「This is the story of five unlikely leaders－a handful of women and men who inherited giant crises and had the courage to make difficult and unpopular decisions.
另外一種作法也不恰當，那就是讀心術式的解讀方法，彷彿說話者可以透視原作者的內在動機與心靈結構，但問題是，我們又不是靈媒，這裏也沒有任何一個人親身認識原作者，而且從頭到尾只有這一篇文章，沒有原作者其他文章可資參照，讀心術式的作法是很不妥當的。例如，將everything (anything) is possible 解釋成是原作者模糊的手法，以示客套。但我們怎麼知道他是如此？甚至乾脆順勢將之翻譯成「凡事都不無可能」，規避了「凡事都有可能」的簡潔優點。Anything is possible這幾個字在英文上沒有模糊之處，何以要刻意弄成不無可能的模糊用意？難道這就是原作者的「本意」？如何得知？
其後，又為了勉強解釋anything is possible是模糊用法，繼而將but的用法輕描淡寫，解釋為趣味性或只是轉折性用法，忽略but做為連接詞使前後意義不同或至少不相容的用法，但我們又怎麼知道原作者喜歡以but 這個字表示趣味或只是轉折的用法？我們是靈媒？套句英文，這一類靈媒讀心術式的「解釋」可以說是It leads no where。
I have no idea what he was talking about either. I can tell you this though. Anyone who has had any dealings with people like that will have to throw their hands up in the air and walk away at some point, just as that British economist did.
These people are hopeless. As Schiller once said, against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. You and I are mere mortals. What can you do. But as long as you can keep coming up with things like 牛五軼事, it is worth it.
Whatever you do, just don't get upset over this sorts of things. As they say, life is a tragedy for people who feel, but comedy for people who think. It is a comedy.
把『everything is possible』譯成『凡事都不無可能』乃是譯者判定了原作者說這句話時的心態是保守的、或防衛的、或退縮的、或不積極的。這樣的翻譯沒有必要。這樣的翻譯心態是不可取的。有經驗的、夠格的譯者不會這樣譯。
【不無可能】是雙重否定，在邏輯上等於肯定，但『凡事都有可能』與『凡事都不無可能』這兩句話語氣(語調/口氣/聲口)非常不同。這個語氣不同在漢語使用者群體裡是公認的，也就是屬於【人人得見而且必須承認為真】的情況。這個情況不因語境而異，不因作者而異，也不因讀者而異，所以譯者不被允許有個人選擇，所以作者怎麼措辭譯者就必須那麼譯，所以一個忠實可靠的譯者衹能把『everything is possible』譯成口氣為肯定表述的『凡事都有可能/什麼事都有可能』。
『this is possible』=『這是可能的』。『this is not impossible』=『這不是不可能』。這兩種措辭的使用情境經常不同。一個情緒熱烈的研究部門主管在記者會上介紹本公司的新目標，在描繪了成品藍圖之後他會說：『This is possible. Because ……』。一個災害成因調查委員會在記者會上公佈調查結論，認定了災害的主要成因，有記者提出別的可能的主要禍源，主任委員很可能會這樣回話：『This is not impossible. But ……』。不忠實翻譯是不行的。不同的心態會有不同的措辭，在一個語言表達能力沒有問題的說話者，不同的措辭的真實涵義通常就在這個措辭本身，說話者不必多說，聆聽者也不必外求。【忠實翻譯】是翻譯守則第一條。
『everything is possible』的雙重否定措辭是『nothing is impossible』，直譯是『沒有什麼是不可能的』。這兩個英語句子在邏輯上相等，但是語氣有差別，出現的情境也不完全相同。這兩個英語句子都可以傳達樂觀的心態，都可以用在鼓舞別人或肯定自我的場合，但雙重否定措辭的語氣更強，更雄壯威武，比方在這兩個句子(中譯) --『人定勝天，沒有什麼是不可能的。』、『有志者事竟成，沒有什麼是不可能的。』。但這兩個英語句子在真實的語境中可以針鋒相對，會場上力排眾議強烈主張某個很難達成的方案的主席攘臂高呼：『Everything is possible!』，臺下可能傳出一句冷冷的『Sure! Nothing is impossible.』，然後反對派大笑鬨堂。不忠實翻譯是不行的。
語言不同，【雙重否定措辭】的習慣可能不同。英語裡有something/anything/everything/nothing這樣的不定代詞，用法非常複雜，帶有everything的詞語的否定措辭有兩種情況(全面否定和部份否定)，雙重否定措辭就必須把everything改成nothing。『everything is possible』的雙重否定措辭衹能是『nothing is impossible』，翻譯出來衹能是『沒有什麼是不可能的』，譯者把『everything is possible』譯成『凡事都不無可能』乃是譯者自己搞出一種“漢化的”雙重否定措辭，這個漢語措辭在英語裡沒有對當措辭(equivalent phrasing/wording)，沒法還原。這麼簡單直截人人都懂的英語措辭搞到譯文沒法還原，這是很可笑的誤譯。
I see. Thank you for the reference. From this article, I would say that the plebiscite was voted on with secret ballots, foreign journalists were allowed to observe and there was no wide spread cheating.
However it was a plebiscite under dictatorship. Hitler already had dictatorial power for 4 years by the Enabling Act of 1933 which meant, as you have already pointed out, Germany was a one party state. The state controlled the propaganda machine and organized oppositions were banned. The population was bombarded with Nazi propaganda 24 hours a day with no one there to point out the opposing arguments. A friend of mine who lived through the cultural revolution once commented that Mao could probably win a genuine plebiscite by a very high margin any time in the late 60s.
---------------
By the way, speaking of economy, what was Nazi's economic policy? The Nazi society was highly organized around the government and it once had a "four year plan" typical of a planned economy and ran huge public work projects. Did a (relatively) free market even exist? If not, what was the difference between Nazism and communism if any?
For the record: mental_floss magazine is an intelligent read, but not too intelligent. We're the sort of intelligent that you hang out with for a while, enjoy our company, laugh a little, smile a lot and then we part ways. Great times. And you only realize how much you learned from us after a little while. Like a couple days later when you're impressing your friends with all these intriguing facts and things you picked up from us, and they ask you how you know so much, and you think back on that great afternoon you spent with us and you smile.
And then you lie and say you read a lot.
Feed your Right Brain:
People are always dropping names in the arts. Whether it's a Ming vase or a furry tea cup, a Kubrick film or a seminal James Joyce book, there are certain artists, movements and masterpieces that have completely changed our world. But the fact is, the reasons why aren't always so obvious. Our RIGHT BRAIN section eases readers into the humanities by making art and literature accessible without needing to dumb it down. Want vivid descriptions? Want lush explanations? Want to know what makes The Thinker so great, and why Jackson Pollock isn't just some overrated paint-thrower? It's all right here: mental_floss experts are here to spill why that classic is a classic, and they're happy to give you every juicy detail and naughty back-story while they're at it.
Nurture your Left Brain:
Remember that time you were at that cocktail party and Stephen Hawking sidled up to you, and all he wanted to talk about was string theory? Or what about the time those irritating Watson and Crick characters kept asking you your thoughts on the Human Genome Project, and you had to stand by the celery tray all night long? Well, that's exactly why we created the LEFT BRAIN section. From the mysteries of black holes to paradigm-shifting discoveries, to how to conduct a heart transplant in 8 (not so easy) steps, mental_floss takes the most fascinating ideas and theories around, and delivers them in plain old, easy-to-understand English. Keeping up with eggheads has never been so easy.
mental_floss is a bi-monthly American magazine, launched in 2001[1] in Birmingham, Alabama, that presents facts and trivia in a humorous way. It includes columns by A.J. Jacobs and Ken Jennings.
The magazine frequently publishes books and sells T-shirts with humorous sayings, such as "There's no right way to eat a Rhesus". In addition, there is a licensed trivia board game much like Trivial Pursuit. Most recently, the magazine began the In a Box series with Law School in a Box and Med School in a Box.
The magazine also offers a popular blog site that include pieces from the magazine and Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. It also includes new internet memes, news articles and weekly link round ups.
Frederick T. Birchall, New York Times (19th August, 1934)
Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
The German people were asked to vote whether they approved the consolidation of the offices of President and Chancellor in a single Leader-Chancellor personified by Adolf Hitler. By every appeal known to skillful politicians and with every argument to the contrary suppressed, they were asked to make their approval unanimous.
Nevertheless 10 per cent of the voters have admittedly braved possible consequences by answering "No" or made their answers, ineffective by spoiling the simplest of ballots. There was a plain short question and two circles, one labeled "Yes" and the other "No," in one of which the voter had to make a cross. Yet there were nearly 1,000,000 spoiled ballots.
The results given out by the Propaganda Ministry early this morning show that out of a total vote of 43,438,378, cast by a possible voting population of more than 45,000,000, there were 38,279,514 who answered "Yes," 4,287,808 who answered "No" and there were 871,056 defective ballots. Thus there is an affirmative vote of almost 90 per cent of the valid votes and a negative vote of nearly 10 per cent exclusive of the spoiled ballots which may or may not have been deliberately rendered defective.
The endorsement gives Chancellor Hitler, who four years ago was not even a German citizen, dictatorial powers unequaled in any other country, and probably unequaled in history since the days of Genghis Khan. He has more power than Joseph Stalin in Russia, who has a party machine to reckon with; more power than Premier Mussolini of Italy who shares his prerogative with the titular ruler; more than any American President ever dreamed of.
No other ruler has so widespread power nor so obedient and compliant subordinates. The question that interests the outside world now is what Chancellor Hitler will do with such unprecedented authority.
In the Communist districts protest votes with Communist inscriptions were rare. In Western Berlin they were more frequent. In one district five ballots had the name "Thaelmann" written in. (Ernst Thaelmann is an imprisoned Communist leader.) One ballot contained this inscription, "Since nothing has happened to me so far I vote 'Yes.'" It was signed "Non-Aryan."
Interesting also are the following results: the hospital of the Jewish community in one district cast 168 "Yes" votes, 92 "Noes," and 46 ballots were invalid. The Jewish Home for Aged People in another district cast 94 "Yes" votes, four "Noes" and three invalid ballots. This vote is explainable, of course, by the fear of reprisals if the results from these Jewish institutions had been otherwise. It is paralleled by other results outside Berlin.
In all Bavaria Chancellor Hitler received the largest vote in his favor in the concentration camp at Dachau where 1,554 persons voted "Yes" and only eight "No" and there were only ten spoiled ballots.
Hamburg, which only two days ago gave Herr Hitler the most enthusiastic reception he had ever received anywhere, led the country in the opposition vote. The official figures were: Total vote cast, 840,000; "Yes," 651,000; "No," 168,000; invalidated ballots, 21,000.
The "No" vote, in other words was 20 per cent of the total vote. Counting the invalid ballots as negative in intent, the total opposition votes exceeded 22 per cent. The percentage of the electorate voting was 92.4.
Hamburg is the home city of Ernst Thaelmann and on his triumphant entry into the city on Friday, Herr Hitler made it a point to drive past Thaelmann's former home.
As far as observers could ascertain, the election everywhere was conducted with perfect propriety, and secrecy of the ballot was safe-guarded. The ballots were marked in regular election booths and placed in envelopes and these were put in the ballot boxes. After the voting had ended the ballot box was emptied on a large table and the vote was counted publicly in the regular manner. Appraising of individual votes seemed impossible.
One check on possible non-voters, however, was exercised by instructions that the voting authorizations issued to those who for one reason or another planned to be outside their regular voting district on election day must be returned unless used. The number of such authorizations issued for this election exceeded anything known before.
Throughout the day Storm Troopers stood before each polling place with banners calling on the voters to vote "Yes." Otherwise voters remained unmolested. Inside the polling places uniforms and even party emblems had been forbidden, but the execution of this order was lax. In some apparently doubtful districts brown uniforms dominated the scene as a warning to would-be opponents. . . . . . .
When Hitler was appointed Chancellor, Nazi was the largest party in the parliament, but it had less than 40% of the votes (I think). The Nazis then invented a few "crisis", like Kristallnacht, and Hitler was then appointed a dictator for 4 years(?). I am not sure if there were elections after that. In any case, once the the Nazi totalitarian system was in place, election became meaningless even if there were any. The "dear leader" in N. Korea probably routinely gets over 99% of the votes.
In a free and open society, I doubt anyone can get over 90%.
Any way, this is irrelevant, but perhaps more interesting.
The closest approximation so far is still DuckSoup's [意料之外]. It is what it is.
Alex was a bit too quick to jump to his conclusions, calling it positive. He probably meant that it is positive in the context of this specific article. He did the same with "Everything is possible" that SCF later corrected him.
I also agree with SCF that there are differences between "economic meltdown", "economic recession" and "economic depression". They should be [經濟崩潰], [經濟衰退] and [經濟蕭條], respectively.
那句「This is the story of five unlikely leaders」接著的是「a handful of women and men who inherited giant crises and had the courage to make difficult and unpopular decisions.」
The diminutive and contradictory Francisco Franco (1892-1975), who as a youth had seemed such an unlikely leader, rose to power with the military support of Hitler and Mussolini in an atmosphere of brutal civil war.
Yanks find Bronx bargain in unlikely ace Wang Second-year sinkerballer provides bang for the buck in expensive rotation
NBCSports.com By Kieran O'Dwyer updated 8:48 p.m. ET Oct. 1, 2006
Chien-Ming Wang, the unlikely ace of the Yankees' staff, has compiled an impressive collection of eye-opening starts this season.
There was a 3-hit gem against the Athletics in May during which he threw an economical 85 pitches in eight innings. There were his gutsy seven innings of 1-run ball against the Red Sox in June, just two weeks after the Sox battered him for seven runs in his worst outing of the season. And there was a 2-hit shutout of the Devil Rays in late July.
Perhaps the most telling start by Wang, a 26-year-old righthander, came in his next outing after blanking the D-Rays. Facing the Blue Jays in mid-90s heat at Yankee Stadium, Wang pitched eight shutout innings. But it was his efficient 1-2-3 seventh and eighth innings — all groundouts — after a half-hour in the dugout while his teammates put up a 6-run sixth that left the greatest impression.
"He just stays so focused," Yankees catcher Jorge Posada says. "He doesn't let things affect him. His throws his sinker about 85 percent of the time, and it's 95 miles per hour, heavy and has so much movement. He goes out there and keeps coming at you." Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
All while providing a bang for the buck rarely seen in the Bronx. His $353,175 salary is less than what teammates Mike Mussina and Randy Johnson make in a start. Wang, in his second big-league season after signing with the Yankees out of his native Taiwan in 2000, is more concerned with his pitching than his paycheck.
"I am having a lot of fun," says Wang, who speaks limited English. Thanks in part to Wang, the Yankees are having a fine time, too, on the way to their ninth consecutive American League East title. Wang ranks among AL leaders in wins (18) and ERA (3.57) and is No. 1 among starters in fewest homers allowed (12) and ground ball-to-fly ball ratio (2.92-to-1). If not for the brilliance of Twins lefthander Johan Santana, Wang would be a serious candidate for the AL Cy Young Award. . . . . . .
I am reasonably sure that he will give me a good answer.
See, people are reasonably thick-skinned over the internet. It is nice to have social grace, but you don't need a lot of it here. When you don't understand something, say you don't understand and ask. Just don't tell people they are wrong or question their integrity or imply hidden political motives or hurl insults at them.
When I read Chinese, I think in Chinese and I comprehend. I don't translate. As SCF has pointed out directly and as I have implied before, being able to understand something and the ability to translate it are two very different things. Those who understand both languages understand how difficult translation can be. Take a simple phrase such as [unlikely leaders], I would search my brain in vain. Nothing I know in Chinese feels right. Of course, if you are the google translator, you have no problem, you just search your database/dictionary and, voila, you get your answer.
Being able to carry conversations in Chinese and in English is a necessary, but not sufficient ability for a good translator. Anyone who cannot do this has no business in translating between the two.
And they deride me for insisting on carrying this conversation in English. Speaking of irony, this irony is just glaring, but they have invested too much emotion into their arguments to see it, but this is not new.
For the same reason, there is nothing Alex can do to change their minds. Rational arguments stop working at this stage and with people like that. I seriously doubt they would have changed their minds even if both Shakespeare and Dickens had suddenly come alive and told them so.
In American on Purpose, Craig Ferguson delivers a moving and achingly funny memoir of living the American dream as he journeys from the mean streets of Glasgow, Scotland, to the comedic promised land of Hollywood. Along the way he stumbles through several attempts to make his mark—as a punk rock musician, a construction worker, a bouncer, and, tragically, a modern dancer.
To numb the pain of failure, Ferguson found comfort in drugs and alcohol, addictions that eventually led to an aborted suicide attempt. (He forgot to do it when someone offered him a glass of sherry.) But his story has a happy ending: in 1993, the washed-up Ferguson washed up in the United States. Finally sober, Ferguson landed a breakthrough part on the hit sitcom The Drew Carey Show, a success that eventually led to his role as the host of CBS's The Late Late Show. By far Ferguson's greatest triumph was his decision to become a U.S. citizen, a milestone he achieved in early 2008, just before his command performance for the president at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. In American on Purpose, Craig Ferguson talks a red, white, and blue streak about everything our Founding Fathers feared.
Our new cover story on leaders is filled with the bold ideas and strange measuresthat politicians have taken to try and better their countries. But part of what makes the piece so fascinating is that all of these men and women have had unbelievable lives. Their tories sound so unlikely–from a hippie, folk-singing doctor who escaped torture to become president,to an East German scientist and daughter of a pastor who walked over the Berlin wall and was so moved that she felt compelled to go into politics. The stories are incredible, but my favorite is that of Lula da Silva. This is just an excerpt from one of the profiles in that story.
開頭「This is the story of five unlikely leaders－a handful of women and men who inherited giant crises and had the courage to make difficult and unpopular decisions.」
此句是放在內文介紹頁，而它接下來的全文是：
They aren't all saints,but their actions have changeed their nation.Moreover,these changes will affect your life.After all, if the current global economic meltdown has taught us anything.It's that we're all in together.If that we're going to climb out,we have to learn from those around us and build on their accomplishments.
A Taiwanese friend of mine once said that Taiwanese can be provincial (his exact words were 沒有國際觀) and many universities are spending money trying to give students a more global perspective. This is reflected here perfectly.
This essay was written by American(s) with an American perspective for Americans, not a Taiwanese perspective.
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
等級：8
等級：8
回應給： 
