呵呵。正在看这个。
找了N个版本。也对比着英文看。
郭大力 / 王亚南 的版本中，是不是当时环境不希望Corn叫做“玉米”吗？为啥翻译成“小麦”？
真想不通。英文原文：
...In agriculture, the labour of the rich country is not always much more productive than that of the poor; or, at least, it is never so much more productive as it commonly is in manufactures. The corn of the rich country, therefore, will not always, in the same degree of goodness, come cheaper to market than that of the poor. The corn of Poland, in the same degree of goodness, is as cheap as that of France, notwithstanding the superior opulence and improvement of the latter country. The corn of France is, in the corn provinces, fully as good, and in most years nearly about the same price with the corn of England, though, in opulence and improvement, France is perhaps inferior to England. The corn-lands of England, however, are better cultivated than those of France, and the corn-lands of France are said to be much better cultivated than those of Poland. But though the poor country, notwithstanding the inferiority of its cultivation, can, in some measure, rival the rich in the cheapness and goodness of its corn, it can pretend to no such competition in its manufactures; at least if those manufactures suit the soil, climate, and situation of the rich country.
译文一直讲“小麦”。
所以，如果品质同样优良，富国小麦在市场上的售价，未必都比贫国低廉。就富裕和进步的程度说，法国远胜于波兰，但波兰小麦的价格，与品质同样优良的法国小麦同样低廉。与英格兰比较，论富裕，论进步，法国可能要逊一筹，但法国产麦省出产的小麦，其品质之忧良完全和英格兰小麦相同，而且在大多数年头，两者的价格也大致相同。可是，英格兰的麦田耕种得比法国好，而法国的麦田，据说耕种得比波兰好得多。贫国的耕作，尽管不及富国，但贫国生产的小麦，在品质优良及售价低廉方面，却能在相当程度上与富国竞争。但是，贫国在制造业上不能和富国竞争；至少在富国土壤气候位置适宜于这类制造业的场合，贫国不能和富国竞争。
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
