Highly complex

By Frank Palmer

That language is highly complex is shown by the fact that up to now it has not proved possible to translate mechanically from one language to another, with really satisfactory results. The best programmed computer still cannot consistently translate from, say, Russian into English. The fault lies not in the computer but in the failure in provide it with sufficiently accurate instructions, because we are still unable to handle this vastly complex system. It has been calculated that if the brain used any of the known methods of computing language, it would take several minutes to produce or to understand a single short sentence!

Secondly, language is productive. We can produce myriads of sentences that we have never heard or uttered before. Many of the sentences in this book have been produced for the first time, yet they are intelligible to the reader. It is clear that we have some kind of sentence-producing mechanism - that sentences are produced anew each time and not merely imitated. One task of grammatical theory is to explain this quite remarkable fact.

Thirdly, language is arbitrary. There is no one-to-one relation between sound and meaning. This accounts for the fact that languages differ, and they differ most of all in their grammatical structure. But how far are these differences only superficial, in the shape of the words and their oven patterns? Some scholars would maintain that ‘deep down’ there are strong similarities - even ‘universal’ characteristics, disguised by the superficial features of sound (and perhaps of meaning). It is not at all clear how we can find the answer to this problem.

“Grammar”

Упражнение 5. Переведите текст способом полного перевода, обращая особое внимание на перевод имен собственных и сохраняя стилистические функции выделенных грамматических форм.

Sleep of reason produces monsters

Why is humanity’s destiny so often shaped by figures we abhor: not history’s heroes, but its villains? Perhaps the most obvious answer is that power attracts the depraved. A moment’s thought suggests, however, that there must be more to it that that.

For the past 2,000 years, the Roman emperor Nero has been seen as an archetype of the evil ruler. He is said to have burnt Rome to the ground for no other purpose than to entertain himself with the spectacle. An orgy 67 murder of his own intimates embraced not only two of his wives but his own mother. So what did the Roman people make of him? The answer is they rather liked him. In using power to gratify his lusts, Nero was doing what Romans suspected they would have been tempted to do if given the chance. Many of those we have come to see as history’s villains have genuinely believed they were acting for the public good. That was why Robespierre unleashed the Terror. That was even why Hitler went in for genocide and aggression.

Unlike Herod of Genghis Khan, Hitler was democratically elected. Indeed, he polled more votes in a free election than any German before him. Yet he made no secret of his program. «Mein Kampf» was published in 1925. The German people’s part in Hitler’s rise to power had more to do with mental laziness and self-delusion than greed, hatred or aggression. These may be less colourful failings than those of Hitler himself, but they proved to be as deadly. How many people are really free of such sleep - or sloth - of reason?

In the case of Stalin, it was not only millions of ordinary Russians who were prepared to lend their support to a monster. Charlie Chaplin, when asked if he would like to portray Stalin, replied: "It’s hard to play a man who has no failings."

The Russia Journal

Упражнение 6. Переведите текст способом полного перевода, обращая особое внимание на передачу имен собственных.