l9a) or (24a), or as Romam (acc. of Roma) 有to) Rome' in (25a), where there is no preposition at all. When these and similar Latin ablatives and accusatives are translated into German, the German translation usually takes a preposition that idiomati-cally goes with the German noun (either dative or accusative), as mit großem Streben‘with great endeavor (effort)', mit vielem Wasser ‘with a lot of water', nach Rom (in (25b)) ‘to Rome', etc. 一一though both German and English have such “bare" adverbials (as (26)). This optinality between taking and not taking a preposition for adverbials has not been shown in the diagram above.

2) Since Modern English, as an analytic or prepositional language that makes more use of syntactic means to convey meaning

a:nd to specify grammatical relationship

, has no longer formal distinctions between the nominative and the accusative, the (syntactic) cases for the sur(ace subject and the surface object have been grouped together into one formal category and given the more syntactic names

“

subjective" and

“

objective," which are more appropriate for English.

3) In practical translation, when the translator is looking for “the closest natural

equivalent" (see Nida 1964、 etc. ， and 0.) in the target language to replace a textual material or message in the source language, such correlations between the surface case、 systems of Latin and German as they are applied to the practical task of translation may depend to a large extent on idiom or idiomatic usage, i.e., on the idiomatic choice of verbs, prepositions、 etc., in the target language to convey supposedly“the same" message in the source language. And, as is well known, German verbs and prepositions govern specific cases of their own; so do the verbs and prepositions in Latin. The case of th

從對比分析論拉丁文、德文與英文閉一些翻譯間屆 to fol1ow usage and/or idiom in its own system (language). Thus, zum Brand, the closest German translation equivalent (see 0.) to L. ad incendium in (30), has to be in the dative simply because the German preposition zu always takes or “governs" a dative object. In the following examples, while all the Latin locatives (destinational) are expressed in the accusa-tive, with or without a preposition, their closest German equivalents, all prepositional, are in different cases (dative or accusative), depending on idiomatic choice of the preposition and in turn on what case that preposition governs:

(33) a. domum/Romam/in urbem Roman proficiscemur home/Rome/in city Rome travel-shall-we

b. wir werden nach Hause/nach Rom/in die Stadt Rom reisen c. we shall travel home/to Rome/to the city of Rome

4) The dotted lines joining G, D in German and S/O in English indicate that German datives and genitives may serve as the object, and dative as the subject, of a sentence when they are translated into the latter.

2.3 Some problems with gender and number

As previously mentioned in (1.), both Latin and German lend themselves to a 3-way distinction of grammatical gender and a 2-way distinction of number. Grammatical concord with respect to them in the Latin or German sentence is strict. With gender, however, as each language has its oyvn system, the translator is not to infer from one or the other, though sometimes they may happen to be the same. The Latin word for ‘sun', which is a masculine idea in both English (referred to as his and he) and Chinese (referred to as yang

‘

masculine'), sol, is masculine, whose German equivalent, Sonne, however, happens to be feminine (thus, die Sonne). The Latin word for

‘

moon', luna, unlike its German counter-part, Mond, which is masculine (thus, der Mond), is feminine. The Latin word for

‘

girl, lass, maiden', puella, is feminine; its German equivalent, Mädchen, however, is neuter (thus, das Mädchen). Hence, when the translator is translating a Latin text into German, or reversely, it is no shortcut for him to infer the grammatical gender of a word in one language from that of its equivalent' in the other, since the grammatical genders of the two words wi11 be, more often than not, different.

For the translator, the problem of gender is not made sharp unti1 he comes to the co-referential pronouns in a given text which is being translated, say, from Latin into

師大學報 第卅一如

German and then into English. The grammatical gender markers like suus ‘his', sua ‘her', suum ‘its', sui ‘their (m.)', suae ‘their (f.)', sua ‘their (n.)', and the like, may or may not coincide with the the natural sex of the noun (human or nonhuman, concrete or abstract) the pronoun refers to; so are German er/sie/es ‘he/she/it', ihn/sie/es ‘him/her/it', ihm/ihr/ (ihm) 'him/her/it', sein/seine/sein

‘

his', ihr/ihre/ihr ‘her', and the like. When these and o ther seemingly clear

“

sex-markers" are carried over to English, most of them will become the impersonal, neuter it(s) excpt those which refer to real persons. Therefore, German die Sonne hat ihren Glanz verloren will be translated into English as the sun has lost its (his) splendour, despite the fact that ihren Glanz actually means ‘her splendor'. A similar German

sentence, der Mond verbarg seinen Glanz vor uns will be translated into English as the moon concealed her (its) splendor 介omus, although seinen Glanz is literally 'his splendor'.

Further, while Modern English makes no gender distinctioa in most nouns for which sex distinction is trivial or unnecessary and for which the form for one or the other sex prevails and has thus become the general term for. both sexes (as horse(male), cow(female), tiger(male), duck(female), goose(female), bee(female), peacock(male), etc., vs. the less frequent mare, bull, t忽ress， drake, gander, drone, peahen, etc.),26 Latin and German, how-ever, maintain a strict natural-sex distinction in morphology between the masculine and the feminine, especially for nouns denoting persons. In practical translation, nevertheless, such a distinction is usually not to be carried into English unless when necessary; otherwise the

English translation will sound awkward. Thus, a Latin sentence like (34a) below will nor-mally not be translated into English as (34c) but as (34c'), though the German translation shûuld be (34b), with a clearcut sex distinction:

(34) a. Discipulae magistram monstrant.

pupils-female teacher-female greet b. Die Schülerinnen Grüßen die Lehrerin.

c. The school girls greet the female (woman) teacher.

c'. The school girls greet the teacher.

Problems with number are relatively few. Latin and German, as a highly “logical," symmetrical language, have theoretically the plural form for almost every noun to make its paradigm complete, while English has dropped the plural of many words in the course of time to become an inflectionally defective language. Latin and German, therefore, will use the plural more often than English does. In (30a), for example,

從對比分析論校了丈、德文與英文間一些翻譯問題 (35) a. Magna pericula flammarum non timent.

great dangers of-flames not they-fear

'They do not fear (the) great dangers of (the) flames.'

b. Sie fürchten sich nicht vor den großen Gefahren der Flammen. c. They do not fear (are not afraid of) the great danger of the fire.

a 1iteral translation of the Latin plural magna pericula β'ammarum into English

‘

(the) great dangers of the flames' willmake the translation less idiomatic, though it matches exactly the Latin text. The German translation, den großen Gefahren der Flammen, which parallels exactly in number, seems to have no problem because, perhaps, modern German comes closer to Latin in its overall structure than Modern English does. The translator is to discern such subtle differences in expression between languages and not to be misled by exact compliance with the original text.

2.4 Some problems with word-order

Latin is basically a verb-final, and German a verb-second language. That 函， the Latin

verb usually comes at the end of a sentence, as a final syntactic elemant:

(36) a. ~立笠e 坦旦旦旦且也. S Comp V to err human is

‘

To eηis human.'

b.

旦控笠盟主垣旦旦旦t. S Comp V

roses beautiful are ‘Roses are beautiful.'

c. Austria et Italia terrae clarae sunt.

S Comp V

Austria and Italy lands hmous are

‘

Autria and Italy are famous lands (countries).' d. Puellae magistram salutant.

S 0 V

girls (female) teacher greet

‘

The girls greet the teacher.'