Sunday, May 28, 2006

第二期糖尿病?

在中時電子報上看到的一則關於咖啡的新聞,裡頭瞄到"第二期糖尿病"...,我在想,這是不是指"type 2 diabetes",因為"第二期"讀起來的感覺就像是"初期"癌症,"末期"癌症那樣子,是表明同一類型病症的發展情況,但是"type 2 diabetes"並不是表示這之前是"初期/第一期"糖尿病,然後發展成"第二期糖尿病",而是一開始就是type 2"這一類型"的糖尿病。糖尿病有兩類型,type 1 和 type 2,這文裡會只提到type 2主要也是因為這是一般成年人患的糖尿病類型,type 1則主要是發生在小孩子和青少年身上,成年人的例子則較少。

為了確認是翻譯的問 題而不是真的有"第二期"糖尿病,所以我用google找到英文原版新聞(找到的有可能是多家報導的其中一個,雖然只找到一個。中時沒有列來源,也有可能 是中時記者自己採訪的):

===================
中 時電子報:
咖啡含有強大的抗氧化物綠原酸及類黑素,可以成功攔截破壞DNA的游離基及原子粒子,避免細胞受到攻 擊。喝咖啡也可將肝硬化的風險大幅降低百分之八十。

瑞典研究機構的專家佛瑞宏在研討會表示,有「病理證據」可以證實喝咖啡可以預防男性罹 患帕金森氏症。咖啡與糖尿病的關聯也由芬蘭赫爾辛基大學教授圖密列托所證明,每天喝五到六杯咖啡,得到第二期糖尿病的機率掉了一半之多。


The Australian - Breaking News:
(一段時間後可能無法link)
Coffee contains chlorogenic acids and melanoids which trap so-called free radicals, or atomic particles which damage DNA, and are also powerful antioxidants, involved in the prevention of cellular damage.

Bertil Fredholm, of Stockholm's Karolinska Institute, highlighted at the conference,which wraps up today, "strong epidemiological evidence" that coffee consumption can prevent Parkinson's disease in men.

And diabetes expert Jaakko Tuomilehto, from Helsinki University, said the risk of type 2 diabetes, linked to poor eating habits and a lack of exercise, can be halved by drinking five to six cups of coffee daily.


果然是"type 2"。另外也可以看一下翻譯上的差異(或是對同一新聞採訪之後的報導差異)

1. "可以成功攔截破壞DNA的游離基及原子粒子"

剛讀的時候以為要破壞的目標是DNA,不過這是屬於中文寫作格式上的問題,再讀個一兩次 還是可以讀通,只是問題是"游離基及原子粒子".....這是指兩樣東西,但是如果看英文版的話從頭到尾只有一個 -- free radicals,逗號之後的只是附加的解釋,說明"什麼是free radicals" -- ", or atomic particles which damage DNA, ...."

2. "避免細胞受到攻擊"

英文版的是"prevention of cellular damage"。也許這記者要避開重複寫"破壞"。"攻擊"這字眼感覺起來像是在說由幾個原子/離子所組成的游離基能像細菌或是病毒那樣能"主動對細胞發 動攻擊"的感覺....但是換個角度來看把游離基擬人化,....這...勉強算可以好了。

3. "咖啡與糖尿病的關聯也由芬蘭赫爾辛基大學教授圖密列托所證明"

這個...英文版的並沒有提到"關聯"和"證明",我在想,該不會是把那 個"linked"那一小段給自由發揮? 即使是如此,那一小段也是屬於"附加解釋說明"性質,說明type 2 diabetes的"可能"成因(英文上用"linked"這字眼 -- 只是"有關"喔,我並沒有說這就是真正的成因,也沒有模糊的說"可能"喔,所以你不能說我隨便報導或是不夠專業喔),並沒有說明咖啡和糖尿病的關聯。也 許,這位記者真的有實地採訪吧,只是寫作順序幾乎和英文版的一樣....

不管那麼多了,反正我常喝咖啡,正好以這做為藉口:)

Jimmy

     My roommate is very close to our next door neighbor, so when their boy graduated from high school in May, my roommate sent him a graduation gift, which was also a fare-well gift because he is soon going to a university in Virginia.
     Several days after the gift being sent, my roommate said to me, “Jimmy didn't send me a thank-you card.” For that I replied, “Give him couple more days. Maybe he is busy or something.” “But his sister sent me a thank-you card right away,” he complained. Well, he was referring to the boy's older sister who graduated from high school and went to college two years ago; she received a gift from my roommate too.
     A week or so later, my roommate complained again. This time, I couldn't say the boy was busy, so I said, “well, boys to be boys!” (Yeah, like that's an excuse.) Several days later, he nagged again. What did I say this time? Nothing. This was back in June.
     Last night when I came back and checked our mail box, in the mail, I found a small envelope addressed to my roommate. The return address was our next door neighbor's. I had a hunch that it must be from the boy, even though it was late July already. This morning, I saw an opened greeting card sitting on the counter neatly. The front was a big printed “Jimmy”. The inside:

Dear XX,

Thank you so much for the xxx gift certificate. I really appreciate it. You have been the best neighbor I have ever had as I really appreciate everything you've done for us. It will be a great loss when you sell your house.

Jimmy

He knew my roommate was selling the house.

His father passed away four years ago.

Holy...

    It's hot and humid today, so I stopped at a Dunkin' Donuts for a cup of iced coffee and a breakfast sandwich on my way to a supermarket doing my Sunday grocery shopping. The store was moderately crowded when I entered; this wasn't anything new but a certain group of people were particularly loud. I wasn't bothered by them because they were old people and were having a good time, so I walked to the counter and ordered my food and drink.

    If there's any time I'd appreciate English isn't my first language, it would be now, because I could easily block what I was hearing mentally and did my own business. After I was done with my sandwich, I took my drink and walked out of the store. At that time, two patrons who just left the store were resting at the store front. By the look of it, they should be father and son. I first walked past the son and heard him saying something, but I wasn't paying attention so I didn't know what he just said. But when I walked by the father, who was a very old man and was trying to sit on the bench, I heard him say “....... It just went on and on and on...”  I figured they were complaining the noise in the store.

    So, I got into my car, pulled it out and was ready to head out. On my way out, I saw two people coming out of the store, one of them being J.R. Suddenly, it brought clarity to what I had just witnessed. J.R., our local anti-illegal immigrant activist, if not extremist, was in the store. He is quite a controversial character in our town because he has his own cable TV program aiming for illegal immigrants and has long been targeting a certain racial group in our town. Let me just say he isn't quite popular among certain people.

    I could imagine what those two father and son had just overheard when they were in the store....

Till/Until與之前的否定 -- A big hoax?

以前在國/高中時背過這條規則: "否定句接till,肯定句接until"。本來忘了(因為日常中用不到),最近在討論區看到這條規則,好奇之下到書局翻了些書,因為我很想知道如果這條 規則現在沒人(英語人士)在用,那麼當初這條規則是怎麼來的呢?

經過一番資料蒐集後忽然發現這條規則根本就是無中生有的大笑話。字典裡頭 記載的事實上沒問題,是最早把這規則散布出去的人搞錯,然後其他的國中高中英文參考書什麼的也不查證大家四處抄。這不是"規則",這只是說在否定句之後可 以有這意思,換句話說,過去在"死背"這些規則時,大家只把注意力集中在"否定之後要接till,肯定句之後要接until",卻沒本書或是老師(至少我 的英文老師沒有)指出"在這些情況下的意思是甚麼"。

以這本字典來說,"文馨當代英漢辭典":
till, prep. 2.[用於否定句之後]直到…才: It was not till yesterday that I got the news. 直到昨天我才聽到消息.
同本字典的until:
until, prep.: It was not until yesterday [quite recently] that I noticed it. 一直到昨天[最近]我才注意到它.
這兩句裡頭的till/until其實都是一樣的意思(除非中文的"直到昨天"意思 上不等於"一直到昨天")。問題就出在till的第2個注解方括號裡頭的字眼 -- 用於否定句之後。這其實不是"規定",這只是說了在用於否定句之後的情況下till可以翻譯成"直到...才",事實上這是指這時的意思等於 before,在某些英英字典上會寫意思是 before,比如 American Heritage Concise dictionary: until(因為=till,所以在till的字目下直接寫 prep. & conj. Until,另外就是加個usage note):
-- prep. 2. Before(a specified time): She can't leave until Friday.
比 較:
她直到星期五才能離開(用上頭英漢辭典的"直到..才"來翻)
vs
她在星期五之前不能離開(用英文的Before的意思 來翻)

這兩個意思其實都是一樣
-- conj. 2. Before: You cannot leave until your work is finished.
AHCD裡頭也沒特別強調或是註明" 在否定句後"。換句話說,如果當初字典裡頭的until這個字目裡頭也加入[用於否定句之後]這字眼,也許會有個"眼尖"的人指出那條可笑的文法規則的錯 誤。




以下是這之前寫的。本來我只是"取 笑"這條obsolete的文法規則,也就是"暗示"在過去或許曾經有但是現在根本沒人在用。後來有會員送私人傳訊給我說我把Fowler's的那段注解 讀錯了。讀錯也好,讀對也好,那不是重點,對我來說,我直接看懂聽懂英文,這些註解對我來說有跟沒有一樣,但是這也讓我察覺到這條我們過去記誦的文法規則 根本是中英轉換翻譯時出的大笑話。

--------------------------
首先我翻我手邊的"顏元叔精準英文 法",我想說這夠舊了應該會有,可是沒"翻到"。因為我只是用index去找,只是沒找到,不代表沒有。接下來我翻我手邊的"文馨當代英漢辭典",理由也 是一樣,這應該夠舊了,果然被我翻到了:

till, prep. 2.[用於否定句之後]直到...才: It was not till yesterday that I got the news. 直到昨天我才聽到消息.

但是呢,在接下來的同本字典的 until:
until, prep.: It was not until yesterday [quite recently] that I noticed it. 一直到昨天[最近]我才注意到它.

怎麼前頭說否定句用till,而後頭卻用until給了個否定式的例句 呢?矛盾吧 :)

再來看看我在這邊書局裡翻的結果。我不敢說"翻遍所有的書",但是以Barnes&Noble來說,他們的書量 和種類是很多的。我翻了許多不同出版商所出多種版本的字典,大致上內容都一樣,所附的usage note也差不多: until和till(專指prep.)一樣,只是until稍微正式一點,然後until較常出現在句首。有的usage note會再強調till雖然"稍微"不正式些,但是不代表是完全的informal,只是在統計上,until出現在正式場合的頻率稍微高些而已。另外 就是解釋它種寫法和源流(未免誤導同時也不是主旨,我就不列了)。我也另外翻了些文法和Dictionary of English Usage之類的書,大致上也和字典裡頭講的一樣,沒一本提到"否定句後要用till",甚至呢,用在句首的"Until ...."可以有否定句型 -- "Not until......."。

但-是-

終於在一本usage book被我翻到了: Oxford出的Fowler's Modern English Usage,這裡頭就提到這個"否定句後...",只是呢,它的內容是(不是verbatim,儘記憶所及[加註:<----拜託,我已經說了僅是 記憶所及,畢竟是我在最早寫這篇的幾個禮拜之前在書局翻的]):

"[加註:是關於與before or when代換的解說。如前頭的AHCD裡頭的 prep. & conj. 2. Before。第一部份是under the word: Till]....有種說法是否定句之後要用till,這說法是出自OED(專指1884年出的第一版Oxford English Dictionary以及基於這版所增刷的書,不包含第二版),裡頭說的是美國的用法。....[加註: 這一部份是under the word: Until]...只是呢字典裡頭沒有附例句,也沒有足夠例證可以證明確實是如此,所以這有待日後來查證..."

什麼是"有待日後"呢? 就是現在的用法囉,現在的美國人在實際使用這兩個字時根本沒有分否定肯定,所以現在新版的字典,包含Oxford出的,也根本沒有列這條用法 -- 已經在過去的改版裡頭拿掉囉。

我翻了"文馨當代英漢辭典"的參考書目,總共有21本書/字典,OED雖然不在其列,但是相信這些書裡頭總 有個幾本是參考OED或是類似的"夠舊的"英文字典。

我還記得還在讀大學時曾經就這問題去問一個認識的英文系美籍老師,他說"till和 until一樣囉,可以互換",我還張大嘴巴不敢相信我聽到的,還一直反問他怎麼我們的書說的是那樣呢?而他也一如往常的聳聳肩:"Oh,Ok!" -- 意思是"Whatever you say. 反正我跟你們講了我們的用法,你們這些學生卻老是質疑,那我也懶得反駁了",所以後來我也學乖,問了問題之後我不再反問他 -- 我記下來,自己日後求證囉。沒想到當初背的這條規則在隔了將近20年之後才得以查證清楚:)


後記: 因為在英漢辭典上查資料又勾出了很遙遠以前的一段記憶。這本辭典是我在高中買的,那時也因為記不住"倒底否定句後必須用till還是until"而苦惱。 有次因為無法在手邊的參考書以及講義找到這條規則於是去翻辭典,那時也是遇到前述的矛盾情況 -- 怎麼兩個都有前頭接否定句的例句?那時因為不懂,還異想天開的自己強加解釋(怎麼強記的忘了,大約是) -- 啊,因為是most recently的關係才可以這樣子用,但是...?! 反正就是搞得糊裡糊塗就是了。



進一步閱讀:
The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
§ 284. till / until

It's a lemon

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
lemon:
4 [C] especially AmE informal something that is useless because it fails to work or to work properly:
- I soon realized the van was a lemon.

-------------------------------------

I've been hearing this expression lately on car commercials. To be honest, I didn't quite know what it meant. I knew it was about cars because the state I live has a “Lemon Law” to protect vehicle buyers. Essentially, car dealers are responsible to fix or replace a new car if a buyer found a problem with it. So, I didn't think too much of it when I heard something “lemon” on TV commercials. It's about cars anyway.

Then, today, I spotted this from a newsgroup, alt.usage.english:
“....
I did once see an automobile with a very realistic looking chromed logo that read "Fraud" in the Ford lettering style.  He also had a sign in the back window claiming the vehicle was a lemon and the dealer wouldn't do anything about it.”

Suddenly, it dawned on me. I pictured a guy who just ate a lemon and his face all squeezed together – this facial expression can't be about happiness.

Could this “lemon” mean what I think it is?

Just my luck

It's time to get an oil change for my car, so I picked today, a Saturday, because I'd have a better chance of getting in and out in a shorter time. So I got up REAL early this morning. When I got there, I found out the service center had moved to a new location! It's not that I HAVE TO go to that one; it's just because I got a free oil-change coupon from them.

Judging from the new address posted on the door, I figured it's at the car dealer I bought my car from. I don't quite like the place because it's really small and difficult to park. Anyway, I drove some distance to the new location, parked my car, got out, walked to the front door and it was locked! What the...?!

Long weekend, I curse you!

whether / if

<<我以前的一篇舊文>>

      首先借用Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage裡"whether"這部分的一句話:
Of course, the simplest way to determine where the or not can be omitted is to see if the sentence still makes sense without it.
      這本來是講能靠文意去判斷or not是否可以省略是最好的,但是同樣的也可以引申到whether和if互換的應用。如果做不到的話,最低限度至少要知道if和whether的意思, 尤其是在意思相同的這一部分。如果不能直接看懂英英字典上的字義解釋(比如www.dictionary.com),那麼退而求其次查英漢字典也行。我手邊的『文馨英漢當代辭典』:(請自行查字典,有例句以及用法解說的最好)
If, 4, [引導間接疑問句][口語]是否...(whether)
Send me a telegram if you are coming.
這句子有下列兩種解釋,即: (1) “來的時候請給我電報”, (2) “到底來不來,請給我電報”
因此作(2)解時,不要用if,而用whether較好。(註:所以當有意思不明的可能性發生時,就不要用if)

      Whether: 這部分內容很多,我沒辦法抄,請自己查。基本上是有兩種用法,一個是引導間接疑問名詞子句,意思是『是否』,『是...抑或』(註:這部分的or not往往可以省略,換句說whether or not也可以用來引導間接疑問名詞子句)。另一個是與or連用引導表示讓步的副詞子句,意思是『不論是....或....』(註: 這時的or (not) 不能省)

以下出自 Practical English Usage, M. Swan, Oxford, 1995第二版
whether and if
1. 間接疑問句 (indirect questions):
一般來說可以用whether和if 來帶出yes/no疑問句
- I'm not sure whether/if I'll have tim.

在某些動詞之後較常接whether:
- We discussed whether we should close the shop.
(比用if好多了(原文是寫is more normal): We discussed if ...)

在正式文體裡,較多人通常會把whether和or合用:
- Let me know whether you can come or not.
(...if you can come or not 也有人會這樣子寫(原文is also possible))
-The Directors have not decided whether they will recommend a dividend or reinvest the profits.

當間接疑問句擺在句首時,用whether:
- Whether I'll have time I'm not sure at the moment.

2. 應聲疑問句(Echo questions):
這時候不用if/whether,比如:
“Are you happy?” “Am I happy? No!”
“你快樂嗎?”“我快樂嗎? 才不咧!”
這裡的“Am I happy? ”就是echo question(像是應聲蟲般的重複說一次)
這時不要說/寫“if/whether I'm happy.”

3. 介係詞之後(Prepositions):

只能接whether。
- There was a big argument about whether we should move to a new house.
(Not .... about if we should move...)

4. 不定詞之前(infinitives):
在to-不定詞前要用whether。
- I am not sure whether to put this package here or there.
(Not .... if to put this package...)

5. 主詞,補語和副詞等子句(Subject, complement and adverbial clauses):
當帶有『是否』意思的疑問子句是作為主詞,補語或是副詞使用時,whether通常是較好的選擇(原文: “whether” is normally preferred)
- Whether we can stay with my mother is another matter. (主詞)
The question is whether the man can be trusted. (補語)
Whether you like it or not, I'm staying here. (副詞)

在很非正式的文體裡頭有時可以用“if”:
- The question is if the man can be trusted.

室內皮克尼克

星期天下午,外頭非常的冷(攝氏零下九度),老美室友冷得懶得離開他的房間,我提議不如我去買壽司來吃,他說好啊,我們可以來個"picnic"。

我 買了兩小盒壽司回來,室友則拿了些報紙在房內地毯上一鋪,就這樣子我們弄了個室內picnic! 挺有趣的。本來我想用叉子就好了,他說你幹嘛不用筷子呢?

這讓我想到有次我們在外頭用餐,吃的是中國菜,然後他問了一個問題:

" 你們用餐時是不是會換不同的餐具?"這時,他正在努力的用筷子挑起盤子上的中國菜,而我手裡正拿著叉子吃我盤子裡的東西。他以為我們吃盤子上的東西時要用 叉子,然後其他的碗啦之類的則用筷子。我解釋說,不是啦,因為用筷子吃盤子上的東西很不方邊,一些細碎的飯粒實在很難用筷子在那邊慢慢的一個一個的夾,不 過在"扒"碗裡的飯和菜到嘴裡時,用筷子就真的很方便。

至於這次的室內野餐,我想想反正可以用小碟子當碗,那就再拿雙筷子吧!