今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓,題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿:
It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:
//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.
Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…
In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.
Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.
Thank you very much!//
Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!
Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「i have no concern中文」的推薦目錄:
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 Roger Chung 鍾一諾 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 C's English Corner Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 翻譯這檔事 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 #請問英文使用問題 - 語言板 | Dcard 的評價
- 關於i have no concern中文 在 i have no concern中文的八卦,DCARD和Yahoo名人娛樂都在 ... 的評價
i have no concern中文 在 C's English Corner Facebook 的精選貼文
#美國大選
經過將近三天的開票,Joe Biden終於贏得選戰成為美國第46任總統。
聽他選後第一次發表的演說時,我正在曬衣服🤣
帶著耳機邊曬邊聽,很多地方都聽到全身起雞皮疙瘩,所以特別分享影片以及讓我有「觸電」感覺的秒數記下分享給大家🇺🇸必須要說,很多時候聽英文原文真的比看中文翻譯有感覺多了!我盡量在下方解說給大家聽。不過我先說好喔,我不是什麼專業的演講評論家也不是個政治狂熱者,但是這的確是場有歷史意義且優秀的演講,單純分享我自己喜歡的地方囉!也歡迎大家分享你們喜歡的段落給大家一起學習!
(2:52~3:03)
I pledge to be a President who seeks not to divide, but to unify. Who doesn’t see Red and Blue states, but a United States.
我承諾成為一個尋求團結而非分裂的總統。我看到的不是紅州或藍州,而是美利堅合眾國(United States of America)。
👉 USA是United States of America,在這次選舉中清楚地看到不論是種族、黨派或貧富,都深深地撕裂、分化美國,所以希望不再用顏色、黨派分Red states or Blue states,而是回到USA的本意就是United States。矮額~這是我第一個雞皮疙瘩的地方。
(6:20~7:05)
And to all those who supported us: I am proud of the campaign we built and ran. I am proud of the coalition we put together, the broadest and most diverse coalition in history. Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Progressives, moderates and conservatives. Young and old. Urban, suburban and rural. Gay, straight, transgender. White. Latino. Asian. Native American.
I mean it. Especially for those moments when this campaign was at its lowest ebb— the African American community stood up again for me. They always have my back, and I’ll have yours.
還有每個支持我們的人,我以我們建立的競選團隊與選戰操作感到光榮。我以我們組成的聯盟感到驕傲,這是史上最廣泛、最多元的聯盟。有民主黨的、共和黨的,還有無黨籍人士,有進步勢力、中間派還有保守派,有年輕的,有老人,有市區跟郊區民眾,也有人來自鄉村地區,有同志、異性戀者,也有跨性別者,有白人、拉丁美洲裔、亞裔,還有美洲原住民。
特別要紀念我們在選情最低迷的時候,非裔美國民眾再次站起來支持我。他們總是支持我,我也支持你們。
👉 這一整段真的要看現場片段,尤其在列舉各種族性別者時,看到他們如此被包容,有這麼幾秒整個拜倒在Biden演講魅力中了!
(7:34~7:53)
It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric, lower the temperature, see each other again, listen to each other again. And to make progress, we have to stop treating our opponents as our enemies. They are not our enemies. They are Americans. They are Americans.
這是拋開尖刻言辭的時候,要降溫,再見到彼此,聆聽彼此。如果要進步,我們就必須停止把對手當成敵人。我們不是敵人,我們都是同胞。
👉 這裡Biden即席地重複了兩次They are Americans. 經過四年的人權蹂躪後,現在這句話這麼強而有力地講出來真的很有後坐力!
(9:56~10:17)
That plan (the Biden-Harris COVID plan) will be built on a bedrock of science. It will be constructed out of compassion, empathy, and concern.
I will spare no effort, non, or commitment, to turn this pandemic around.
那項計畫將以科學為基礎,依憐閔、同理心與關懷的原則規畫。我將竭盡全力,全心承諾扭轉疫情。
👉 第兩句話其實真的有當場打臉Trump的意味,”will be built on a bedrock of science”,聽了其實挺過癮的😎
(10:48~11:05)
Refusal of Democrats and Republicans to cooperate with one another is not some mysterious force beyond our control. It’s a decision. It’s a choice we make.
民主黨興共和黨拒絕相互合作的原因,並非某種我們無法控制的神祕力量。它是個決定,是我們所做的選擇。
👉 我人生中的信仰一直就是:也許你天生不善良,但永遠可以「選擇」當一個善良的人。所以聽到這句話也真的很有感。
(13:52~14:17)
We’re always looking ahead.
Ahead to an America that’s freer and more just.
Ahead to an America that creates jobs with dignity and respect.
Ahead to an America that cures disease — like cancer and Alzheimers.
Ahead to an America that never leaves anyone behind.
Ahead to an America that never gives up, never gives in.
我們眼光總是向前看,盼望一個更自由、更公正的美國,一個用品格、尊重來創造工作機會的美國,一個可以治療諸如癌症、阿茲海默症等疾病的美國,一個不放棄任何一人的美國,一個不輕言放棄、屈服的美國。
👉 真的好喜歡最後一句:Ahead to an America that never gives up, never gives in. 我覺得我要把”Never give up, never give in.”當做近期的人生座右銘了!
你們呢?你們哪幾段看到起雞皮疙瘩?也分享讓我知道吧!
影片出處:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q78XXkhx0o&t=771s
i have no concern中文 在 翻譯這檔事 Facebook 的最讚貼文
【謎底揭曉】在台灣丟一顆石頭都會打中瞎譯那話兒!
(那話兒:表示不正當或不雅的事。小說中常指人的性器官而言。也作「那樁兒」。)
繼教授譯者謝瑤玲把「現代的祕教者窮得很」(don't have two pennies to rub together)譯成「現代的祕教者並沒有兩根可以搓在一起的陰莖」(two penises),繼教授譯者賴慈芸把「等文稿定案後,再找譯者來翻譯也不遲。」(after the job is done, fetch the translator)譯成「翻完之後,不要給譯者留活口」(after the job is done, kill the translator)之後,實在很難找到可以與之匹敵的胡譯瞎譯,直到最近,為了研究中英譯者如何處理「共匪」的英譯,為了暸解中譯「共匪」對應的英文原文是啥,竟然發現無敵的「丟一顆石頭……打中他那話兒」!
原文/中譯對照如下,應該有足夠的上下文讓有興趣一探究竟的讀者瞧瞧這誤會是怎麼發生的,歸納三個原因:
* 譯者想像力過於旺盛、
* 恍神或不用心,見樹不見林、
* 對原文文法不夠暸解,態度不對而輕忽之。
首先,「丟一顆石頭」的原文是 lob one (發射一個那個東西),那個東西指什麼?從原文脈絡明顯指向前兩句才剛剛說過的 tactical nuclear bombs (戰術核子武器),即使不說「發射一顆戰術核彈」,嫌太累贅,至少要譯成「發射一顆核彈」。
核彈怎會變石頭?譯者顯然查字典或Google了一下,發現動詞 lob (丟、投擲、發射)和 stone 還蠻常一起出現吧?!就給它「丟一顆石頭」下去了,用這種方式理解英文是不行的,one 必須指涉出現過的名詞概念,不然,one 也有「一個人」之意,但顯然「投擲/發射一個人到廁所」根本見鬼,所以譯者可能採取「消去法」,認定這one一定是個「東西」不是人,但也輪不到「石頭」來當the one啊!
其次,「打中他那話兒」的原文是 make sure I hit it,這裡跟前述的 one 一樣,有一個代名詞 it,同樣的,譯者又是對文法不夠尊重,想像力旺盛,從廁所就聯想到男人的那話兒,於是 it 就譯成「his private parts」(他那話兒),準備千古流芳了!但是各位有沒有注意到這個「解法」的矛盾和問題?中文「他那話兒」有一個「他」,他只能代表人,那這個他指涉誰?原文完全沒有出現「他」。譯者該不會希望讀者可以看出他的用意:用擬人法的譬喻,借用「男廁裡,他的那話兒」表達「克里姆林宮的機要位置」?這未免太扯,不太可能吧!這個 it 也指剛剛提過的東西,就是男廁嘛!
建議改譯:
……他曾說自己想要「發射一顆核彈瞄準克里姆林宮的男廁,而且一定要擊中」。
感謝幾位網友參與猜謎遊戲,請自行比對看看你猜中了多少。
這個寧可發揮天馬行空的想像力,也不要按部就班遵循基本英文文法思考所導致的爆笑誤譯,跟賴教授「不要給譯者留活口」的驚世之語,頗有異曲同工之妙:兩人皆是「語不驚人誓不休」(這正好也是書名)!
這樁兒事得來的教訓:
1. 把心用在理解原文和文法,這是翻譯首要的基本功,沒有之一,沒有替代的捷徑。Cue 一下賴教授。
2. 想像力無法控制,很危險,一定要謹記你的角色在哪,不要逾矩。
3. 再好的譯者(如這位陳信宏,中文文筆極佳,我注意欣賞已久,算是英倫哲學才子作家Alan de Botton的「欽定」譯者)都必定有盲點,都一定會出包。所以,任何翻譯都應該找有能力對照原文審核者來過目一次。這是對台灣出版社最衷心的建議。
- - - - -
//Goldwater, in his heart, believed that he was right. Right about the waste and distaste of the “welfare state” the Johnson administration had built. Right about the need for absolute military strength in the face of Soviet expansion. Right about a foreign policy that would make George Bush’s look downright friendly.
高華德內心深信自己是對的。他認為詹森政府建立的「福利國家」不僅揮霍資源,而且令人厭惡;他認為美國面對蘇聯的擴張,必須建構絕對的軍事實力;而且,他心目中的外交政策強硬至極,與他相比,連小布希都顯得太過友善。
Yes, Goldwater was an extremist and proud of it. His Republican convention acceptance speech is best remembered for the line “I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”
的確,高華德是個極端主義者,並且以此為傲。他在共和黨代表大會上發表的接受提名演說當中,最令人難忘的一句話就是:「提醒各位,為了捍衛自由而採行的極端主義並非壞事。」
On the subject of foreign policy he was crystal clear about where he would lead the nation. Simply put: leave the United Nations and never look back, break off all relations with the Soviet Union, and use tactical nuclear bombs to fight communists in Vietnam and other Commie strongholds. Not surprisingly, many of his proclamations during the campaign were outrageous. He was quoted as saying he’d like to “lob one into the men’s room of the Kremlin and make sure I hit it.”
在外交政策方面,他清楚表明自己將會把國家帶往什麼方向。簡單說,就是毫不留戀地退出聯合國,斷絕與蘇聯的一切關係,並且利用戰術核子武器攻打越共以及其他共匪巢穴。不出意料,他在選戰期間提出的許多宣言都令人震驚。據傳他曾說自己很想「丟一顆石頭到克里姆林宮的男廁裡,打中他那話兒」。
Small wonder Johnson’s only concern was the extent of the landslide to come. The Democrats quickly seized upon Goldwater’s “let’s nuke ’em when we have the chance” philosophy and came up with their own unofficial slogan to counter “In Your Heart You Know He’s Right.” Their retort: “In Your Guts You Know He’s Nuts.” It didn’t stop there. Bumper stickers appeared with “Goldwater for Halloween” and “Vote for Goldwater and Go to War.”
難怪詹森不怕落敗,只怕贏得不夠多。民主黨緊抓高華德「一有機會就用核彈炸翻他們」的想法,故意惡搞他的口號:「你心知肚明這傢伙瘋了。」不只如此,當時還出現了不少保險桿貼紙,內容包括:「一票投給高華德,天天都是萬聖節」或者「想上戰場,就選高華德」。
To top it all off, the Johnson advertising team created the famous “Daisy” commercial. It showed a little girl plucking petals from a daisy as a nuclear countdown ends in a huge mushroom cloud explosion. President Johnson’s voiceover was, roughly, “vote for me or God help us all.”
此外,詹森的宣傳團隊還攝製了著名的「雛菊」廣告。畫面上只見一名小女孩在核彈攻擊倒數的同時拔著一朵雛菊的花瓣,倒數結束後,隨即轟然出現爆炸後的巨大蕈狀雲。詹森總統的旁白大致上是說:「請投我一票,不然只好祈求上帝保佑了。」//
#對照原文審校翻譯不可少
i have no concern中文 在 #請問英文使用問題 - 語言板 | Dcard 的推薦與評價
I'm not concerned ~~~~,跟,I don't concern ~~~,想請問這兩句英文有什麼差異?如果今天想表示我不在意薪水只在意工作的內容應該用哪個會比較恰當- ... ... <看更多>