※ 引述《qlz (())》之铭言： : Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes...they...did. : Were they necessary? Well that's where the rub comes. : 原子弹是否结束战争？是的。它们必须使用吗？有争议。 「投掷原子弹结束了那战争吗? 唔... 是的. 那是必要的吗? 争议所在. 」 因为这段的意思是说「美国向日本投掷原子弹的任务」 而不是说原子武器存在的本身. 否则依中译, 即使是美国用原子弹威胁日本投降地「使用原子弹」而不 投掷, 也是说得通的. : The current debate about why President Truman ordered these missions, in some : cases, has devolved to a numbers game. The Smithsonian in its proposed : exhibit of the Enola Gay revealed the creeping revisionism which seems the : rage in certain historical circles. : 这次争论为什麽杜鲁门总统下令使用原子弹时，在某些情况下，已经变成一个数字游戏。 : 史密斯学会预备提供的「艾诺拉．盖伊」【注1】展览，显示似乎会在特定的历史圈造成 : 毛骨悚然的颠覆。 revisionism 我认为应译为「历史修正主义」, 或者洗白. : It is certainly fair to conclude that the Japanese could have been reasonably : expected to be even more fanatical than the Germans base on the history of : the war in the Pacific. : 一个相当公正的结论是，根据太平洋战争的情况，可以合理地预期日本将是比德国更疯狂 : 的敌人。 「我想, 以日本在太平洋战争的表现, 合理判断日本对战争比德国更狂热, 这 可说是持平的. 」 : Can you imagine the callousness of this line of argument? ONLY 46,000- as if : this were some insignificant number of American lives. : Perhaps these so-called historians want to sell books. : Perhaps they really believe it. Or perhaps it reflects some self-loathing : occasioned by the fact that we won the war. : Whatever the reason, the argument is flawed. It dissects and recalculates : events ideologically, grasping at selective straws. : Let me admit right here, today, that I don't know how many more Americans : would have died in an invasion - AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE! : 你能够想像这种论点有多麽冷酷吗？仅仅46000条性命——好像这些是无关紧要美国人的 : 生命。也许那些所谓的「历史学家」只想卖书。或者，这反映某些自我嫌恶的论点，因为 : 我们赢得战争(此句不解)。无论理由为何，这种论点是错误的。它从根本上就和事实不符 : ……(这句看不懂) 「你可以想像这种论点何其冷酷? 仅仅四万六千条生命－－－－好像 这个数字对美国人来说微不足道一样. 」 insignificant number 我想指的是数字而不是价值. 自我嫌恶那段我会这样译, 「或许因为我们赢得战争, 所以感到心虚. 」 「不论原因, 这种论点是有问题的. 那是基於意识形态去切割问题, 断章 取义, 抓住鸡毛当利箭. 」 Grasping - 抓住 selective - 选择性 Straws - 稻草 : But even assuming that those who now KNOW our casualties would have been ONLY : 46,000 I ask - : Which 46,000 were to die? : Whose father? : Whose brother? : Whose husband? : And, yes, I am focusing on American lives. : 但对那些假设我们损失仅仅46000人的人，我要问：是哪46000人？谁的父亲？谁的兄弟？ : 谁的丈夫？是的，我只注意到美国人的生命。 顺着这句的文理语气, 我会这样译. 「就当他们神通广大真的算到会死四万六千人好了吧? 死哪四万六千人? 谁 的老豆? 谁的兄弟? 谁的丈夫? 对! 我强调的是这些是我们的同胞! 」 : ‧for the Korean comfort women. : ‧for the Medical experimentation on POW's which match the horror of those : conducted by the Nazi's. : ‧for the plane to use biological weapons against the United States by : infecting civilian populations on the West Coast. : ‧for the methodical slaughter of civilians. : ‧and for much more. 这里应该跟随原文用回点列式. 另外, 我觉得这遍文章是有一段投入感情的演说多过平性的论理. 所以 翻译时有些部份可能需要口语化一点. -- 基於思源的概念, 而宣传的的香港 BBS: telnet://hkday.net 民国无双官方网站: http://sites.google.com/site/kowloonia/home -- ※ 编辑: chenglap 来自: 118.142.17.238 (02/23 15:16)