今天又看到一個例子。喬志高是翻譯名家,被譽為中英文可以左右開弓、運用自如,並定居美國,熟悉美國的情況;可是,他在文章〈從「P」字說起〉這樣寫:
「一九九二年柯林頓競選總統之初,陣營中對於競選策略意見不一,卡維爾 [James Carville] 脫穎而出,申斥大家道:It’s economics,
stupid!」(見喬志高《美語新詮:總而言之》,p.85)
首先,卡維爾不是因為這句說話才得到柯林頓賞識,所以「脫穎而出」一語用得不妥,但這不是我認為難以置信的錯。在美國,稍為關心時事的人都知道卡維爾那句說話應是 "It’s the economy, stupid!";"the economy" 和 "economics" 可說差之毫釐,謬以千里,喬志高竟然搞錯了!(如果說是手民之誤,那不但是弄錯 "economy" 一字,還要刪去 "the" 字,機會不大吧。)
真不知道該怎樣理解這種錯誤。
//早兩天談林燕妮,後來在網上發現她在文章裏寫過 35,000,000 = 350^6 //
回覆刪除I don't have time to go back to the article. But I think the mistake she made was that she said that 10^10 isn't or is different from 10 to the 10th power. To defend that it wasn't a mistake after people pointed it out, she said something like 35,000,000 = 35*10^6 and it's wrong to write 35,000,000 = 350^6. (Meaning, I guess, that 35*10^6 =/= 350^6 implies 10^10 isn't 10 to the 10th power.) But I may remember it wrong.
The worst thing I think is that she launched person attack on HK people by trashing their knowledge in math and science. Even if her math had been right, the attack wasn't necessary. --zpdrmn
所以你話打好個基礎係幾咁重要呢。
回覆刪除香港有在港大校外課程部講授香港歷史的講師,指灣仔修頓球場所以興建,事緣日治後期,盟軍飛機地毯式轟炸灣仔,將電車路一帶樓宇炸毀,和示後,香港政府清理廢墟興建的。完全順口開河,與史實不符!
回覆刪除zpdrmn,
回覆刪除//The worst thing I think is that she launched person attack on HK people by trashing their knowledge in math and science. Even if her math had been right, the attack wasn't necessary.//
- Yes, and her math was wrong.
克萊門特,
回覆刪除//所以你話打好個基礎係幾咁重要呢。//
- 問題是,錢穆的國學基礎和喬志高的英文基礎都應該是打得極好的,卻一樣犯這種顯淺的錯。
Raymond,
回覆刪除//香港有在港大校外課程部講授香港歷史的講師,指灣仔修頓球場所以興建,事緣日治後期,盟軍飛機地毯式轟炸灣仔,將電車路一帶樓宇炸毀,和示後,香港政府清理廢墟興建的。完全順口開河,與史實不符!//
- 相信這種老師不只這一個。
大概是一些先入為主的印象或想法把自己的眼睛蒙蔽吧。
回覆刪除Meshi,
回覆刪除//大概是一些先入為主的印象或想法把自己的眼睛蒙蔽吧。//
- 有些例子可以這樣解釋,但不是所有例子都可以。
把「the economy」和「economic」是頗大錯誤,或許正是因為太有信心而不翻查,引錯了。不過我認為跟林燕妮差得遠了。她那種程度是離譜之極,而且一錯再錯,用任何角度也無法為她辯護。「林燕妮之流」真是很嚴重的批評。
回覆刪除