This website's approach in translating classical Chinese, whether into English or vernacular (modern spoken) Chinese, is to try to stick as faithfully as possible to the original classical Chinese. Too many translations of the classical Chinese works nowadays take far too much liberty with the original text. Often, many of the translator's own views are imposed onto the original work, and then the result is presented as a translation instead of what it really is, an exposition or a commentary. Thus one often sees a short passagee of a few words of classical Chinese "translated" into a much, much longer passage of vernacular Chinese, sometimes several paragraphs long. Surely that can't be a mere translation!

Instead, I think one of the main principles of translating Chinese classics should be to stick to the original. If there's ambiguity in the original work, then the translation should also retain that ambiguity - the reader should be allowed to see the existence of the ambiguity and to figure out for himself or herself what the original author really means.

The translator shouldn't insert his or her clarification into the translation when none exists in the original. The proper place for the translator to insert his own clarification is footnotes, translator's explanatory notes or commentary.

Sometimes the translator must choose one of several possible meanings because the structure of the translating language permits only one meaning - for example, in classical Chinese it is perfectly alright grammatically for a sentence to leave a word ambiguous as to whether it is being used as a noun or a verb but in vernacular Chinese and in English grammar that ambiguity is not allowed and the translator must choose one or the other. Often the two difference choices in fact lead to two completely different meanings to the sentence or even passage. In such cases the choice should be clearly noted and the alternative interpretations presented.

To repeat, I feel that should a translator wish to clarify, explain, or otherwise expound on the original text, such words should be clearly presented as footnotes, translator's notes, or commentary. The translation itself should, as much as possible, faithfully reflect the original.

此网站把文言文翻译为白话文或英语时，采取的态度是：尽量地，最忠诚地，紧贴反映原来的文言文。现在太多文言文的翻译对原文很随便，很多时翻译者把自己的想法强加上去，然后摆出来当为译文，没有如实地标明为注解或评语。这样，很多时短短的一句文言文，不过几个字，“翻译”出来的白话文就很长很长，甚至几段长。这没有可能只是翻译吧！

我认为，翻译文言文的原则应该是，紧贴原文，如果原文有意思不明确之处，译文就应该忠诚地反映这个意思不明确，让读者看到，更让读者有机会自己来决定究竟作者的原本意思是什么。

翻译者不应该把自己构想或研究出来的说明或澄清放进去译文那里，当为译文的一部分摆出来。说明或澄清原文意思的适当地方，是注解、翻译札记、或评语。

有时翻译者被翻译语言限制而一定要在几个可能的原文意义中选择一个，例如文言文句子里很多时一个字究竟是动词还是名词可以不清楚，这是文言文文法所容许的，但是白话文和英语的文法则不容许不清楚，以致翻译者一定要作出选择，究竟是当作动词或名词来翻译，而两者很多时令到整句或甚至整段话的意义崭然不同。这种情况下就应该清楚地注明选择，并且列出各个可能的原文意义。

要重申，我认为翻译者要澄清、解释或讲解原文，就应该明确地标明为注解、翻译札记、或评语。译文应该尽量忠诚地反映原文，包括原文的不明确处。