本日入手した以下の文献を読む。
- Michael Kremer “Review of Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, Dale Jacquette tr., Longman, 2007.”, in: Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2008.01.07.
Fregeを勉強されている方は、この書評を一読されておかれるとよいと思う。
Jacquetteさんの英訳は私も持っていて、ところどころ拾い読みしていた。
随分凝った英訳だなと感じていたが、詳しくは読んでいたなかった。
そこで本日の書評を拝読すると、どうもJacquetteさんの英訳は、訳文が単に凝っているどころではなく、かなり問題のある翻訳のようである。
というか、評者のKremerさんによると、問題だらけの英訳みたいである。完全に救いがたいまでに水準が低いみたいだ。
どのような翻訳にもミスはある。翻訳者のミスもあれば編集者のミスもあろうし、版を組む時点でのミスや印刷段階でのミスもあろう。多少のミスは致し方ないし、ちょっとしたslipに目くじら立てるのは、いささか品性を欠く行いである。少しばかりの誤解や勘違いは大目に見て、むしろ身を粉にしてわざわざ人々のために翻訳してくれた好意を多とすべきであろう。
しかし書評を担当されたKremerさんが正しいとするならば、今回のJacquetteさんの翻訳は度を越しているようである。ここまでひどいと評者も助け舟の出しようがないようである。Kremerさんも最後の最後までほめられる点がなかったみたいである。誤解・無理解・勘違いが次から次へと出て来ているらしい。詳細は今回の書評を読んでいただくとして、ごく一部だけ以下に引用しておこう。書評は大体次のような形で進む。
Last spring, as I was beginning a graduate seminar on Frege, I received a complimentary copy of this new translation of his masterwork, The Foundations of Arithmetic. I had ordered Austin's famous translation, well-loved for the beauty of its English and the clarity with which it presents Frege's overall argument, but known to be less than literal, and to sometimes supplement translation with interpretation. I was intrigued by Dale Jacquette's promise "to combine literal accuracy and readability for beginning students and professional scholars alike," and to improve on Austin where the latter "does not always faithfully represent or seem to perfectly understand certain of Frege's German idioms." (v) Such a translation, complete with index, critical introduction, and commentary, and at a bargain price, seemed worthy of my students' attention. So, I mentioned to the class that this book might be worth looking into.
Unfortunately, within a day or two I felt compelled to warn my students against this version of Foundations. On examination, I had found the translation to be unreliable and the critical introduction and commentary filled with misunderstanding.[…]
As I looked into the translation more closely, I found a continual repetition of the problems exhibited in the above examples. Over and over, I came across sentences or passages that didn't make sense. Every time, I discovered errors in the translation −errors not to be found in Austin's rendition. More than 20 times, Jacquette omits significant bits of Frege's text, ranging from individual words (important words!) to whole sentences; and in more than 100 cases he significantly distorts Frege's meaning.
In the space of this review I cannot go through all of these cases. Here are some examples, which will, I hope, be instructive.(1) I begin with examples of significant omissions. First, a case in which omission of a key word distorts Frege's meaning:
[…]
(2) In the next example, an important phrase is left out that helps to make clear Frege's thought.
[…]
(3) Finally, here is a case in which an entire sentence is omitted, leaving Frege's thought difficult to follow.
[…]
(4) I turn now to outright translation errors. We have already seen how attention to context can help to identify and correct errors in Jacquette's reading of Foundations. Striking instances of this occur in his translation of the analytical table of contents. In several cases, he mistranslates section summaries in a way that makes no sense, given the content of the sections in question.
[…]
(5) In a number of cases, Jacquette falls into a similar reversal of meaning.
[…]
(6) At times, the translation gets so tangled up in German syntax that it doesn't even amount to intelligible English.
[…]
(7) In the next example, attention to the historical context indicates a problem in Jacquette's translation.
[…]
(8) As a last entry in this catalog of translation problems, I offer an example that raises an interesting question − how to translate words that are not used, but mentioned.
[…]
There are many other similar examples of problems in Jacquette's translation. Still, there are occasions when Jacquette manages an improvement over Austin. But these are often combined with errors of the sort discussed above.
[…]
Jacquette's translation does not come close to attaining his goal of "a more literally accurate rendering into English of Frege's text." (v) Even when he does produce a literally correct translation, he still misses his further goal, of not "sacrificing the smoothness and above all the beauty and clarity of Frege's prose." (v) Page after page is filled with barely English sentences such as:
[…]
Since Jacquette's translation of Frege often exhibits a failure to understand Frege's thought, it is unsurprising that his Introduction and Critical Commentary are replete with confusion and misinterpretation.
[…]
It would be nice if I could end this negative review with a positive remark. But the only good thing I can find to say is that the experience of working through this book has heightened my appreciation for Frege's masterpiece and for Austin's marvelous rendering of that masterpiece into English. There is indeed room for a more literal translation of Foundations into English, one that preserves the beauty and clarity of Frege's prose. But this is not that book.
Kremerさんが正しいとするならば、大変残念なことである。誰にとっても、残念なことである…。
