[轉錄] 林孟潔:服貿協議的草率令人震驚

看板HatePolitics作者 (淳樸商人)時間10年前 (2014/03/22 05:13), 編輯推噓7(7029)
留言36則, 9人參與, 最新討論串1/1
反正有人轉了這各,那我也轉各東西過來 誰在「草率」和「震驚」? 先說廢話:我不擁馬、沒研究服貿。 但是否林作者認為臺灣人都不懂英文? 最近大紅的文章: “林孟潔:服貿協議的草率令人震驚──剛與馬總統會面的倫敦政經學院教授 Christopher Hughes談話側記” 第一段開宗明義是這樣的: 〉去年夏天我受邀至台灣的政府部門討論服貿協議,『為其草率感到相當震驚,因為許多 涉及重要且敏感的部門並沒有經過審慎的調查與評估,政府並沒有更仔細的檢視這個協議 一旦通過所帶來經濟上隱含的意義和後果。』〈 Hughes 教授的原文是這樣的: 〉I couldn’t recall the detail of the conference I attended in Taiwan last year, but I remember that there was this big discussion about ECFA. I was quite skeptical about ECFA. Was it necessary? Why do you even need ECFA, really? Even if you look at KMT, the impact on GDP is relatively small, much smaller than predictions. And there are a lot of political arguments made about it. There are a lot political than economic I think, both sides, for and against. For the Ma administration, they had to show some progress on the cross-strait relations to get some support from Beijing. The arguments they made were that we have to compete with South Korea. This is not really an argument. If you’re competing with South Korea, it’s hopefully high-technology. Now that is already covered by WTO.〈 在原文中,我無法找到任何可以和譯文『』中,相同的字句。譯文幾乎整段和Hughes 教 授的發言都無關。 我在全文中,也沒有找到足以形成標題的「草率」和「震驚」。 作者以別人的名字說自己的話,倒或可符合以上兩個形容詞。 本文發表在「獨立評論」上,也使我們對該刊的編輯素質有所了解。 譯文在:http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5056799&page=1 原文在:http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5056799&page=7 唉 -- Beetter run through the jungle Beetter run through the jungle Waw.don't look back to see 200million guns loaded Satan cries "Take aim" Beetter run through the jungle -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.169.178.253

03/22 05:15, , 1F
台大外文系四年級/現為德國杜賓根大學訪問學生林欣蓓
03/22 05:15, 1F

03/22 05:15, , 2F
是你不懂應文吧
03/22 05:15, 2F

03/22 05:17, , 3F
反正檔案在這,請自行比對
03/22 05:17, 3F

03/22 05:25, , 4F
確實沒有"震驚"可言,唯一比較接近的是"skeptical"疑慮
03/22 05:25, 4F

03/22 05:31, , 5F
skeptical無論如何不能翻成"震驚",不是譯者無知就是...
03/22 05:31, 5F

03/22 05:32, , 6F
那翻震怒好了(拍桌
03/22 05:32, 6F

03/22 05:33, , 7F
所以 Christopher Hughes 認為我們跟韓國應該是競爭科技業,
03/22 05:33, 7F

03/22 05:33, , 8F
但是孩子,原物料很貴的(望著運費
03/22 05:33, 8F

03/22 05:34, , 9F
而科技業相關的條約 WTO 就夠用了的意思嗎?
03/22 05:34, 9F

03/22 05:34, , 10F
夠用?(望
03/22 05:34, 10F

03/22 05:35, , 11F
如果夠用那保證會看到見骨的程度......
03/22 05:35, 11F

03/22 05:36, , 12F
不懂樓上得意思, 跟南韓互砍到見骨嗎?
03/22 05:36, 12F

03/22 05:37, , 13F
看跟誰簽,不論哪國科技業的現制是雙方談一談可以砍到見骨
03/22 05:37, 13F

03/22 05:38, , 14F
就跟貨貿去跟對岸談1樣,對岸幹麻讓利給台灣?
03/22 05:38, 14F

03/22 05:39, , 15F
基本上可以這樣說死,現在服貿就哇哇叫,後面的貨貿你準備看
03/22 05:39, 15F

03/22 05:40, , 16F
台灣這些酸民怎麼更崩潰......(對岸幹麻讓你爽爽
03/22 05:40, 16F

03/22 05:40, , 17F
綠軍比完還不是說沒有曲解,英文超強的!
03/22 05:40, 17F

03/22 05:40, , 18F
(噴)
03/22 05:40, 18F

03/22 05:41, , 19F
真的還的XD
03/22 05:41, 19F

03/22 05:41, , 20F
@@?
03/22 05:41, 20F

03/22 05:44, , 21F
我說R大說的XDD
03/22 05:44, 21F

03/22 05:44, , 22F
靠腰XD
03/22 05:44, 22F

03/22 05:49, , 23F
點開原始連接就有啦,涼快的魚回應
03/22 05:49, 23F

03/22 05:49, , 24F
"讀完並不認為您有曲解受訪者的意思。"
03/22 05:49, 24F

03/22 05:52, , 25F
林孟潔掛"作者"真是當之無愧!
03/22 05:52, 25F

03/22 06:05, , 26F
林孟潔掛"作者"真是當之無愧XD
03/22 06:05, 26F

03/22 07:12, , 27F
作者備註說有部分內容是他憑訪談印象寫的,並不在錄音檔中。
03/22 07:12, 27F

03/22 07:14, , 28F
若是如此,那自然英文版內容會找不到跟他中文版裡憑著"只有作
03/22 07:14, 28F

03/22 07:14, , 29F
者自己知道的"印象相對應的內容。但讀者就要納悶了:這樣的話
03/22 07:14, 29F

03/22 07:15, , 30F
,既然有對應不到的中文內容,同步刊出英文版的意思是?
03/22 07:15, 30F

03/22 07:17, , 31F
我有看完英文內容。其實學者這種頭銜喔,參考一下就可以了,
03/22 07:17, 31F

03/22 07:17, , 32F
只要想想在台灣講中文的學者這幾天都能發出那麼多不同意見了
03/22 07:17, 32F

03/22 07:18, , 33F
,講英文的也是類似情況。各有各的主張很常見的。
03/22 07:18, 33F

03/22 10:12, , 34F
http://x.co/47JNI 這個連結才有顯示回應.
03/22 10:12, 34F

03/22 15:18, , 35F
幹XD,版主又M文,槓一啦,版主不讓我詐欺!!!!!!
03/22 15:18, 35F

03/22 15:18, , 36F
抗議
03/22 15:18, 36F
文章代碼(AID): #1JBAkFYn (HatePolitics)