Re: [論譯] 一篇我看了五體投地的譯文

看板translator作者RookieRun (Lea Salonga)時間16年前 (2009/04/23 19:41)推噓1(1推 0噓 5→)

留言6則, 2人參與討論串5/5 (看更多)

※ 引述《gimogimo (雞毛愛老虎)》之銘言： : 標題: [論譯] 一篇我看了五體投地的譯文 : 時間: Thu Apr 23 02:05:17 2009 : Where wages are not regulated by law, all that we can pretend to determine : is what are the most usual; and experience seems to show that law can : never regulate them properly, though it has often pretended to do so. : 故庸之事，苟非定由國令，則後之考者，只能取其經數而 : 言。但庸之高下，有至理定勢行乎其中，而生其不齊之效 : ，強以法令一切整齊之者，多見其逆理而敗也。 : -- 我想拉一點原文上下文來討論： In 1688, Mr Gregory King, whose skill in political arithmetic is so much extolled by Dr Davenant, computed the ordinary income of labourers and out-servants to be fifteen pounds a-year to a family, which he supposed to consist, one with another, of three and a half persons. His calculation, therefore, though different in appearance, corresponds very nearly at bottom with that of Judge Hales. Both suppose the weekly expense of such families to be about twenty-pence a-head. Both the pecuniary income and expense of such families have increased considerably since that time through the greater part of the kingdom, in some places more, and in some less, though perhaps scarce anywhere so much as some exaggerated accounts of the present wages of labour have lately represented them to the public. The price of labour, it must be observed, cannot be ascertained very accurately any where, different prices being often paid at the same place and for the same sort of labour, not only according to the different abilities of the workmen, but according to the easiness or hardness of the masters. Where wages are not regulated by law, all that we can pretend to determine is what are the most usual; and experience seems to show that law can never regulate them properly, though it has often pretended to do so. 黃字前面的部分只是在佐證一點：原文談論的脈絡確實有提到就一般工人工資的整體狀況做一個數字上的估計，而這個估計值在已經隨著時空發生變化之外，黃字的部分更指出：所謂的估計值不僅在現象面沒有代表性，例如同個地方的同樣工作內容，卻不同酬，連造成這種現象紛歧的背後，原因甚至也可能是恣意性的，例如僱主的性格。因此，做為這次討論主角的這段話前半段，其實是在解釋該書這部分把這種估計值拿來做討論基礎時，其有效性的限制何在── 當時既沒有普查，又沒有法律規定做為書面證據，在那樣的時空背景下，有志之人能夠做的，只有取（一般工人工資的）經常之數來估算。假設依此觀之，那麼： Where wages are not regulated by law, all that we can pretend to determine is what are the most usual; 故庸之事，苟非定由國令，則後之考者，只能取其經數而言。也就是前半段的問題應該不大。當然，我猜真正引發爭議的是後半段： and experience seems to show that law can never regulate them properly, though it has often pretended to do so. 但庸之高下，有至理定勢行乎其中，而生其不齊之效，強以法令一切整齊之者，多見其逆理而敗也。然而綜觀整段原文的意思，我想提出幾點：首先，這裡的「至理定勢」，其實可以指原文前面提到，造成表表面上其他條件相同的工作，在工資上卻出現歧異的那些原因（地域不同、僱主心性等等）。因而與所謂的「看不見的手」這個市場法則無關。其次，這裡必須再次強調：這句話的前半段，之所以需要去提到「法律對工資加以規制」這件事，其實沒有主張任何經濟原則之意，只是單純在解釋：為什麼可以用估計值來討論這部分的主題而已。而這一點對我們理解這句後半段的關鍵價值在於：在這後半段中，Smith本人其實也是「跳出去談」，是去順帶一提"law can never regulate them properly, though it has often pretended to do so."這個心得。所以，雖然可能會讓人有硬拗的感覺，但我還是想要指出這正是為什麼這段話，在原文會用分號，而譯文則直接用句號，來做前後分隔的原因。若以此為基礎──也就是：作者是在順帶抒發他對以法律對工資加以規制「這件事本身」的看法──來觀之，那麼強以法令一切整齊之者，多見其逆理而敗也，雖然確實不甚緊貼原文（將法律只是誤以為自己能夠規制合宜，譯為：強去規制，終將失敗）絕對還有修改空間，但就我個人而言，還在可以接受的範圍。最後，在我的理解上，整、齊，皆有規制之意，而大多數的規制在現象上呈現出來的外觀就是「整齊」，譬如對工資加以規制的結果，會使得具有同樣客觀要件的工作，在工資價額上呈現齊一的現象。這可以是這組中文字詞擁有的彈性，而不必認為是誤譯。僅提供以上個人看法一起討論。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 124.11.64.93

推

Duarte

04/23 19:50, , 1^F

04/23 19:50, 1^F

→

Duarte

04/23 19:50, , 2^F

04/23 19:50, 2^F

→

Duarte

04/23 19:51, , 3^F

04/23 19:51, 3^F