正式放棄的英文怎麼講？
好問題，有深度

如果你覺得放棄不就是 give up 這麼簡單
那你就太淺了（搖手指）

來強調一個思維
一個意思，可以用好多好多不同方式表達
如果只背字的單一意思
書到用時很容易枯竭

所以不要只學到 give up 就 give up 了！
要延伸學習

比如
正式放棄碩士學位
可以說 I officially give up my master’s degree!
比較口語化
簡單易懂

那如果要正式、專業
該怎麼表達呢？
讓我們來增加語言彈性（language flexibility）
多學兩個字 renounce 和 relinquish

😓 renounce
formally declare one's abandonment of (a claim, right, or possession).
造句：
I hereby announce that I renounce my Master of Arts from National Sun Yat-sen University.

😓 relinquish
voluntarily cease to keep or claim; give up.
造句：
However, the Kaohsiung-based university said that the Degree Conferral Act (學位授予法) has no regulations covering voluntary relinquishment of a degree.

學會了嗎？

-
另外一種放棄，好比退選
英文則相當簡單
就是 I quit 🤗
不過好像沒有列入考慮。

#比起問這句怎麼翻成英文
#不如問這句怎麼用英文表達
#換個思維翻譯更通暢

#傳說只要正式放棄切割不掉的東西
#就會感覺很負責喔
#高明的一手

#作息破壞者

浩爾

香港大專學界國際事務代表團 x 「我要攬炒」團隊

816遮打【「英美港盟 主權在民」集會 | 「Stand with Hong Kong, Power to the People」Rally】—— 攬炒巴發言 Speech by the Scorched-Earth Team

—————————————————————————

發言全文：
Full text of the Speech:

大家好，我係「我要攬炒」，好多謝大家出席呢一個晚會。
Hello everyone, I am “Scorched Earth”. Thank you all for coming to our rally this evening.

大專學界嘅集會結語，係向國際發出呼籲。而我攬炒，會以一個普通人身份向香港人致謝，亦多謝英國國會議員拍片支持，同表達少少對前路嘅睇法。
Hong Kong IAD closed their speech by making an appeal for international support I, as an ordinary HongKonger, would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation towards the Hongkongers and UK MPs who support Hong Kong, and give my two pennies on how the crisis of Hong Kong may develop in the near future.

點解我會叫自己做我要攬炒呢。其實源於6月9號當日，我發現幾乎所有香港政府高官同保皇黨都有外國護照。
You may wonder why I took the pseudonym “Scorched Earth”. On 9th of June, I noticed that almost all of the government officials and pro-government politicians are holding foreign passports.

佢地只係假放棄外國護照一次，就享有肆意出賣香港利益既權力，與民為敵。
They may just renounce their passports once, leaving the option of reclaiming them later, they would be empowered to take personal advantage in their positions at the expense of Hong Kong, and act against the benefits of Hongkongers.

賣港之後，啲官同保皇黨就手執外國護照，一走了之。所以，我要取消佢地嘅外國護照重發權利，生生世世留喺大灣區，共享大灣區榮耀。同佢地攬炒。
After abusing their power for their own benefits, they may still leave Hong Kong by reclaiming their renounced passports. I therefore seek to have their rights to reclaim their foreign passport removed. They will then be forced to stay forever in China and to face the same “bright” future as us. If Hongkongers burn, they burn with us - thus the selection of the pseudonym of “Scorched Earth”.

不知不覺間，香港人已經奮戰咗兩個月。而呢兩個月，有三個時刻特別令我感觸同決定奮戰落去，同大家齊上齊落。
It feels like not a long time, but Hongkongers have been fighting for over two months already There were three particular moments during the last two months that touched me and made me even more determined to fight on, shoulders to shoulders, with everyone.
————-

第一個時刻，係6月10號見到有年青人，絕望地回應當權者 「反正都無未來，不如一槍啪死我」
The first moment was back on 10th June, when a young protestor hopelessly said to those in power, ‘You might as well kill me with a bullet – there is no future for me anyway.’

第二個時刻，係7月1號，梁繼平義士同大家講「我地今次一輸就係輸十年」
Then on the 1st of July, when the fearless protestor Brian Leung said ‘If we lose this battle, we are giving up our next ten years.’

第三個時刻，係7月廿八號，元朗有義士既盾牌俾子彈射穿，記者問佢點解仲堅持，義士好堅定咁回答「光復香港，時代革命」
The third moment was on 28th of July in Yuen Long. A police bullet went through the shield of one of the protestors. When a journalist asked why he was still standing firm for his belief , he said without hesitation , ‘Reclaim Hong Kong. Revolution of our times’.

呢三個時刻，反映到香港人逐漸將絕望嘅心情，轉化為無比勇氣對抗暴政。
These three moments show exactly how HongKongers gradually turn their hopelessness into courage, to fight against tyranny.
————

呢一刻我哋可能覺得好疲倦、好憤怒、好氣餒，但係請我哋唔好放棄，因為呢個係光復香港，時代革命嘅最後機會。
We may be tired, angry, or dejected, but please do not give up. This is the last chance to reclaim Hong Kong and succeed in the revolution of our times.

「光復香港，時代革命」唔係一句空洞口號，更加唔應該俾人利用黎分化我哋。
“Reclaim Hong Kong. Revolution of our times’ is not merely a slogan, and most definitely should not be used by some to divide us.


因為「光復香港」指既係：
光復香港嘅自由、人權、民主、資源自主同國際定位
It is because “Reclaim Hong Kong” means, to reclaim the freedom, human rights, democracy, control of resources and positioning in the world of Hong Kong.

而「時代革命」嘅意思係：
聲稱五十年不變既時代之中，由香港人一齊由下至上撼動政權，改變政治體制。
And “Revolution of Our Times” means, within the 50 years promised to have no changes in way of life, Hongkongers to shaken the government from bottom up together and to change the political system.
———

學術上，只要社會大眾，嘗試由下而上令 政治體制 有變化，就係革命。所以，2014年係革命，2016年係革命，2019年都係革命。
Academically, ‘revolution’ is a bottom-up attempt by the masses to bring about structural changes to their political system. That is why, it was a revolution in 2014, so was 2016, and now, WE ARE IN A REVOLUTION in 2019.

1984年至今35年，香港人不斷退讓，抱薪救火，最終導致退無可退。
Since the Joint Declaration was signed in 1984, for 35 years HongKongers have been compromising, naively believing that this is the way to save ourselves. That led to the dead end we are facing today.

對我地年輕一輩黎講，與其2047年默默死去，倒不如趁香港尚有 一絲希望既情況用盡最後一口氣，創造未來。
To the younger generation, they either rot towards death upon the arrival of year 2047, or, whilst there is still a chance, they would rather sacrifice themselves in the hope of real changes, and to pave a new path for Hong Kong.

有年長一輩問，到底我地後生既有無勇氣，
將抗爭 交返俾 傳統大台領導。
Some from the older generation asked, whether these youngsters are brave enough to let the established political parties to lead the movement again.

我不禁反問，傳統思維一輩又有無勇氣，放棄三十年黎既模式，放手俾我地手足以新思維新方式改寫香港命運？
I would ask in return, whether the established parties be brave enough to let go of the same old way they have been operating for 30 years, and let the next generation lead in their new mentality?

———

當年青人日以繼夜，夜以繼日以不同方式向政府施壓既同時，旦願我地回過頭黎，會見到年長一輩企喺現場，默默支持我地。
When young men and women continue to pile pressure onto the government day by day with their ever-changing strategy of protests , I just hope we would see more from the older generation to be there in the sites of protest to support us.

年輕人需要既唔係金錢、唔係食物，而係活生生既人願意走出黎支持。
The support from people literally standing side by side with the young protestors means much more than supports in form of money and food.
——-

今日之所以邀請不同光譜、不同年齡層既人士上台，就係為咗向全世界展示出：
The reason that people from a broad spectrum and from different age group are invited today, is to show the world that:

無論香港情況幾嚴峻，香港人都唔會因為政治理念、年齡不同而廢言、割席，無論有幾多風波，我地依然團結為我地既訴求奮勇到底。
No matter how dire the situation is, how different our views and ages are, and how challenging the situation is, HongKongers will stay united.

由今日起，我地唔應該再分勇武同和理非。出得黎既就係手足，係抗爭者，用核彈都唔會割。
From now on, there should be no more classification of aggressive or peaceful protestors. Once we are together on the streets of Hong Kong, we are each other’s brothers and sisters, limbs and body. We are one. Nothing can divide us.

——-

我必須強調大專學界同攬炒都有同樣信念：就係拒絕大台。
I would like to emphasis HK IAD and our team do not condone any one single leading platform for the whole movement

如果有大台出現，我會出全力摧毀佢；假如有一日，我成為大台一部分，請大家一視同仁，將我拉落黎，拆我台。
If such a platform is ever formed, I will do my utmost to demolish it. If I ever become part of such a platform, I ask you to do the same to overthrow me and demolish the platform.

只要拒絕迷信大台模式，唔割席，唔氣餒，善用國際思維，我地一定會贏。
As long as we all believe in the leaderless model, stay united, keep our spirit, and to think global, we shall prevail.

香港人，寧化飛灰，不作浮塵，光復香港，時代革命！
We would rather live freely and burn, then to be subjugated and diminished. We are HongKongers.
“Reclaim Hong Kong. Revolution of our Times”

翻譯原則珠璣語錄

（易讀版連結見留言）
　
　
I am somewhat of a ‘literalist’, because I am for truth and accuracy. （我算是個「直譯派」，因爲我求真、求準。）
——Peter Newmark, ‘A Textbook of Translation’, 1988
　
　
Translation ‘should be as faithful as possible, and as free as necessary.’ （翻譯應盡可能忠於原文，必要時自由釋意。）
——P. Cauer, ‘Art of Translation’ (‘Die Kunst des Übersetzens’), 1914. 德文原文 ‘So treu wie möglich, so frei als nöthig.’
　
　
What is first and most needful is that the translation should be correct, that the thoughts should be rendered by their correspondents, not falsified or mutilated or amplified by extraneous matter. （ 第一要務：翻譯應當正確，原作的思想應當以對應的思想呈現，而非用外來的東西加以篡改、肢解或擴大。）
——J. P. Postgate quoting (perhaps translating too) Friedrich Blass on ‘Die Überselzungen’, Hermeneutik und Kritik, volume I of Iwan Mueller’s ‘Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft’
　
　
當我們說翻譯要「信達恰」時，便是要譯文「先忠於原文，再本身通順，最後還恰到好處」。當我們為一篇譯文打分數時，標準或許可以訂為：60%的信，30%的達，和10%的恰。能滿分的應該沒有，能有50分的信加上20分的達，便是及格而且中上了。
——董崇選，《中英翻譯：從理論到實踐》
　
　
By general consent, though not by universal practice, the prime merit of a translation proper is Faithfulness, and he is the best translator whose work is nearest to his original.
——J. P. Postgage, ‘Translation and Translations : Theory and Practice’, 1922
　
　
[I]n communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect is secured, the literal [1] translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation. There is no excuse for unnecessary ‘synonyms’, let alone paraphrases, in any type of translation.
——Peter Newmark, ‘Approaches to translation’, 1981

註[1]：此處，Newmark 原文寫 the literal word-for-word translation，我去掉了 word-for-word，因爲我更同意 Wilss 大篇幅論述的一點：literal（字面）不等同 word-for-word（逐字）。見下一個引述。
　
　
In contrast to word-for-word translation, literal translation, which is set up bidirectional (not unidirectionally, as is the case with non-literal translation) , is a translation procedure which, under certain circumstances, is totally acceptable stylistically.
——Wolfram Wilss, ‘The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods’, 1981
　
　
從翻譯文學史上看，人們對意譯和直譯及其相互關係的認識是逐漸深化的。晚清時代梁啟超所說的“譯意不譯詞”中的“譯意”其意思就是“意譯”。但那時人們還分不清楚“意譯”與“竄譯”的區別。他們所說的“譯意” 或“意譯”就是指對原作隨意加以增刪改動的竄譯，正如把“直譯”也理解為逐字對譯一樣。實際上，翻譯界一直有許多人對“意譯”和“直譯”做了這種理解。有人認為翻譯的基本方法只有兩種，那就是“直譯”與“意譯”。這樣一來，就自然地把“竄譯”包含在了“意譯”中，同時也把逐字硬譯包含在“直譯”中了。這樣做對科學地區分翻譯方法是不利的。應該說，竄譯”是“意譯”的極端，而逐字硬譯是“直譯”的極端；但“竄譯”是以不尊重原作為前提的，不尊重原作首先就是既不尊重原作的“形”與“詞”，也不會尊重原作的“意”，其結果就不可能準確地譯出原作的“意”，因此不能稱之為“意譯”。
——王向遠，《翻譯文學導論》，2004
　
　
我們現在其實還沒很超過Postgate五十多年前論翻譯時候所注重的話。 他說：大家都承認，雖然大家不都實行，一個翻譯的基本優點就在乎一個信，誰翻譯的跟原文最近就是誰翻譯的最好。可是遠近旣然還是程度的問題，這話不是又說回頭了嗎？有一個有用的試驗法就是把譯文譯回頭，看是不是另有一個更恰切的原文可以對這譯文。如果有的話，那就是起頭兒翻譯的不夠信。
——趙元任，〈論翻譯中信、達、雅的信的幅度〉
　
　
Translation is in essence a compromise, and its course a zigzag. Its deviations from the straight the Translator with singleness of purpose will reduce to a minimum, while the free ‘Verter’ with one eye on the reader and the other more than half on himself will be tempted to extend them till they correspond to the large vistas of Beauty and Truth that these obliquities of vision can command. Such a one may ‘vert’ as much and as freely as he pleases; but if he seeks the humble title of a ‘translator’ he must change his methods or renounce his claim.
——J. P. Postgage, Translation and Translations : Theory and Practice, 1922