從《主場新聞》得知陳雲發起聯署，促白宮為林慧思發聲；一向聲大大反美帝的國師竟然發起向美帝求援，實在令人疑惑。然而，想到國師的神機妙算非我等平庸之輩所能理解，發起聯署一事，我就不敢評論了，倒是聯署的英文實在太差，可能失禮港人，忍不住要寫幾筆：
“ Ms Alpais Lam Wai-sze, a primary school teacher in Hong Kong, is
being politically persecuted after shouting obscenity in an argument over
police to allow freedom of expression on public space on July 14. Harassment of
Lam followed. Huge banners were left at her school calling for her dismissal.
On August 11, The chief executive of Hong Kong Government, urged the
Education Bureau to file a report on Ms Lam’s case. The Regional Crime Squad of
the police received order to investigate into Lam’s case.
Ms Lam was facing tremendous pressure now and we wish the
international community can help.
Report of Ms Lam’s case， available in Internet:
‘Mong Kok crime squad to investigate teacher who swore at police’
South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, August 15, 201”
假如 “obscenity” 是指粗口，那麼講一句粗口是 “shouting an
obscenity”，一句以上是 “shouting obscenities”，除非是報章標題的省略，否則不可以寫成 “shouting obscenity”。 此外，“on public space” 應作 “in a public space” ，而 “in an argument over police to allow freedom
of expression” 應作 “in an argument with police over freedom of
expression” 。第一句已有三個語法錯誤，不可謂不過份矣！
全文還有兩個低級錯誤：“received order” 應是 “received an order”，“in Internet” 應是 “on the Internet” 。最後 “2013” 的 “3” 不見了，不是英文問題，但相信錯誤之源是同一的輕率態度。
除了語法錯誤，聯署的措詞和造句都有很多不地道之處，執正之後，大致會是這樣：
“Ms. Lam Wai-sze, a primary school teacher in Hong Kong, is being
politically persecuted. After shouting obscenities in an argument with police
over freedom of expression in a public space on July 14, Lam was harassed, with
huge banners being left at her school calling for her dismissal.
On August 11, the Hong Kong government’s chief executive urged the
Education Bureau to file a report on Ms. Lam’s case. In addition, the Hong Kong
Police’s Mongkok District Crime Squad received an order to investigate Lam’s
case.
Ms. Lam is facing tremendous pressure, and we hope the international
community can step in to help rectify the situation.
A news report of Ms. Lam’s case is available online:
‘Mong Kok crime squad to investigate teacher who swore at police’
你咁樣嘅心態同捉住林老師講粗口就大加批鬥嗰班土共冇分別。「介咗粗口才仗義執言吧！」我屌你老母啦！
回覆刪除閣下看事情看得太簡單了，我可以支持林老師而不支持聯署，或支持聯署但主張英文寫得好一點才公開（很容易做到的事）。
刪除互聯網真可怕,人們被情感沖昏頭腦後,事實看不清,就任意激憤地批評甚至侮辱人。
刪除不過我亦有點意料不到教授的標題會如此強勢。
「你咁樣嘅心態同捉住林老師講粗口就大加批鬥嗰班土共冇分別。「介咗粗口才仗義執言吧！」我屌你老母啦！」
刪除--缺乏邏輯思維，隨媒體起舞，重差過土共。只能說夏蟲不可語冰。
//介咗粗口才仗義執言吧！」//
刪除不必戒咗粗口, 但如果當時不講粗口，而是以陳述道理利弊方式是否比較容易讓對方容易下台， 接受意見呢？ 講粗口只是表達憤怒，對方不一定因為你的憤怒而改變他的行為或思想。
控制自己的憤怒，去思考怎樣處理事情較容易才是成熟的行為。為自己和社會進步出一分力吧！ bbse
魚之樂作者正小人, 我挑
刪除白官網站有話過一定要英文好先可以發言嗎?
我話你魚之樂頭腦先簡單,
美國夠反共啦, 美國咪又同中共合作,一齊頂蘇聯,
何況陳雲雖反美, 但他一向講現實政治, 唔通你想扮唔知?
你有本事, 咪向全世界講下香港土共點迫害林老師囉, 我拍掌添喎
英文好個D人, 有X用呀? 當人去抗爭時,
D自以為英文好果D契弟只係識响後面拖後腿, 冷嘲熱諷
無能力容忍他人挑剔，何以自己挑剔他人？更何況網主算不上挑剔，只是指出問題。呢位朋友，激動無助解決問題。英文對錯，更是政治立場也無法改變的事。
刪除陳雲堂堂大學教授，發起聯署，係咪英文先要寫得過得關先？咁嘅英文真係好失禮喎！
回覆刪除佢係中文系教授嘛XD
刪除但佢大學時係主修英文系 中文是自修的(爆)
刪除腦袋放了中文，就放不下英文lol
刪除那麼王sir的腦袋呢？
刪除屌你，聯署已經戇鳩，英文咁差係鳩上鳩。
回覆刪除今年2月佢都發起過~請國白宮介入香港奶粉問題!
回覆刪除無獨有偶,3月就有限奶令!
唔理你邊門邊派,為目的而做吧,別因人廢言!
輸掉的除了器量外,更會輪埋香港及林老師!
難道支持林老師就一定要贊同聯署？
刪除先撇開此等「求洋菩薩」所為合宜與否，即使是認同聯署的人，恐怕也不願聯署如此讀之令人尷尬的文本吧？
刪除不說這個奶粉問題聯署（http://tinyurl.com/n4ycyfg）猶自可、一講起來把幾火！其文也，不但用詞有若取自 Google Translate，文法又一再錯亂，而且文理鬆散欠通順，通篇贅語，大違陳教授自己在執正中文系列中所作主張。
王教授改文的確有教授之風，盡量保留原文面貌；換了是在下，肯定會更加體無完膚！
謝謝。對，我的確是盡量保留原文面貌，那樣較容易讓原文作者看到自己的文字問題。
刪除請教一下，聯署第一段末兩句其實有甚麼問題？（純粹想學習一下英文）
回覆刪除那兩句沒有語法錯誤，但造句 awkward，改寫後自然一點。
刪除其實陳雲是應該用德文寫的，但又驚你班友睇唔明，唯有寫英文啦！
回覆刪除不知道是不是他寫的，但他應該有過目吧。
刪除"陳雲：林老師正面臨港共的政治迫害，亟須國際關注。我的朋友正草擬英文請願書，在白宮聯署網頁，請求美國總統關注。請大家稍等。" - 好像是陳雲的朋友寫的，當然不排除朋友就是佢自己。
回覆刪除英文有錯應指正，這是學者應有的態度。只不過小錯誤不代表聯署的行為不當。請分辨清楚。支持聯署，也學好英文。
事實上我是不贊成聯署的。
刪除想請教"the chief executive of Hong Kong Government"改成"the Hong Kong government’s chief executive"之後的差別何在？
回覆刪除"Hong Kong Government" 應作 "the Hong Kong government"，但 "the chief executive of the Hong Kong government" 用了兩 "the" ，看來累贅，改為 "the Hong Kong government's chief executive" 能通文氣。
刪除I have an idea from some past teacher that one should avoid using apostrophe s if possible. Am I mistaken or is this just a matter of preference? Thanks!
刪除Here's some information about ‘s-possessive versus of-possessive:
刪除"A generation ago, many authorities considered it improper to use the possessive case with any word that does not denote an animate thing. Thus one could write (or say) the dog's dish but not the dish's contents; it would have to be the contents of the dish. [...] the distinction is no longer made except by very fastidious writers". (Edward D. Johnson, The Handbook of Good English, p.127)
"It does seem from the evidence available to me that 's genitive for inanimate nouns is commoner now than it was a century ago". (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3rd edition, p.689)
"According to a study conducted by Khampang (1973) in which he tested native English speaker preference for the 's possessive versus the of form [...] the native speakers preferred the 's form even with inanimate head nouns when the noun could be viewed as performing an action, e.g. 'The train's arrival was delayed' was preferred over 'The arrival of the train was delayed'". (Marianne Celce-Murcia & Diane Larsen-Freeman, The Grammar Book, p.126)
See also:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/621/01/
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/30385/apostrophe-s-vs-of
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv20.shtml
Thank you very much!
刪除開眼界，謝王教授！
刪除When you critique the post you'd better explain more about what went wrong in grammar with explicit rules that he violated - technically speaking, the 'meta-language'. Be specific about the errors he made. As long as he can get his message across to the international community, grammatical mistakes are unimportant, and I doubt whether he made the mistakes that you mentioned at all!
回覆刪除Perhaps you'll make a great proofreader in the UK or US where like Chin's English according to your standards literacy is declining.
I think my essay is more readable the way it is. If you disagree with any of the points I have made, we can have a discussion here.
刪除我也在網上教人一點英文，我覺得王教授對陳雲的英語批評十分正確，人家在美國教書經年，英文絕對比陳雲地道！以一個讀英文出身的人來說，國師這篇英文可說是不合格！另外，我絕不贊同文法錯誤不重要，睇得明就得，若是這樣，根本唔使考試讀書！現在談民主的人很多都已經走火入魔，別人說幾句不中聽的說話，就好像罪大惡極似的，唉！
刪除能過大猩猩這一關，頗感欣慰。（那篇聯署的英文大概不是陳雲寫的，但他既是發起人，假如看出有寫得不妥之處，應該改正。）
刪除豈敢，豈敢，只是說句公道話而矣！我也同意就算不是他寫，發起人也有責任修正文中的錯處，畢竟這是給外國人看的！其實你這篇文章只是指出聯署聲明中的一些英文問題，純屬善意討論，那些人用不著反應那麼大，君子和而不同嘛！
刪除可能是因為我在第一段用的嘲諷語氣令他們看得很不舒服。
刪除陳雲二月請白宮介入奶粉問題，三月香港就有限奶令，發起聯署又唔係哂時間哂錢，唔洗遊行咁辛水辛汗，都係一種嘗試。我唔明點解作者反對聯署，好奇怪。
回覆刪除沒有任何證據支持限奶令是美國介入的結果。
刪除我不贊成聯署是因為：
－ 我不認同視美國為國際警察（埃及死得人多，又不見美國做些甚麼？）。
－ 美國連一個斯諾登也逼不到香港政府交出，就算肯為林慧思事件出聲（extremely unlikely），我們也沒有理由相信美國政府能做到些甚麼。
美國做「國際警察」的程度可能與對其自身利益的程度有關。埃及死得人多，不見美國做些甚麼其實可能就正是美國想要做的什麼。
刪除據說西方國家對埃及穆兄會多年來都是一直存有戒心的，可能與西方的宗教信仰與穆兄會不同以及以色列等問題都有關係，可能美國（和以色列）都並不想見到穆兄會掌控埃及（以免以色列腹背受「敵」），所以不見美國做些什麼其實可能就正是美國要做的什麼。
據說中國對穆兄會也似乎是沒有做些什麼，據中國在埃及當地的記者報導說埃及反對穆兄會的人數比支持穆兄會的人數要多，並且穆兄會裡面也有武裝分子向軍警和其他民眾開槍，部份傷亡係由穆兄會的武裝分子所造成。語氣並不完全同情穆兄會。
可能美國受「恐怖份子」威脅與中國新疆也受「恐怖份子」威脅都與某類宗教組織有關，所以對某類宗教都存有戒心。
雖然美國本身對林慧思事件可能也不會做很多事，但中國人有「家醜不可外揚」的心態，雖說「向洋人告狀」被中國人認為是「不光彩」的事，但家醜外揚難免會對「家長」（管治者）造成壓力，恐怕會被人家認為是「管治不善」而影響對「一個兩制」成功的聲譽，這就可能比美國做什麼事更重要了。
//美國連一個斯諾登也逼不到香港政府交出....//
刪除斯諾登事件反過來可能更令美國政府對港府抱有成見而或可能借林慧思事件發點牢騷...
I think "the chief executive of Hong Kong Government" reads better than "the Hong Kong government’s chief executive" in formal writing, although both are intended to convey the same meaning. Professor Wong seems inclined to split hairs whenever he takes on Professor Chin. That a scholar in philosophy shows such narrow-mindedness leaves me scratching my head!
回覆刪除I would leave it to my readers to judge whether I am splitting hairs.
刪除呢次有d站在城頭罵漢人feel. 我吾喺教授，只是路人。
刪除好似話條片係造假？
回覆刪除https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=601806689841972
這個留言放錯地方了。（是否假片，我已討論過。）
刪除I'm the blog owner of Badcanto Wordpress. I believe the introduction of the petition is taken from my blog post on Lam Wai-sze. http://wp.me/p1oV7E-4gW
回覆刪除Anyway, thanks for giving me grammar tips.
Your modesty is admirable.
刪除搵老美想拉老美落渾水
回覆刪除咪仲複雜化這事件
法輪功的財政背後支持者
幕後黑手就是老美
陳雲發起聯署，不知是真傻還是詐懵。
刪除陳雲發起聯署, 有患上前期腦退化症(前稱老人痴呆症)之徵兆.
刪除哈哈哈哈哈 。。。。屌佢老美！
刪除一笑再笑三笑四笑五笑 LMAOROTF
陳雲o岩o岩係FB寫：觀音借庫，擇日還神。我兩度借助美國總統奧巴馬先生聲援香港，上次是保護香港嬰兒奶粉，結果得咗；這次是保護林慧思老師和香港言論自由，看這次梁振英黨羽在觀塘的示弱作風，又搞掂咗。
刪除我會擇個日子，去麥當勞食漢堡包，拍照上載，以示酬謝。
美國出面，一試就靈。驅邪趕鬼，唔到你唔信。
真係痴孖根o籮。
咁戇居嘅嘢都講得出，陳雲只可能係真傻，唔係扮懵。
刪除唉，恐怕離蹬地一下、再猛叫一聲「大顯威靈！」，然後挺身擋坦克之期不遠矣！
刪除//我會擇個日子，去麥當勞食漢堡包// 我真係有日見到陳雲同佢老婆食麥當勞。
刪除Yan，
刪除乜你成日撞到陳雲兩公婆？下次影張相嚟睇吓。
我只撞過佢三四次，一次在老麥。好，下次扮佢fans影張相比你睇。
刪除記住影埋佢老婆呀！
刪除有病.....上次玩完奶粉仲未夠皮？
回覆刪除識唔識字架佢地？
「For American」，個機制唔係拎黎俾外國人請願
就算你破50萬 美國政府都唔會理你
頂多就係傳媒會係網上版既海外欄寫一篇文
見到樓上仲有人將限奶令當作聯署功勞，感覺就如你知道某某撞車重傷走去打小人，之後咁岩某某過身，於是聲稱「打小人真係好靈架~」 一樣，唔係有心就係無知....
btw 我唔會係呢件事上特別走去「支持林老師」，除非佢要求
我只會反對警方所為
雖然我真係估唔到幼稚園級既道理都可以炒足成個月....
同意。
刪除In my opinion, "the Hong Kong government's chief executive" is needlessly verbose. Simply using the concise expression "Hong Kong's chief executive" will suffice. Professor Wong has indeed struck me as a nitpicker. I'd very much like to read in this blog more about his expert ideas on the subject of philosophy. If he takes exception to any of Professor Chin's arguments or assertions, maybe he can help us better understand his opposing points of view by drawing on his professional expertise instead of making a mountain out of a molehill regarding Professor Chin's English skills?
回覆刪除A breath of fresh air.
刪除Your English is impeccable, better than many so-called professors.
"Hong Kong's" or "of Hong Kong" is more appropriate, as the Chief Executive is already part of the government. You can refer to a company's head as "the company's CEO", but not the "the management's CEO".
Furthermore, I would refrain from the use of " 's" for an inanimate object: the "Hong Kong Government's" is very questionable, while using the possessive form of a country/company is perfectly legitimate.
"The Chief Executive of Hong Kong" is a title, while "the Hong Kong government's chief executive" is not. The latter expression is preferable if we do not assume familiarity with the title.
刪除As for 's-possessive, please see my comments above (8/18/2013 12:19 上午).
"is needlessly verbose" is verbose.
刪除第二段 file a report 總覺得格格不入，這樣說似是某個人向一個部門或機構提交某些東西，例如：file a police report, file a claim, file a complaint, file a tax return 等等。如果是反過來由某部門或機構要求下屬提交報告，應說是 "urge them to deliver a report"
回覆刪除'File' 可解作 'submit'，這裏的用法並無不妥。
刪除我知'File' 可解作 'submit'，但 submit 都是不大適合，submit 含有 obey 的意謂，例如： the candidate submits a job application, the lawyer submits the material to the court, 你不會反過來說成是 the company submitted a job offer letter to the candidate
回覆刪除就如我先前所說，file 是以個人名義向某部門或機構提交一些東西，而這裡是指香港政府（非以個人名義）向下屬發命令，所以無論用 file 或 submit 都不大適合。如你仍覺並無不妥那就隨便吧。
行政長官要求警務處長提交報告，由上而下的是「要求」，「提交」則是由下而上。
刪除"To file a report" implies expressing a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the outcome of an event or incidence, whereas "to submit a report" suggests power distance due to the existence of a hierarchical structure. In the old British colonial days, these two words were routinely used in both written and oral communications in the public sector. However, in today's more open and egalitarian society, we are increasingly seeing a higher frequency rate of the use of expressions like "to provide a report" and "to prepare a report," or "to come up with a report" in the same context of the issue under discussion. My own experience tells me that those whose first language is English tend to favor the third option "to come up with a report."
回覆刪除Well, you have to consider the context --- it's precisely the hierarchy of power that's being emphasized in the petition.
刪除In my previous posting, the word "incidence" should have been replaced by the word "incident." Sorry for the typo.
回覆刪除By the way, I think the sentence "On August 11, the Hong Kong government’s chief executive urged the Education Bureau to file a report on Ms. Lam’s case." could be improved to read more like something written by a present-day, well-educated English native speaker, as follows:
"On August 11, Hong Kong’s head of government, Chief Executive C.Y. Leung, asked that the Education Bureau come up with a report on Ms. Lam’s case."
Thanks. There's always room for improvement...
刪除my take on this :)
回覆刪除"Ms Alpais Lam Wai-sze, a primary school teacher in Hong Kong, is being politically persecuted for standing up to the police. Since she was filmed swearing at the police to express her indignation at the police's failure to protect freedom of expression in a public space, Ms Lam has been harassed and victimised by pro-government groups. Huge banners, for example, were left outside her school calling for her dismissal.
On August 11, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong requested the Education Bureau, which ultimately has the power to revoke Ms Lam's permit to teach, to produce a report on Ms. Lam’s case. In addition, the Hong Kong Police’s Mongkok District Crime Squad decided to investigate whether Ms Lam had committed any offences in connection with the incident.
Ms Lam is facing tremendous pressure now. We plead with the international community to intervene."
Very nice. Thanks.
刪除多口說句，obscenity作countable noun用時多以plural form形式出現，故shouting a obscenity應該甚為少見！
回覆刪除