论Being汉译两派之共同预设

On the Same Presuppositions of Two Parties of Chinese Translation of Being

关于Being的汉译纷争由来已久、至今未果。粗略地可将混战诸方简划为存在(有)派与是派。两派虽主张各异,却大概分享如下共同预设:(1) 名词Being源于动词to be,故欲理解Being须回返to be;(2) to be具备两种不同、甚至互不相干的用法即系词用法和非-系词的存在用法。第1条预设是比较合理的,但第2条预设值得商榷。To be的系词用法和存在用法不但非截然二分,而且在根底处纠结一体。所有系词包括现代汉语里的系词是本就无可争议地内含存在义。以是译Being根本不会遗漏Being原有存在之义。比较两派对海德格尔Sein之汉译可知正是因为两派囿于第2条预设,从而可能错失了对Sein之更佳理解。

It is a fairly long controversy over Chinese translation of Being.I attempt to divide the debate parties into only two,namely,存在(有)-party and是-party.Although they are entirely different from each other,they are actually sharing the following two presuppositions.(1)The noun Being origins from the verb to be,accordingly,if someone strives to understand Being,then he or she has to investigate to be first.(2)To be has two absolutely different uses or meanings,i.e.,copula,as well as non-copula existence.I agree with the first presupposition in principle,whereas I argue against the second one.To be’s two uses do form each other,and copula certainly means or entails existence simultaneously.Therefore,translating Being into是will never lose Being’s original meaning of existence.It’s due to the second false presupposition that both parties miss the more appropriate understanding of Heidegger’s Sein.