expected of them. Are they to be handed everything on a plate让某人轻易获得某物；把某物奉送给某人? Are they to make any effort? Are they ever expected to look a word up in a dictionary or an encyclopaedia? I have no wish to question the appropriateness of the Good News Bible translation, and obviously the translation of any 行为句performatives (public notices, etc.) must also be instantly intelligible可理解的，明白易懂的；清楚的. However, I am writing against increasing assumption that all translating is (nothing but) communicating, where the less effort expected of the reader, the better. The fact is, as any translator knows, meaning is complicated, many-levelled, a \刁滑的，不诚实的；不正当的，不光明正大的；弯曲的，蜿蜒的，迂回的； as the channels of thought in the brain. The more
communication, the more generalization一般化，普遍化；综合，概括, the more simplification---the less meaning. One is most aware of meaning when one is thinking, or, to be more precise, when one is silently talking to oneself, that process of 使（习俗、规则、思想等经吸收同化而）内在化；吸收，使适应internalized or （使）观念深入人心interiorized language one engages in when one thinks, but for which no language appears to have a word. (It is supplemented by the formation形成，构
成；形态，结构；队形，阵列 of images.) But as soon as one writes or speaks, one starts losing meaning---the images disappear, the words are constructed into clauses---and when one channels and points one's communication, in order to make it effective, towards one or a group of receptors, one confines one's meaning even more. When the third stage is reached---translating, the communication into another language---there is even further loss of meaning. The clash between communication and meaning can be illustrated by the difference between say affectant les fonctions amnesiques and \\lookout\there is a difference in meaning such as Darbelnet would perhaps refuse to recognize. Again, it has been pointed out too often that the terms Brot, pain, bread may have different meanings in the three languages if one is thinking of the savour, the shape, the composition, the importance of this food, but if one asks a supplier to send a hundred loaves of bread, the message is an effective act of communication, and connotations are likely to be neglected. The contrast can be made most strongly and paradoxically似是而非地，自相矛盾地；悖理地，
反常地, if i say that the more I savour the meaning of a word in all its richness, relating it to its object and its connotations, the less I am inclined to communicate, being absorbed专注的，全神贯注的；被吸收的---whilst if I want to communicate, I deal with meaning at its narrowest, 锋利的；鲜明的；敏锐的；急转的；尖锐的，刺耳的sharpest, most concise---in fact, ideally, meaning is just a reflex or an automatism无意识的行为 to me. A message, therefore, is only a part of a complete meaning, just as a word, say, \(a \厚板，平板 or board\客栈，酒馆?) for the whole object. Communication has a similar relation to language as functions has to structure.（言语之间相互交流，结构之中体现功能）Language, like structure, like \thinks of a message, a communication, a function, the utterance言辞，话语；发音 becomes sharp, thin, direct. Chomsky (1976) denies that language is primarily communicative, and emphasizes that in \interchange交换，互换, planning and guiding one's own actions, creative writing, honest self-expression, and numerous other activities with language, expressions are used with their strict linguistic meaning irrespective不顾及的，不考虑的 of the
intentions of the \关于 an
audience\most of the linguistic activities mentioned above (I except \\ a semantic translation is indicated. Semantic translation is subtler, more comprehensive, more penetrating than communicative translation, and does not require cultural adaptation. House (1977b) in a paper, confusingly distinguishes \公开的，不隐蔽的\semantic) from \暗地的，隐蔽的，秘密的\communicative) translation---shades of \(Catford, 1965)---but usefully points out that a \translation \source text in the target culture\characteristics is that no one should suspect that it is a translation. Unfortunately she does not distinguish stylistically between the two types of translation, and in her \文字简介\比如 degree of generality and of emotiveness.
The distinction between semantic and communicative translation, which a behaviourist might well deny, shows how closely translation theory relates not only to philosophy of
language, but even to philosophy in an older sense在旧/过去的意识里 of the term, when it meant perhaps \the meaning of life\赞成的，肯定的 attitude to translation would perhaps stem from a belief in rationalism理性主义，唯物论, in the communicability沟通度, and renewal更新；恢复，复兴，复苏，复活 of common experience共同的经历, in \天生的，固有的；与生俱来的\
Normally, one assumes that a semantic translation is briefer and \but not always so. If the original is rich in metaphor, has simultaneously同时 abstract as well as physical meanings and is concerned with say religion, ritual magic, witchcraft巫术 or other domains of discourse which have covert categories, a prose translation with explanatory power (the interpretation must be within the translation, not follow it) is likely to longer than the original. It has to reproduce the full meaning of the original, not simply one of its functions.
Semantic translation is sometimes both linguistic and encyclopaedic, whilst communicative translation is strictly functional. \always been an inadequate translation.