英国essay代写-Reflection

显然，弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫（Vladimir Nabokov）的这篇文章描述了作者对奥涅金译本所采用的翻译方法、支持采用这种方法的原因，并进一步提出了他关于什么是正确翻译方法的想法。在这篇文章的一开始，弗拉基米尔·纳奥科夫（Vladimir Naokov）就向那些称赞“先生”翻译作品的人展示了他的“无助的毛茸茸”。 （或）某某小姐”（第113页）用陈词滥调代替原作者的精彩表达，体现了他对直译的偏爱。后来他提出了很多论据，试图证明用韵翻译作品是不可能的，证明脚注是解释作品押韵的最好方式，并证明使用抑扬格二度音符和抑扬格五音符的适用性。替换原作中的十四行不押韵的台词（第125页）。然而，带有大量脚注的文学翻译版本真的适合作为所有读者的知名杰作的另一种语言版本吗？我确实有强烈的怀疑。

It is clear that this article by Vladimir Nabokov describes the translating method that the author adopts for his translation version of Onegin, the reason in support of such an adoption, and also further suggests his idea about what is the right way to make translation. At the very beginning of this article, Vladimir Naokov has shown his “helpless furry” towards those who praised any translating works done by “Mr. (or) Miss So-and-so” (p.113) that uses platitudes to take place of the original author’s great expression, which reflects his preference for literal translation. Later, he made a lot of arguments with an attempt to demonstrate the impossibility to translate the works in rhyme, to prove that footnotes are best ways to explain the works’ rhymes, and to attest the suitability of the use of iambic dimeter and iambic pentameter to substitute the fourteen unrhymed lines in the original works (p.125). Nevertheless, is a literacy translation version with copious footnotes really appropriate to serve as another language version of a well-known masterpiece for all readers? I indeed have strong doubts.

在我看来，弗拉基米尔·纳奥科夫（Vladimir Naokov）基于这篇文章的翻译可以看作是一个非常典型的学术翻译模板，能够准确地传达普希金的语义、句法，对于学者、学习者来说是一个非常好的版本。达到一定的俄语水平。然而，弗拉基米尔·纳奥科夫（Vladimir Naokov）的大量脚注的直译使翻译版本失去了原著带给读者的乐趣、趣味甚至审美愉悦，或者更具体地说，读者对俄语一无所知或知之甚少。很难从 Vladimir Naokov 的版本中获得任何故事情节或有意义的灵感，因为他们可能会在他深刻而深不可测的表达中遭受很多痛苦，并且难以在正文和更具可读性的脚注之间切换。因此，我非常尊重 Vladimir Naokov 自己的思想，但更欣赏包含必要释义和自由风格的语言版本。

In my point of view, Vladimir Naokov’s translation, based on this article, could be seen as a very typical academic translation template that is able to convey Pushkin’s semantics, syntax in an accurate way, which is a very good version for cholars, learners who achieve a certain Russian level. However, Vladimir Naokov’s literal translation with a large amount of footnotes makes the translation version to lose enjoyment, interestingness, and even aesthetic pleasure that the original works could bring to readers, or, to be more specific, readers knowing nothing or very little about Russian could feel hard to get any storyline or meaningful inspiration from Vladimir Naokov’s version, because they may suffer a lot in his profound and unfathomable expressions and struggle to switch between the main text and the more readable footnotes. As a result of it, I have strong respect for Vladimir Naokov’s own thought, but more appreciate a language version including necessary paraphrases and free styles into it.