Gandhi’s pacifism can be separated to some extent from his other teachings. (1)(Its motive was religious, but he claimed also for it that it was a definitive technique, a method, capable of producing desired political results. Gandhi’s attitude was not that of most Western pacifists. Satyagraha,) (2(the method Gandhi proposed and practiced, first evolved in South Africa, was a sort of non-violent warfare, a way of defeating the enemy without hurting him and without feeling or arousing hatred.) It entailed such things as civil disobedience, strikes, lying down in front of railway trains, enduring police charges without running away and without hitting back, and the like. Gandhi objected to “passive resistance” as a translation of Satyagraha: in Gujarati, it seems, the word means “firmness in the truth”. (3(In his early days Gandhi served as a stretcher-bearer on the British side in the Boer War, and he was prepared to do the same again in the war of 1914-1918.) Even after he had completely abjured violence he was honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides. Since his whole political life centred round a struggle for national independence, he could not and, (4)(indeed, he did not take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins.) Nor did he, like most Western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: “What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?” (5)(I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the “you’re another” type.) But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer’s Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which “would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.”
該句的主干結構是:the method... was a sort of warfare。主語the method后有兩個后置定語:一個是省略關系代詞的定語從句Gandhi proposed and practiced;另一個是過去分詞短語first evolved in...。如果把它們都譯為漢語的前置定語會很冗長,不符合漢語表達習慣。因此可把第一個定語前置,第二個定語轉譯為謂語。而真正的謂語前可加上“這”或“它”指代真正的主語。表語a sort of warfare后是一個較長的同位語a way of defeating...。其中介詞短語of...做后置定語修飾名詞a way,翻譯時應前置。
該句是and連接的并列句,其主干結構是:Gandhi served as a... and he was prepared...。前一分句中“in his early days”和“in the Boer War”都作時間狀語,修飾謂語served,翻譯時應放在句首。“on the British side”做后置定語,修飾stretcher-bearer,應譯為前置定語,即,“英方的擔架員”。
詞匯:serve as sth.意為“(為……)工作,服務,履行義務,盡職責”;stretcher-bearer指“抬擔架者”;on sb.’s side意為“站在某人一邊,和某人觀點一致”。
該句的主干是he did not take the... line,介詞短語of...做后置定語修飾賓語the line。由于定語太長,應采取拆譯法,另起一句。動名詞pretending后接有that引導的賓語從句。該從句由兩個并列的分句組成:both sides are... and it makes...,后一分句中it為形式主語,從句who wins為真正的主語,漢語中不存在這種語法形式,因此可以直接將從句內容譯為主語。
詞匯:line一詞的含義較多,但在本句中的含義是“態度,看法”;fruitless意為“沒有成果的,無成效的,徒然的”;pretend意為“假裝”,本句中它后面跟有從句,應增譯為“假裝說”。
該句的主干是I must say,后面是that引導的賓語從句。賓語從句是一個主從復合句。主句是I have never heard an honest answer,其謂語和賓語之間插入了一個狀語成分,翻譯時可放在句首或謂語之前,譯為“從任何一個西方和平主義者那里我從未聽說過”或“我從未從任何一個西方和平主義者那里聽說過”。though引導轉折狀語從句,其中介詞短語of...做后置定語,修飾賓語evasions,可譯為前置定語,也可另起一句。