untranslatable because they are lexically non-communicative or deliberately insignificant. 但是这种信任永远都不会是最终的。如
果发现“那里不存在”需要启发和翻译的东西，根本不存在意义，那么这种信任也就受到了这种无意义导致的恶意背叛。无意义的音律、具体诗（poesie concrete）、捏造出来的词组都是不可翻译的，因为他们从词汇角度上就不具备交流的特质，有可能是有意制作的这种无意义的表达。The commitment of trust will, however, be tested,
more or less severely, also in the common run and process of language acquisition and translation (the two being intimately connected). “This means nothing” asserts the exasperated child in front of his Latin reader or the beginner at Berlitz. The sensation comes very close to being tactile, as of a blank, sloping surface which gives no purchase. Social incentive, the officious evidence of precedent—“others have managed to translate this bit before you”—keeps one at the task. But the donation of trust remains ontologically spontaneous and anticipates proof, often by a long, arduous gap (there are texts, says Walter Benjamin, which will be translated only “after us”). As he sets out, the translator must gamble on the coherence, on the symbolic plentitude of the world. Concomitantly he leaves himself vulnerable, though only in extremity and at the theoretical edge, to two dialectically related, mutually
determined metaphysical risks. He may find that “anything” or “almost anything” can mean “everything”. This is the vertigo of self-sustaining metaphoric or analogic enchainment experienced by medieval exegetists. Or he may find that there is “nothing there” which can be divorced from its formal autonomy, that every meaning worth expressing is monadic and will not enter into any alternative mould. There is Kabbalistic speculation, to which I will return, about a day on which words will shake off “the burden of having to mean” and will be only themselves, blank and replete as stone.
无论是从一般意义上，还是在语言习得和翻译过程中（这两者是紧密相关的），这种信任的付出都会或多或少的受到严格的检验。“这毫无意义”也证明了孩子在面对拉丁语读者的那种抓狂和初学者面对berlitz语读者时候的彷徨。这种感觉非常贴近那种触摸一种空白毫无抓手的斜面的感觉。社会上的刺激、以及先前的非正式的经验—“在你之前，已经有人尝试翻译这句话了”—都会让译者要做这项工作（付出信任）。但是从本体论上看，这种信任的付出是自然而然的，而且期望得到证明，但是有时候会有很大的差距（瓦尔特.本杰明说，有些文本只有在“我们之后”才可以进行翻译）。译者开始着手翻译的时候，就必须要在世界整体性和符号多样性方面进行赌博。与此同时，译者会将自身置于一种非常脆弱的，两种辩证相关、相互决定的超自然的危险境地下，虽然这只是在极端情况下和在理论的边际发生。他
会发现“任何事”或“几乎任何事”都能意为“一切”。这就是中世纪的注释家们所体会的那种受自反隐喻和类比束缚而导致的晕头转向的感觉。或者他会发现那种“那里什么也没有”的状态可以和形式的自我状态相剥离，他会发现每一个有表达价值的意义都是单一的，不能成为二元可选的模式。我现在要重提Kabbalistic假设：某一天，词语都将摆脱“必须要有意义的负担”，他们就是他们自己，就像石头一样空白而完整。
After trust comes aggression. The second move of the translator is incursive and extractive. The relevant analysis is that of Heidegger when he focuses our attention on understanding as an act, on the access, inherently appropriative and therefore violent, of Erkenntnis to Dasein. Da-sein, the “thing there”, “the thing that is because it is there”, only comes into authentic being when it is comprehended, i.e. translated. [Paul] Ricaur, “Existence et hermeneutique” in Le Confit des interpretations (Paris, 1969).] The postulate that all cognition is aggressive, that every proposition is an inroad on the world, is, of course, Hegelian. It is Heidegger’s contribution to have shown that understanding, recognition, interpretation are a compacted, unavoidable mode of attack. We can modulate Heidegger’s insistence that understanding is not a matter of method but of primary being, that “being consists in the understanding of other being” into the
more na?ve, limited axiom that each act of comprehension must appropriate another entity (we translate into). Comprehension, as its etymology shows, “comprehends” not only cognitively but by encirclement and ingestion. In the event of interlingual translation this manoeuvre of comprehension is explicitly invasive and exhaustive. Saint Jerome uses his famous image of meaning brought home captive by the translator. We “break” a code: decipherment is dissective, leaving the shell smashed and the vital layers stripped. Every schoolchild, but also the eminent translator, will note the shift in substantive presence which follows on a protracted or difficult exercise in translation: the text in the other language has become almost materially thinner, the light seems to pass unhindered through its loosened fibres. For a spell the density of hostile or seductive “otherness” is dissipated. Ortega y Gasset speaks of the sadness of the translator after failure. There is also a sadness after success, the Augustinian tristitia which follows on the cognates acts of erotic and of intellectual possession.
信任之后就是入侵。译者的这个二重行为带有攻击性和并带有摄取的内涵。与此相关的是海德格尔的分析，他提醒我们，理解是一种行为，需要关注对从认知到此在的理解（erkenntnis to Dasein），这是一种内的适当行为，但存在一定的暴力性。此在（Da-sein），“那里的东西”，