關於 result in result from 用法 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

【我愛英文單字篇】

其實英文單字並不是我的強項，由我鼓吹練習閱讀時不要查單字就可得知。某些單字，尤其是副詞或形容詞，我常常只由上下文推測它是正面或負面意思，並不知道確切的意思。可是這個做法是有原因的：英文單字本來就有分「等級」，其實是常用度，有些字典會在常用字前面打三顆星，有些一顆都沒有。所以背單字的時候其實要勢利一點，三顆星表示會常常碰到，要優先背，知道用法與衍生字，沒有星的表示有這個單字但不常遇到，認得就可以，有閒暇時間再深入研究。

以下整理我認為背單字時的要領：

1. 例句：
背單字時務必要看例句，學用法，尤其是具有多重用法的單字。隨便舉一個例子，represent 是代表的意思，這個字究竟可以「代表」多少東西，又該怎麼用？根據劍橋英語辭典的例句有下列定義與用法：

a. to speak, act, or be present officially for another person or people:
They chose a famous barrister to represent them in court.
I sent my husband to represent me at the funeral.
Women were poorly represented at the conference.
b. to be the Member of Parliament, or of Congress, etc. for a particular area:
Ed Smythe represents Barnet.
c. to be the person from a country, school, etc. that is in a competition:
She was chosen to represent France at the Olympics.
d. to express or complain about something, to a person in authority:
We represented our grievances/demands to the boss.
e. to show or describe something or someone:
The statue represents St. George killing the dragon.
This new report represents the current situation in our schools.
f. to be a sign or symbol of something:
To many people the White House represents the identity of the United States.
g. to be the result of something, or to be something:
This book represents ten years of thought and research.
The new offer represented an increase of 10 percent on the previous one.

以上這些例句顯示這個單字除了「代表」之外還有「代理」、「代表選民」、「提出」、「描述」、「象徵」等意義，詳讀例句不止有助理解單字的正確用法，還有它的廣泛意思，若在閱讀及其他地方看到這個單字時能加深印象。

2. 衍生字
衍生字就是單字的親戚，單字家族，例如represent的家族包括representable、representation、representational、representative、通常在字典相近處，用一樣的方法研究例句與用法，背單字時順便認識整家人，不一定要同時背下來，但至少知道有這些變化，遇到的時候會有印象。

3. 上下文（context）
有些單字的多重意思乍看之下八竿子打不著關係，其實暗藏玄機，例如terminal、 terminate、termination可以用在完全不同的領域。
Terminate 是動詞（好啦名詞就是terminator），是終結的意思，terminal當名詞有「終點站」的意思（王爾德拿來取笑某人在車站出生），飛機航廈也是terminal，電腦終端機也是terminal。當形容詞則是「末期的」（terminal cancer）。terminate 除了有「終結某事」的意思（terminate the contract），也用在形容終止妊娠（terminate the pregnancy）。所以termination 是abortion的另一個用法。學到這個字時就順便學非人工流產是miscarriage（懷孕失敗），衍生詞是miscarriage of justice（司法不公）。

記住「單字家族」和「多重意義」這兩個特性，遇到貌似熟悉的單字時藉由上下文「推測」單字的意思，而非直接查字典，或推測過後再查字典求證，會比直接查字典更印象深刻。

4. 以中文大量吸取知識
所謂知識包括一般知識與專長領域或興趣。當然，要用英文也可以，只是這部分用中文比較快。這是我覺得最重要的一點，有時候，單字背不起很可能是因為連這個單字的中文意思都不確定，不知道背景故事，或不知道那個概念的來源。例如我喜歡看《實習醫生》，所以我對各科別的英文名稱耳熟能詳，如果有人說他的專長是cardiovascular，我就知道cardio是心臟，vascular是血管，加起來就是心血管的。terminal、chronic、acute分別代表「末期」、「慢性病」和「急性」疾病，但terminal illness、chronic disease和acute illness有哪些例子？糖尿病屬於哪一種？闌尾炎屬於哪一種？這是不需要靠英文也可以學得的知識，但在學英文時絕對會有幫助。

如果讀到一篇關於冷戰的英文文章，事先知道冷戰的背景一定比完全不知道要來得容易，也比較容易猜測、記憶單字的意思。

我不知道市面上的英文學習書提供什麼樣的學習建議，以上是我的經驗談。我覺得學英文是多方面齊步並進的，沒有單一訣竅，關鍵在於保持好奇心，把自己當成海綿吸取知識，永遠不嫌多，就會變得很厲害了。

【喬的回顧系列：英文中十個常錯的用法！】
喬今天要請各位同學來回顧這一篇，也許很多人也犯過同樣的錯，一起來溫故知新或者警戒自我吧！

<十個英文文法常犯的錯誤>
喬今天幫各位整理常犯文法錯誤之中文版以及自己以前批改學生作業的經驗，在這邊跟各位同學做分享，祝各位寫作越來越好：

1. affect與effect的混淆
這兩個字往往造成很大的響應，因為太多人把他們搞錯了。於是來好好講解一下。
[1] effect (n.) = a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause 「效應」、「影響」
例1: The radiation leak has had a disastrous effect on/upon the environment.
例2: I tried taking tablets for the headache but they didn’t have any effect.
例3: I think I’m suffering from the effects of too little sleep.

[2] effect (V.) = cause (something) to happen; bring about 「使(某事)發生：導致」切記不是「影響」的意思，許多字典上也會告知讀者不可以跟”affect”混用
例: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.

[3] affect (V.) = have an affect on; make a difference to 「影響」「侵襲」「感染」「打動」
例1: Both buildings were badly affected by the fire. 「侵襲」
例2: The divorce affected every aspect of her life.「影響」
例3: It’s a disease which affects mainly older people.「侵擾」
例4: I was deeply affected by the film. (= It caused strong feelings in me). 「打動」
*以上例句採自”dictionary.cambridge.org”與“dictionary.com”

2. 把than寫成then
這點真的超多人會寫錯：than是「比」的意思；而then是「然後、接著」的意思
(O) His dog is more adorable than mine.
(X) His dog is more adorable then mine.

3. fewer與less的用法搞混
要闡述”比較少”的概念，這兩個詞常常被搞混
fewer (adj.) + 可數名詞 He keeps fewer dogs than I do.
less (adj.) + 不可數名詞 He had less soup than I did.

* 值得一提的是，如果是想要用”number”這個詞來表達”較少的數目”，可以說”smaller number”，為何用”smaller”呢？根據維基百科( goo.gl/f3vRxA)，對於number要使用fewer還是less似乎有不少的爭議，可自行前往該網站觀覽，但是smaller number是不會錯的用法。

4. 搞混few, a few, little, a little的用法
這四個字詞的確很繞口，但是只要把握大原則就不會用錯了。
few (adj.) = nearly nothing 幾乎沒有 + 可數名詞
a few (adj.) = some but not many 很少 + 可數名詞
little (adj.) = nearly nothing 幾乎沒有 + 不可數名詞
a little (adj.) = some but not much 很少 + 不可數名詞

5, 分詞構句前後主詞不一致
例： (X) Bursting into tears, I tried to comfort Nancy.
這句話的中文翻譯會變成：
「當我嚎啕大哭，我嘗試著去安慰南希。」整個變得很奇怪而且沒有邏輯，分詞構句使用正確是加分的，但是主詞不一會變得很難懂。
(O) When Nancy burst into tears, I tried to comfort her.

6. 常常會把lie與lay搞混了，其實很多美國人也會搞混，所以多注意吧！
lie (V.) 說謊
lay (V.) 放置; 鋪設

"說謊": lie-lied-lied (現在分詞:lying)
"躺": lie-lay-lain (現在分詞:lying)
"放置": lay-laid-laid (現在分詞:laying)

7. 使用雙引號的時候，句號逗錯地方，逗號要逗在雙引號裡面：
(X) “You are fabulous”.
(O) “You are fabulous.”

8. 否定的”也”，要用”nor”不用”not”
例: He didn’t go to the party, nor did I.

9. everyday與every day
everyday是形容詞，表示每天的；every day是副詞，表示每日、每天
(O) He wakes up at 8: 00 every day.
(X) He wakes up at 8:00 everyday.

10. 搞混Borrow跟lend的用法，兩者的差別其實很好記！
borrow (V.) take and use (something that belongs to someone else) with the intention of returning it 借入
lend (V.) grant to (someone) the use of (something) on the understanding that it shall be returned 借出