(I will change the title and some words to Chinese when I get home)
I can think of two fundamental rules:
1. One must acquire the voice of the poet. That is, to speak like the poet being translated. I saw a number of English translations of Li Bai's works, but none sounded like Li Bai. The translators seemed more interested in demonstrating their skills with the English language and showing how "cultured" they were.
2. One must acquire the "mechanism" of the imagery in the poem. Some poems have flying imageries (such as those of Li Bai), some flowing (such as Bai Ju Yi), some rushing, some hesitating, some leaping (such as Li He4) , some stationary (such Du4 Fu3) , and so on. One is not supposed to turn a flying poem into a leaping one, a flowing one into a stationary one, for instances.
In my reading experiences, most translations fail these two basics. Therefore the basic may well be the most challenging.
The rest such as rhyme, meter ... are all much less important or sometimes even superfluous in my observation. Often they do not translate from language to language, from culture to culture. If one draggs them through, during the struggle, one likely loses the voice and the mechanism of the imagery altogether. So, no need to labor it.
(I will change the title and some words to Chinese when I get home)
I can think of two fundamental rules:
1. One must acquire the voice of the poet. That is, to speak like the poet being translated. I saw a number of English translations of Li Bai's works, but none sounded like Li Bai. The translators seemed more interested in demonstrating their skills with the English language and showing how "cultured" they were.
2. One must acquire the "mechanism" of the imagery in the poem. Some poems have flying imageries (such as those of Li Bai), some flowing (such as Bai Ju Yi), some rushing, some hesitating, some leaping (such as Li He4) , some stationary (such Du4 Fu3) , and so on. One is not supposed to turn a flying poem into a leaping one, a flowing one into a stationary one, for instances.
In my reading experiences, most translations fail these two basics. Therefore the basic may well be the most challenging.
The rest such as rhyme, meter ... are all much less important or sometimes even superfluous in my observation. Often they do not translate from language to language, from culture to culture. If one draggs them through, during the struggle, one likely loses the voice and the mechanism of the imagery altogether. So, no need to labor it.
但很多时候以民族和国家来体现，譬如，法国文学，英国文学，俄国文学，南美文学，你能轻易辨别出它们之间的不同。尤其日本文学的翻译似乎更容易体现出“民族性”。那种说话方式（语言结构）一看就是日文文学。
我想我们过去很长时间里读到的翻译作品都是出自中国的翻译思想，追求神似，朱光潜就说过，大部分文学作品虽可翻译，译文也只能得与原文的近似。如果这样重在神似，好的译本就对译者的要求极高，不仅要求译者熟读原著，熟悉原作者，甚至还不够，怎么说呢，大概是在同一个气场里吧，这样才能传达原作品内蕴的精神气韵，就是小谢你帖中所说的要获得原作者的声音。而实际上，我感觉立除去捉捕原著的声音外，也很注重甚至是偏于西方的等值等效的译法。比如，他不会去用＂打动＂而去直译为 贿赂。
而说到掌握诗中意象，只能是译者的造化了。:）博尔赫斯说过大意这样的话，每个故事都会有专属于它的质地，一切文学创作包含两个元素：一个是神奇的性质，是缪斯是灵魂；另一个才是智力得以做工之处。两者最好是兼用。而从以往阅读立的众多作品时，觉得他是两者兼用。:）这可不是随便说说的。
或许，别人也有，只是我的局限，的确没有去阅读他们那么多的作品，不好评议。
"Mechanism" isn't good enough a word.