因為今天是二二八事件73週年紀念日,我們特別挑選了一篇台灣公眾人物的碩士論文摘要來做 #校對 #編修 示範,這位公眾人物就是現任台北市議員侯漢廷。
圖片的上方是節錄自侯漢廷的碩士論文「二二八史觀與歷史真相─反正合試論」的英文摘要第一段,圖片的下方則是我們用Track Changes編修過的版本。如果您覺得太多紅色修改紀錄難以閱讀,您可以參考以下經過校對過的文字⬇️
This paper discusses the responsibility of both the Chief Executive Office and the Chairman of the Nationalist Government for the February 28 Incident. The opinions of supporters and opponents of the Government’s approach to the February 28 Incident are collected and organized in this thesis. The Chief Executive’s Office was not authoritarian and the Chief Executive, Chen Yi, did not politically marginalize Taiwanese people. Hyperinflation was in fact prompted by Japanese colonial rule and the Second World War. In addition, Chen Yi also tried to combat corruption. However, the implementation of local self-government, local elections and all kinds of deregulations resulted in the decline of political stability, which gave the opportunity for rioters to advocate reforms.
我們先不論侯漢廷對於二二八事件的描述是否屬實,讀完以上文字,您是不是覺得比原文通順許多呢?
如果侯漢廷選擇了提供英文的碩論摘要,其實他應該先找 #專業校對師 幫忙編修自己的文稿,而不是直接將這充滿錯誤的英文提送論文審查。論文登上了「臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統」,充滿錯誤的英文摘要不但會跟著他一輩子,而且也讓不懂中文的學術研究者無法閱讀。與其這樣,不如一開始就不要提供英文摘要反而還比較好。
如果您重視英文的正確使用,並希望自己的論文摘要是通順無誤的英文,歡迎您來信到contact@dubandko.com跟我們聯繫!
//Links to our services//
・論文摘要中翻英服務
http://dubandko.com/abstract-translation/
・〔英文校對及編修服務〕
http://goo.gl/cAqgFn
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,...
「colonial rule中文」的推薦目錄:
- 關於colonial rule中文 在 公民聯盟 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於colonial rule中文 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於colonial rule中文 在 東講西讀 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於colonial rule中文 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於colonial rule中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於colonial rule中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於colonial rule中文 在 [請益] 請問關於殖民者及被殖民者的英文說法- 看板Fiction 的評價
colonial rule中文 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
【外國月亮不是特別圓】
投入國際連結工作好一段時間,有時覺得大家也會期望「外國月亮總是特別圓」,但其實西方國家政治人物支持香港,從來不是理所當然,當中亦會涉及不少商業利益考慮和國際壓力,以及部份左傾政客仍會不知何故地,對中國共產政權抱有良好幻想,這種情況在歐洲較為明顯。
德國左翼黨的國會議員,竟在國會發言表示「理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」固然讓人大跌眼鏡,尤其是中共從根本地就是循從威權主義和國家資本主義的極右政黨。
有時對於國際政客不理解香港,也是有點無奈,但我們香港作為國際大都會,對於世界各國的抗爭運動,又何嘗不是缺乏足夠理解,只盼在抗爭持續的情況下,香港人能夠繼續努力,讓世界理解我們,與香港同行。
早前睇一份德國國會內嘅辦論,有位Die Linke嘅議員話要支持中共,因為大家都是左翼共產主義支持者,不用分得那麼細。我見內容有所偏頗就寫左篇文。中文翻譯見下文。
Recently, a MP from Die Linke made some remarks about HK, and say they should support CCP as they are friend of Coummunism. I find the claims rather inaccurate hence I wrote this article to provide some rebuttals. Please scroll down for the English translation.
Article in German: https://www.google.com/…/Hongkong-Krise-Pekings-Regierung-b…
近日德國國會內, 一位Die Linke的國會議員Stefan Liebich對香港的事作出評價,這些評價實在令人難以茍同。
Liebich指「Die Linke理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」。但中國共產黨除了名字內有「共產」兩個字外,其實際行動與共產理念差天共地,實在不是Liebich想像中共產主義的好朋友。
中國共產黨是一個極權,除了擴張政治與經濟勢力外,中國共產黨什麼都不會理會。不論是無產階級的死活,或者是工人階級,對於中國共產黨來說只是擴張實力的工具,隨時可以為了經濟或政治利益犧牲或捨棄。 中國共產黨實質上是由一群搜刮民脂民膏致富而滿肚腸肥的黨員領導。中國共產黨甚至對自己的人民進行全天候的監控,打壓、拘捕異見人士。
由此可見,中國共產黨本質上是一個極右政黨,而非Liebich以為的左翼。 北京政府不是以共產理念管治中華人民共和國,反而是以物質主義操縱國民。中國背後並沒有一套穩固的價值觀支撐,唯有金錢才是中國人和中國政府信仰的理念。中國的任何行動,從來都不是由價值推動,而總是由金錢和利益推動。
中國共產黨只是一個「掛羊頭賣狗肉」的「共產」黨,它相當擅長扮演共產主義的支持者,與Liebeich想像中「馬克思主義的的同路人」相差甚遠。我們應該要小心分辨真正的共產主義者與打著共產主義旗號行惡的政權之間的分別。
Leibich亦在發言時提到八國聯軍與相關歷史,指「香港被英國以軍事手段從中國手中搶去。撇除對於中國的批評,我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」。但現實上,清朝是被當時被視為外族的滿洲人統治。當時的「中國」與今天我們認知的中華人民共和國並不是同一個國家。所以,Leibich所指的「香港被英國不公義的殖民」,其實嚴格來說是鴉片戰爭後,香港的管治權從滿洲人手中交到英國人手中。
清朝末期發生申亥革命,中華民國成立。及後因國共內戰,中華民國政府輾轉於1949年12月撤退至臺灣。如果按照Leibich的邏輯,香港主權理應是移交予中華民國政府,而非中華人民共和國。
另外,香港人本來擁有聯合國1960年在《給予殖民地國家和人民獨立宣言》中賦予非自治領土人民自決前途的權利。但因為中國強烈反對港澳被定義為殖民地,而應為「被英國和葡萄牙當局佔領的中國領土的一部分」。中國代表單方面宣稱港澳的地位,都屬中國主權範圍內,甚至指:「聯合國並沒有權討論這些問題。」最後才令香港再名單中被除名,失去前途自決的權利。
而觀乎而今情況,即使香港主權移交予中國後,不公義不但沒有消失,反而更加明顯與嚴重。Leibeich在發言時指「撇除對於中國的批評,我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」,我很希望,他不是指他將無視數以百萬計的少數民族關押在在教育營當中、六四屠城死去的學生、香港早前被實彈近距離射中的兩位男孩、被24小時監控的中國人、捨生取義爭取人權的香港人,而去支持中國共產黨只因其聲稱自己是「共產主義者」。
人權自由是人類文明近百年來的基石,中國共產黨的行為,與絕大部分我們珍視的政治價值並不相容。在任何情況下,我們都不可能支持一個獨裁的殺人政權。
Recently, in the German Bundestag, Stefan Liebich made a few remarks regarding Hong Kong. Mr. Liebeich says his party Der Linke should support their communist friends in Beijing. “Logisch, dass Der Linke Liebich seinen Kommunistenfreunden in Peking wieder den Rücken stärkt.(It is logical that Die Linke Liebich should again support his communist friends in Beijing.)” In my point of view, the Chinese Communist Party is just a party named itself as the “Communist”, what it does in China or in the world is in no way communistic.
PRC is a dictatorship that only takes the expansion of its economic and political power into regard, workers or its people are at its disposal whenever it sees fit. The “Communist” party cares neither about the people, nor the grassroots, it only cares about the economic benefit it gains from its business activities inside and outside PRC. The party leaders are all sitting in their offices with their pockets full of what they gain from exploiting the Chinese workers.
They carry mass surveillance 24/7 throughout China, arrests and detain descendants. Frankly speaking, the CCP is rather right than left.
The Peking Government is not running Communism, but materialism. The only thing the Chinese and the Chinese government worship is the dollar sign, nothing else. They do not take any values or ideology into account. The people are not motivated by values or beliefs, but by the economic benefits they see.
The CCP is not a communist party as Mr. Leibich conceived it is. The CCP is very good at creating the illusion that it represents the Marxist ideas. We should be very careful in examining the differences between those who claim to be communists and those who are communists.
Mr. Leibich also made reference to the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance in the late Qing Dynasty, saying that“ Auch Hongkong ist durch die britische Armee militärisch China abgepresst worden.(Hong Kong has been militarily squeezed out of China by the British army.)” and “Bei aller notwendigen Kritik an der chinesischen KP sagen ich: Es ist gut, dass dieses koloniale Unrecht zu Ende ist. (Despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, I say: It is good that this colonial injustice has come to an end.)”
It is worth clarifying that during that time of History, China was ruled by the Manchus, who were considered as foreigners at the time. China at the time was not the Republic of China we know today. Therefore, Hong Kong was not military squeezed out of PRC but was being colonized by the British in substitution of the Manchus at that time.
Historically speaking, the successor of the Qing Dynasty is the Republic of China, which later was relocated to Taiwan due to the Civil War between 1927 and 1949. And Mr. Leibich’s claim that it is good that colonial injustice has come to an end is inaccurate, too. In this case, Hong Kong, ought to be returned to Taiwan (the Republic of China) but not China (People’s Republic of China), to end the colonial injustice.
What is more, Hong Kongers were supposed to be able to exercise our right to self-determination and really being able to be free from colonialism. Yet Hong Kong was actually removed from the U.N. list of Non-Self-Governing Territories upon PRC’s request.
And clearly, under PRC’s rule, injustice is more than just apparent in Hong Kong currently. Mr. Leibich’s remarks of “despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party”, I truly hope that he is not suggesting that one would neglect the millions of ethnic minorities being detained in re-education camps, those who died in the JuneForth Masaccare, the two young Hong Kong boys who were shot by live rounds, the Chinese who were placed under surveillance 24/7 and all my fellow Hong Konger who are fighting for fundamental rights with their lives, but support the CCP’s action because it claims to be a communist party.
I see of no reason, why anyone should support a dictatorship that would brutally murder its own people. CCP is totally going against what most political ideologies in the world stand for, and I do believe we can all agree on the fundamental rights of all members of the human family that ought to be respected as that is the foundations of human civilization.
colonial rule中文 在 東講西讀 Facebook 的最佳貼文
粵語、英語加書面語之聲明。
【《赤禍殘港二十年 抗擊外侮奪主權》- 大專學界就香港淪陷二十年之聲明|“Twenty Years of Hardship under China and the Struggle against Enemy for Our Fate” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the fall of Hong Kong Twenty Years Ago 】
(Please scroll down for English version.)
二十年前嘅七月一日,香港再度淪陷。早喺七十年代,港人理所當然嘅自決權已經被無理剝奪。當年中國啱啱加入聯合國,即刻要求將香港剔出殖民地名單,英國亦都袖手旁觀,縱容中國褫奪我哋嘅基本人權。其後,中英談判展開,港人被拒諸門外,港人對未來嘅訴求亦被冷眼相待。之後,中英兩國簽訂《中英聯合聲明》,香港主權將移交中國,港人縱然感到惶恐不安,但係前途命運已經塵埃落定,同砧上之肉一樣,只能夠接受現實。當年港人奢望《基本法》能夠冰封香港五十年,保留當時嘅自由、法治、制度。但係,經歷廿年嘅浩劫,我哋必須認清 - 《基本法》無改香港淪為中國殖民地嘅事實。
二十年嚟,中共扭盡六壬要赤化香港,將香港變成中國嘅一個普通城市,一個為其所用嘅工具。香港政府從來唔向港人負責,不論港督或者特首都只係向宗主國問責。大量中國人以單程證為主要途徑移民香港,港人就對移民數量、審批與否毫無話語權,被逼接受中國人口殖民。香港人身份一再被打壓,港共首先試圖以國民教育荼毒莘莘學子,強行灌輸中國人身份認同,再強推普教中, 貶低港人母語,扼殺港人身份。紅色資本入侵香港,製造經濟依賴,再大舉買地,喺香港構成錯節盤根嘅利益集團。香港正經歷緊二次殖民,但《基本法》同一國兩制未能如願成為保衛港人嘅碉堡。
由此可見,如果港人繼續依賴《基本法》同一國兩制,只係自毀城牆。今時今日,連「一國兩府」亦被港共批評同港獨相關,可以見到中共定必全力打壓一切會威脅佢全權統治嘅主張,落實《基本法》同一國兩制亦都唔能夠成為香港二次前途問題嘅答案,盲目相信《基本法》同一國兩制只係自欺欺人、虛耗光陰,唔會改變中共繼續殖民香港。二零四七距離宜家剩低三十年,分秒必爭,我哋必須要兼程而進,思考現時一國兩制框架外嘅出路,抗擊外侮,光復香港。
二零一七年六月二十七日
香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
香港專上學生聯會
二十年前的七月一日,香港再度淪陷。早於七十年代,港人理所當然的自決權已被無理剝奪。當年中國甫加入聯合國,即要求將香港剔出殖民地名單,英國亦袖手旁觀,縱容中國褫奪我們的基本人權。其後,中英談判展開,港人被拒諸門外,港人對未來的訴求亦被冷眼相待。隨後,中英兩國簽訂《中英聯合聲明》,香港主權將移交中國,港人縱感惶恐不安,前途命運卻塵埃落定,有如砧上之肉,只能接受現實。當年港人奢望《基本法》能冰封香港五十年,保留當時的自由、法治、制度。然而,經歷二十年的浩劫,我們必須認清 - 《基本法》無改香港淪為中國殖民地的事實。
二十年來,中共扭盡六壬要赤化香港,將香港變為中國的一個普通城市,一個為其所用的工具。香港政府從不向港人負責,不論港督或特首亦只向宗主國問責。大量中國人以單程證為主要途徑移民香港,港人卻對移民數量、審批與否毫無話語權,被逼接受中國人口殖民。香港人身份一再被打壓,港共先圖以國民教育荼毒莘莘學子,強行灌輸中國人身份認同,再強推普教中, 貶低港人母語,扼殺港人身份。紅色資本入侵香港,製造經濟依賴,再大舉買地,在香港構成錯節盤根的利益集團。香港正經歷二次殖民,《基本法》與一國兩制卻未能如願成為保衛港人的碉堡。
由此可見,若果港人繼續依賴《基本法》及一國兩制,只是自毀城牆。今時今日,連「一國兩府」亦被港共批評與港獨相關,可見中共定必全力打壓一切威脅其全權統治的主張,落實《基本法》及一國兩制亦不能成為香港二次前途問題的答案,盲目相信《基本法》與一國兩制只是自欺欺人、虛耗光陰,無改中共繼續殖民香港。二零四七距今餘下三十年,分秒必爭,我們必須兼程而進,思考現時一國兩制框架外的出路,抗擊外侮,光復香港。
二零一七年六月二十七日
香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
香港專上學生聯會
On 1 July twenty years ago, the advent of the transfer of sovereignty meant the fall of Hong Kong once again. In the 1970s, we were already deprived of our right to self-determination. Once China entered the United Nations, Hong Kong was removed from the list of Colonial Territories. Conniving in the process, Britain stood by. China and Britain then started their negotiations on Hong Kong’s future, and Hong Kong people were barred from participating throughout the course. When the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed and the sovereignty of Hong Kong was decided to be transferred to China, anxiety spread through society, but our fate had been resolved, and we were left with no choice but accepting the reality. Hong Kong people then put their faith in the Basic Law to freeze Hong Kong for fifty years, keeping the freedom, rule of law and systems at that time intact. Yet, falling to the scourge of the Chinese rule for twenty years, we must now realize the fact – the Basic Law in no way changes the reality that Hong Kong is now a colony of China.
For twenty years, China has been assimilating Hong Kong in an attempt to denigrate Hong Kong as just another city of China and a tool to the communist regime. The government of Hong Kong has never been responsible to Hong Kong people, as the head of the government, be it the Governor or the Chief Executive, is accountable only to the suzerain. The One-way Permit scheme has become the main channel for Chinese to settle down in Hong Kong, and yet, Hong Kong people are denied from our right to determine on the number, vetting and approval on the application. We are thus forced to experience such population transfer. Our Hong Kong identity is perpetually suppressed under the attempts to introduce national education to indoctrinate Chinese identity and Putonghua as the medium of instruction to debase Cantonese that is our mother tongue. Chinese capital are now flagrantly invading Hong Kong and making bullish bids of our land, creating intricate structures with interests in different sectors. While we are suffering from such re-colonisation, the Basic Law and the framework of One Country, Two Systems have never been the bastion protecting us.
If we still cling on to the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems, we are doomed to self-destruction. As the puppet regime of communist China in Hong Kong condemned ‘One Country, Two Governments’ as related to advocating independence, it is now clear that anything that may undermine the totalitarian rule of China will be oppressed, and even the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems cannot be the path to a brighter future. In fact, to blindly put faith in the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems has no difference from deceiving oneself and wasting one’s own precious time to emancipate ourselves from re-colonisation. As 2047 is approaching, we are left with thirty years’ time, and we have no time to lose. To stoutly resist the Chinese regime, we must not restrain our imagination towards our future within the framework of One Country, Two Systems. Together we shall struggle against the enemy and restore the glory of our Hong Kong.
27 June 2017
City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Hong Kong Federation of Students
colonial rule中文 在 [請益] 請問關於殖民者及被殖民者的英文說法- 看板Fiction 的推薦與評價
請問一下,colony 這個字是指 "殖民地" 及 "殖民"
而 colonize 則是動詞,開拓殖民地
而 colonizer 則是殖民地開拓者
所以,colony 的中文 殖民 不等同於 colonizer 是嗎??
它只是指被殖民的那塊土地以及"殖民"這個動作的名詞,這樣對嗎?
在書上有看過 colonized,請問它這樣+ed,是否變成了形容詞?
或者是"被殖民的人"呢?
因為有書上寫"colonized",我看了上下文,好像就是直接指"被殖民的人",
但也有後面加 people,所以colonized是否可以當成"被殖民的人"?
還是另有說法呢??
請各位大師指引,感激不盡!!!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 123.192.89.12
... <看更多>