※ 引述《qlz (())》之銘言： : Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes...they...did. : Were they necessary? Well that's where the rub comes. : 原子彈是否結束戰爭？是的。它們必須使用嗎？有爭議。 「投擲原子彈結束了那戰爭嗎? 唔... 是的. 那是必要的嗎? 爭議所在. 」 因為這段的意思是說「美國向日本投擲原子彈的任務」 而不是說原子武器存在的本身. 否則依中譯, 即使是美國用原子彈威脅日本投降地「使用原子彈」而不 投擲, 也是說得通的. : 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. : 這次爭論為什麼杜魯門總統下令使用原子彈時，在某些情況下，已經變成一個數字遊戲。 : 史密斯學會預備提供的「艾諾拉．蓋伊」【註1】展覽，顯示似乎會在特定的歷史圈造成 : 毛骨悚然的顛覆。 revisionism 我認為應譯為「歷史修正主義」, 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. : 一個相當公正的結論是，根據太平洋戰爭的情況，可以合理地預期日本將是比德國更瘋狂 : 的敵人。 「我想, 以日本在太平洋戰爭的表現, 合理判斷日本對戰爭比德國更狂熱, 這 可說是持平的. 」 : 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! : 你能夠想像這種論點有多麼冷酷嗎？僅僅46000條性命——好像這些是無關緊要美國人的 : 生命。也許那些所謂的「歷史學家」只想賣書。或者，這反映某些自我嫌惡的論點，因為 : 我們贏得戰爭(此句不解)。無論理由為何，這種論點是錯誤的。它從根本上就和事實不符 : ……(這句看不懂) 「你可以想像這種論點何其冷酷? 僅僅四萬六千條生命－－－－好像 這個數字對美國人來說微不足道一樣. 」 insignificant number 我想指的是數字而不是價值. 自我嫌惡那段我會這樣譯, 「或許因為我們贏得戰爭, 所以感到心虛. 」 「不論原因, 這種論點是有問題的. 那是基於意識形態去切割問題, 斷章 取義, 抓住雞毛當利箭. 」 Grasping - 抓住 selective - 選擇性 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. : 但對那些假設我們損失僅僅46000人的人，我要問：是哪46000人？誰的父親？誰的兄弟？ : 誰的丈夫？是的，我只注意到美國人的生命。 順著這句的文理語氣, 我會這樣譯. 「就當他們神通廣大真的算到會死四萬六千人好了吧? 死哪四萬六千人? 誰 的老豆? 誰的兄弟? 誰的丈夫? 對! 我強調的是這些是我們的同胞! 」 : ‧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. 這裡應該跟隨原文用回點列式. 另外, 我覺得這遍文章是有一段投入感情的演說多過平性的論理. 所以 翻譯時有些部份可能需要口語化一點. -- 基於思源的概念, 而宣傳的的香港 BBS: telnet://hkday.net 民國無雙官方網站: http://sites.google.com/site/kowloonia/home -- ※ 編輯: chenglap 來自: 118.142.17.238 (02/23 15:16)