“Before examining the splinter in my eye, try removing the rafter from your own”. Matthew 7:5
“在检查我眼中的碎片之前，试着从你自己的椽子上取下筏子。” 马太福音7:5
As conduit to Jesus’ words, the great apostle, Matthew (although yes, he probably didn’t write the words himself), had a point. But before we can even get that far, we better all talk the same language. And we also better know the difference between a splinter and a rafter.
作为耶稣话语的渠道，伟大的使徒马太（虽然是的，他可能不是自己写的）有道理。 但在我们走到那一步之前，我们最好都说同一种语言。 我们还更了解碎片和椽子之间的区别。
Or the results, as can be seen in relations between China and much of the rest of the world, can be dire.
或者，从中国与世界大部分地区之间的关系中可以看出，结果可能是可怕的。
But making translations of each others’ worlds as accurate as they can possibly be is a problem as old as the Bible itself.
但尽可能准确地翻译彼此的世界是一个和《圣经》一样古老的问题。
The popular, King James Version of The Good Book presents the verse as, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”.
流行的《好书》的詹姆斯国王版本将这节经文呈现为：“你这个伪君子，先把横梁从你自己的眼睛里扔出去；然后你要看得清楚，把这把这根从你兄弟的眼睛里扔出去”。
Elsewhere, the New International Version prefers, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
在其他地方，新国际版本更喜欢：“为什么你看着你兄弟眼中的锯末，而不注意自己眼中的木板？”
The meaning of all these quotes is identical. But there is unquestionably a big difference between sawdust and a splinter.
所有这些引文的含义都是相同的。 但毫无疑问，锯末和碎片之间有很大的区别。
Translation vs. Perspective. Machines provide us with the former; cultural insights the latter.
翻译与透视。 机器为我们提供了前者；文化洞察力为了后者。
Stop to analyse for a second, just how much of our daily communication relies on cultural expressions and linguistic idioms.
停下來分析一下，我們日常交流有多少依賴文化表达和語言成語。
Take “The cat is out of the bag” as an example. Baidu translation presents this as “The cat is out of line” (这只猫出格了), when the exact meaning is “The secret is out”. Others interpret it as “The cat came out”, as in, “revealed its sexual orientation” (这只猫出柜了).
以“猫出袋”为例。 百度翻译将此呈现为“这只猫出格了”，而确切的含义是“秘密出来了”。 其他人将其解释为“猫出来了”，如“露出它的性取向”（这只猫出柜了）。
See the problem?
看到问题了吗？
And it gets worse when we look at inter-government relations. For there can be little doubt that long-term inaccurate translation will cause all kinds of misunderstandings, affect people’s perspectives and eventually, interfere with high-level decision-making.
当我们看政府间关系时，情况会变得更糟。 因为毫无疑问，长期的不准确的翻译会引起各种误解，影响人们的观点，并最终干扰高层决策。
That was the takeaway from a recent article entitled “Translation Dilemma”, discussing China-US mutual strategic cognition and published in World Knowledge (世界知识) Magazine. The article pointed out that in many cases, fallacies generated in the process of translation and the inequality between Chinese and English in the field of public opinion will lead to the intensification of mutual doubt.
这是最近一篇题为《翻译困境》的文章的要点，该文章讨论了中美相互战略认知，并发表在《世界知识》杂志上。 文章指出，在许多情况下，在翻译过程中产生的谬误以及中英文在舆论领域的不平等将导致相互怀疑的加剧。
But Americans too are aware of the problem. Two experts from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year that China has a large number of English-speakers who translate foreign documents, non stop, in order to obtain first-hand information. By way of contrast, the United States has very few Chinese doing the same.
但美国人也意识到了这个问题。 战略与国际研究中心（CSIS）的两位专家去年在《华尔街日报》上写道，中国有大量的讲英语的人不间断地翻译外国文件，以获得第一手信息。 相比之下，美国很少有中国人这样做。
The Wall Street Journal also sat up and took notice. The publication’s opinion division last June Tweeted, “The U.S. government and private sector have failed to invest in the language skills and expertise to compete effectively with the Chinese Communist Party”.
《华尔街日报》也坐起来注意到了。 去年6月，该出版物的意见部门在推特上写道：“美国政府和私营部门未能投资于语言技能和专业知识，以便与中国共产党有效竞争。”
But few chose to listen. Immediately following the recent centenary of the Chinese Communist Party, media the world over picked up on a portion of Premier Xi Jinping’s speech.
但很少有人选择倾听。 在最近的中國共產黨成立一百週年之後，全世界的媒體都采納了習近平總理的部分講話。
“Anyone who dares try to do that will have their heads bashed bloody against the Great Wall of Steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people”, the BBC reported Xi as saying on 1 July.
据英国广播公司7月1日报道，Xi说：“任何敢于尝试这样做的人，他们的头都会被14亿多中国人锻造的钢铁长城砸得血淋淋的。”
In its official English translation of Xi’s speech, Xinhua chose the phrasing, “Anyone who would attempt to do so will find themselves on a collision course with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people”.
在对Xi演讲的官方英译本中，新华社选择了“任何试图这样做的人都会发现自己与超过14亿中国人锻造的长城相撞”。
As in, “Up against an immovable object”. Nothing to do with heads getting bloodied. Except for those who run at full tilt into said wall. Which would be a bit silly.
就像“靠着一个不动的物体”。 和頭部流血无关。 除了那些完全倾斜地跑向上述墙壁的人。 这会有点傻。
Other major western media went on in much the same vain as the BBC. Bar the South China Morning Post, not one chose to use the Xinhua translation. But logic would dictate, that being the official version, this would be the way China wishes the world to interpret Xi’s words. That’s China perspective.
其他主要的西方媒体和英国广播公司一样徒劳无功。 禁止南华早报，没有人选择使用新华社翻译。 但逻辑会决定，作为官方版本，这将是中国希望世界解释Xi的话的方式。 这是中国的观点。
Why the big difference? Because Chinese is a colourful language which doesn’t have enough words. Compared to over a million words to choose from in English, China needs make do with around 10,000.
为什么差别很大？ 因为中文是一种丰富多彩的语言，没有足够的单词。 与一百多万个英语单词可供选择相比，中国只需要大约一万个单词。
Few words. Many meanings.
几句话。 多种含义。
The Chinese use such colourful, exaggerated language at almost every turn. English invents new words all the time or might resort to satire, irony or sarcasm to get its point across. By necessity, the Chinese use metaphor or powerful descriptions.
中国人几乎每次都使用如此丰富多彩、夸张的语言。 英语总是发明新词，或者可能诉诸讽刺、讽刺或讽刺来表达其观点。 出于必然性，中国人使用隐喻或有力的描述。
Consider the humble cigarette lighter. In Chinese that would be “打火机”, literally “strike fire machine”. But the character “打” has many meanings; strike, hit, beat, fight, attack.
想想不起眼的打火机。 在中文中，这是“打火机”，字面意思是“打火机”。 但“打”这个字有很多含义；打击、打、殴打、战斗、攻击。
Whoah, hold on there. Like, it’s just a lighter. And other than burning a few thumbs, hasn’t had a fight with anyone.
哇，等等。 比如，它只是一个打火机。 除了烧了几个拇指外，没有和任何人打过架。
