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.

此網站把文言文翻譯為白話文或英語時，採取的態度是：盡量地，最忠誠地，緊貼反映原來的文言文。現在太多文言文的翻譯對原文很隨便，很多時翻譯者把自己的想法強加上去，然後擺出來當為譯文，沒有如實地標明為註解或評語。這樣，很多時短短的一句文言文，不過幾個字，“翻譯”出來的白話文就很長很長，甚至幾段長。這沒有可能只是翻譯吧！

我認為，翻譯文言文的原則應該是，緊貼原文，如果原文有意思不明確之處，譯文就應該忠誠地反映這個意思不明確，讓讀者看到，更讓讀者有機會自己來決定究竟作者的原本意思是甚麼。

翻譯者不應該把自己構想或研究出來的說明或澄清放進去譯文那裡，當為譯文的一部分擺出來。說明或澄清原文意思的適當地方，是註解、翻譯札記、或評語。

有時翻譯者被翻譯語言限制而一定要在幾個可能的原文意義中選擇一個，例如文言文句子裡很多時一個字究竟是動詞還是名詞可以不清楚，這是文言文文法所容許的，但是白話文和英語的文法則不容許不清楚，以致翻譯者一定要作出選擇，究竟是當作動詞或名詞來翻譯，而兩者很多時令到整句或甚至整段話的意義嶄然不同。這種情況下就應該清楚地注明選擇，並且列出各個可能的原文意義。

要重申，我認為翻譯者要澄清、解釋或講解原文，就應該明確地標明為註解、翻譯札記、或評語。譯文應該盡量忠誠地反映原文，包括原文的不明確處。