> "English, after all, is only a tool to know the world...
Right -- that's all we native English speakers use it for, after all.
> When referring to the topic when a Chinese writer can win the Nobel
> Prize in
> Literature, which is a complex for most Chinese, Yu revealed that
> Chinese
> people should not take the Prize too seriously.
After all, it's only run by the barbarians.
> Yu pointed out that since 1900, the majority of participants winning
> the
> Prize have been westerners, and by using their native language it is
> much
> easier for these Western writers to win the Prize. In contrast, the
> works of
> Asian writers need to be translated and a much of a work's essence can
> been
> lost in the translation.
This is a problem, certainly, though one shared by writers in Islandic, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, and other "Western" languages of lesser dissemination -- so enough of the West-bashing, already. As China becomes more of a world economic power, knowledge of Chinese literature in the original may become more widespread, though Chinese is not exactly as easy as falling off a log for Westerners to learn. Japan has been a major economic power for quite a while, but you can hardly get any English translations of Japanese books published, because they don't sell. And even if they do get translated, "their essence" of course is lost. But tough luck -- Japanese is no cinch to learn, either.
However, translation was not invented yesterday. People have had to cope with "losing the essence" of their languages' works in translation since writing began, since there were already many languages in existence then. The fact, I would remind our friend Yu, is that cultural exchange, translation, and "corruption of our precious linguistic heritage by foreign contact" have been constant realities throughout history, and in fact such contact enriches a language. "Pure" languages are a reactionary fiction.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.